Knowing your dieties

[Deoridhe]

TeaDidikai

Deoridhe

UPG is something that through effort, reflection, and personal ritual and action one experiences and takes to be true.

By that measure- would you say that the Mass wholesale of cultural deities cannot be UPG unto itself?

Depends on what mass wholesale means. One can have a UPG then share it widely and it will still be that person's UPG, but I don't think something written for a fictional or entertainment purpose should be considered UPG.  

[Sivirs]

iolitefire

Ignoring and avoiding someone annoying is a lot easier then smacking them around with a 2x4. And a lot less messy. I personally think deities have better things to do then bother with people who do this.

For the record, the Trojan War started because Paris didn't know the right answer to "Which one of us is prettier?" And Cassandra was cursed for not putting out.

Somehow, I get the idea that if something *that unimportant* can cause a ten-year-long war where tons of people die and tons of other uninvolved people suffer, and these specific examples are gods from an *open* culture...  

[TeaDidikai]

Deoridhe

Depends on what mass wholesale means. One can have a UPG then share it widely and it will still be that person's UPG, but I don't think something written for a fictional or entertainment purpose should be considered UPG.

So would you say that someone likening Freya to Bast (citing that Freya is a "Goddess of Cats") is invalid as UPG.  

[Deoridhe]

TeaDidikai

Deoridhe

Depends on what mass wholesale means. One can have a UPG then share it widely and it will still be that person's UPG, but I don't think something written for a fictional or entertainment purpose should be considered UPG.

So would you say that someone likening Freya to Bast (citing that Freya is a "Goddess of Cats") is invalid as UPG.

confused I would say that's ******** stupid because it ignores every other aspect of both goddesses. I mean, I could liken my friends who have cats with each other based on that, but seems kinda dumb.  

[TeaDidikai]

Deoridhe

TeaDidikai

Deoridhe

Depends on what mass wholesale means. One can have a UPG then share it widely and it will still be that person's UPG, but I don't think something written for a fictional or entertainment purpose should be considered UPG.

So would you say that someone likening Freya to Bast (citing that Freya is a "Goddess of Cats") is invalid as UPG.

confused I would say that's ******** stupid because it ignores every other aspect of both goddesses. I mean, I could liken my friends who have cats with each other based on that, but seems kinda dumb.

I agree compeletely.

However- how does one go about disproving such to those who claim it as UPG?  

[Deoridhe]

TeaDidikai

Deoridhe

TeaDidikai

Deoridhe

Depends on what mass wholesale means. One can have a UPG then share it widely and it will still be that person's UPG, but I don't think something written for a fictional or entertainment purpose should be considered UPG.

So would you say that someone likening Freya to Bast (citing that Freya is a "Goddess of Cats") is invalid as UPG.

confused I would say that's ******** stupid because it ignores every other aspect of both goddesses. I mean, I could liken my friends who have cats with each other based on that, but seems kinda dumb.

I agree compeletely.

However- how does one go about disproving such to those who claim it as UPG?

Ask where in the lore it says Freya has a cat head. Checking upg by lore is common, at least in Asatru where the term originated.  

[TeaDidikai]

Deoridhe

Ask where in the lore it says Freya has a cat head. Checking upg by lore is common, at least in Asatru where the term originated.

The common response I would hear to that question is "The Lore is just someone else's UPG"- except they didn't call it UPG.  

[Henry Dorsett Case]

TeaDidikai

Deoridhe

Ask where in the lore it says Freya has a cat head. Checking upg by lore is common, at least in Asatru where the term originated.

The common response I would hear to that question is "The Lore is just someone else's UPG"- except they didn't call it UPG.

I'd say just calmly and firmly remind them that removing standards is not a valid method of argument. We've both had to remind people of that on multiple occasions.

If that fails, Trout them. Trout them so hard they forget what a cat is.  

[TeaDidikai]

Henry Dorsett Case

I'd say just calmly and firmly remind them that removing standards is not a valid method of argument. We've both had to remind people of that on multiple occasions.

But in this case they are saying that a nonfalsifiable deity has revealed to them that they are X. Being non-falsifiable, it would be argument from ignorance to claim otherwise.

Granted it is Wishful Thinking on their part- but those two fallacies but heads now and then.

Quote:

If that fails, Trout them. Trout them so hard they forget what a cat is.

Don't tempt me. Or- if you choose to tempt me- go into Criminal Law so you can defend my case.

I want to see what a positive defence for Trouting would look like.
"No really your honor! They deserved to be trouted! They said they were devotees of a Cat Goddess!"  

[Henry Dorsett Case]

TeaDidikai

But in this case they are saying that a nonfalsifiable deity has revealed to them that they are X. Being non-falsifiable, it would be argument from ignorance to claim otherwise.

Granted it is Wishful Thinking on their part- but those two fallacies but heads now and then.

I guess my position is that they'd need a strong reason and substantiation for their claim that goes against the established Lore. Especially if the Lore is long-standing (Eddas) or un-wavering (Wiccan deity names, for example).

Quote:

Don't tempt me. Or- if you choose to tempt me- go into Criminal Law so you can defend my case.

I want to see what a positive defence for Trouting would look like.
"No really your honor! They deserved to be trouted! They said they were devotees of a Cat Goddess!"

Trout the judge. DUH. wink  

[Deoridhe]

TeaDidikai

Deoridhe

Ask where in the lore it says Freya has a cat head. Checking upg by lore is common, at least in Asatru where the term originated.

The common response I would hear to that question is "The Lore is just someone else's UPG"- except they didn't call it UPG.

That's around when I'd say they apparently are generating a very lrge negative field called "idiocy" so I need to go talk to the intelligent people and gain what I lost to the singularity which is their brain.

Or give them an appauled look and walk off.  

[TeaDidikai]

Very reasonable to my eyes HDC and Deo. wink

I need a trout. 3nodding  

[Aesi]

TeaDidikai

Aesi

As they have described their religion, it's a kind of spiritual anarchy.

Depends on the kind of Satanist.

Yes, and I was talking about the Satanists I've known, wasn't I?

Quote:

Quote:

No real gods,

THOSE EVIL ATHIESTS! How dare they create an ideology outside of divinity.

Atheism doesn't bother me. I don't really see their perspective, but eh. It's when people dismiss both gods and values together that disturbs me, which is why I put all these descriptions in the same sentence. My summary of the whole description of Satanism given to me. The whole is what I object, not the parts. (Not most of them, anyway.)

Quote:

Quote:

no use for morals,

Proof this is a function of Satanism please. Anton's Satanism had a lovely set of morals attached to it.

It was a function of the Satanism as seen by the Satanists I knew. I feel like a broken record here.

Okay, so Anton's Satanism was moralistic. What were those morals, then?

Quote:

Quote:

everyone should do what they want,

Not too unlike a lot of Pagan paths.

And I disagree with this idea wherever it crops up. If I all I could do with my influence was cry when someone commits murder after murder, I would shed every tear in my body in protest. Someone could kill him, certainly. Neither would be punished by law, so why shouldn't they do it? Because even in the absence of rule, law, reason, or even conscience, we can still live by our morals if we so choose. We still have the chance to understand the value of every life and the effects our choices have on others.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

only kind or compassionate because it benefits them.

I fail to see why a disillusionment as to the motivations of animals (which you are so fond of) is repulsive to you.

Quote:

That's nice. Your altruistic morality doesn't function in the most basic nature of psychology. For someone who enjoys the "feral" side of life- I find it ironic how much animal nature repulses you.

"Kindness benefits everyone, so it should be given without the reservation or hesitation of a person who is weighing what their own benefits will be."

Did you not read this part? I believe kindness is always better. Granted, always choosing kindness demands a certain carelessness which very, very few people possess. But! That's why it's an ideal! It's a goal! It is something to aspire to. Okay, so I should clarify my complaint. "Only kind or compassionate because it benefits them, never concerned with others' well-being, never feeling a desire to become a person who is kind for kindness' sake."

Maybe Satanism has a place for it. I don't know. But that alone isn't going make me think better of Satanism. After all, my LDS teachers always taught me this, too, but I don't agree with the whole of their religion.

Quote:

Quote:

Satanic store owner claimed that when he met LaVey, "He was just he nicest, most genuine guy".

That pretty much sums up the opinions of the local Asatru Godhi as well as everyone else I know who has met him in person.
Too bad your opinion is based on poor experiences with reported "Satanists". Also- it's fallacious. Guilt by Association. isn't a valid argument against them.

My experience is mine. I can choose whether or not to further it. I weigh my experience, my knowledge from other sources, and my beliefs to come up with my judgment. So far, my judgment is that Satanism is not something I want involvement with. Regardless of whether you think that's right or wrong, or based on your estimation of my experience and logic, I am free to decide that, right? I did not ever say that all Satanists -are- bad people or even that I -think- they are all bad people. I dislike Satanism. At this moment, if I met a Satanist who was a moral person, I'd respect the person but worry about that particular choice. I'd also jump them with questions, not for justification of their choice but for verification or dismissal of the thoughts I have on it thus far and for satisfaction of curiosity. LaVey, well, I can't claim personal experience with the guy. He may have had a good heart, he may not have. From what I have been told by those who did meet him, and from the poor character of those I've known who admire him, I tend to be suspicious of him.

Quote:

Quote:

What I see is a mockery of my values.

I need to make a good ORLY owl for s**t like this.

You do that. Meanwhile, if you have such spite for the thoughts (See, these are my "thoughts", not my "conclusions".) I've derived from my experiences, then why are you slapping me in the face with those same thoughts? The purpose of this guild is to learn, right? If you have the benefit of opinions from moral Satanists, I'd jump at the chance to hear them. I think poorly of Satanism at the moment, but since I don't know why a moral Satanist would choose it, I'd love to be informed. From them, not any third party.

Here, you've shot down my experiences with a few Satanists with nothing but hearsay and your own beliefs, theories, thoughts, whatever. Yet, you've always demanded that I back up my statements regarding my own beliefs, theories, thoughts, and whatever else. And even if I haven't always brought up the best sources, I have always done the best I can to support my claims. So, you back up yours. I'll give your views on Satanism more credit when you do.

Quote:

Quote:

If everything is equal in value, then nothing is valuable.

I am inclined to agree. As are Satanists.

Again, derived from what immoral Satanists have told me of their beliefs. Theirs. Not all. I don't apply it to all Satanists, but since it was Satanists who told me, I keep it in mind as someone's interpretation of their religion. If I meet a moral Satanist, it'll be one of the first questions I ask them.

Quote:

Quote:

The line in my sig doesn't mean everything is as worthy as everything else. Unless anyone can argue that "The OC on FOX" will ever have the inspirational power that Beethoven's 9th or Final Fantasy or the Buddha have had so far.

Why would I?

So you wouldn't. I didn't ask if you would. But if someone tried to state to me that all things have equal value, I'd demand that they uphold their statement under a similar challenge. Because the Satanists I've known have believed that all things are of equal value, this is one of the major reasons why I questioned their beliefs.

Quote:

Quote:

Kindness benefits everyone, so it should be given without the reservation or hesitation of a person who is weighing what their own benefits will be.

You say this as though it is excluded from Atheistic Satanic practices.

I don't know that it is.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

You might consider them better. The legend of her being an attacker of newborn children makes her an interesting example of female cruelty and I like her defiance of Adam.

None of which is conical.

Quote:

Quote:

She's a jealous woman,

Care to elaborate on that?

Canonical, you mean? As it turns out, it is not only legend.

Zohar - Vol. 14 Vayikra, Section 45, Verse 320

320. In ancient books, it has been said that LILIT fled from Adam before that, NAMELY BEFORE EVE WAS PREPARED. We did not understand it this way, because this female, LILIT, was with him. As long as this woman, EVE, was not made to be with Adam, LILIT was with him. When EVE was designed to be with him, LILIT fled to the sea, destined to harm the world.

And:

Zohar - Vol. 20 Mishpatim, Section 3, Verse 320

Verse 320. The sinful LILIT comes and visits the spirit, of this child that is born, which came about from this awful merger with the sound of the serpent that rattles inside her. This SPIRIT plays with the child until the evil LILIT arrives, just as a woman might visit another woman's child and prattle with it until its mother arrives. Many times, this SPIRIT, a messenger of the evil LILIT, may kill it.

So, according to the Zohar, Lilith flees from Adam who remains with Eve. This is, to me, a jealous response.

And, if she herself is not the killer of children in canon, she does command the spirits who kill. However, there was once a fair trade in protective amulets showing Lilith bound by sacred words or by literal chains and inscribed with the names of the three angels from Ben Sira's telling of Lilith's story in his Alphabet. The Alphabet is not exactly a brilliant source material, given the author's well-documented and rampant chauvinism as well as the tale's questionable grounds. It may be, however, the largest contributor to the stories of Lilith herself attacking children. Still, its version was embraced, amulets populated homes in the Middle East and Europe, and they are still made and sold today in Jerusalem's Mea Shaarim sector. They, ostensibly, protect a child from all of Lilith's minions, but also from the demon herself.

Sefer Raziel - Text of an amulet against Lillith

OUT LILITH! I adjure you, Lilith, in the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and in the names of the three angels sent after you, Senoi, Sansenoi and Semangeloff, to remember the vow you made that whenever you find their names you will cause no harm, neither you nor your cohorts; and in their names and in the names of the seals set down here, I adjure you, Queen of Demons, and all your multitudes, to cause no harm to a woman while she carries a child nor when she gives birth, nor to the children born to her, neither during the day nor during the night, neither through their food nor through their drink, neither in their heads nor in their hearts. By the strength of these names and seals, I so adjure you, Lilith, and all your offspring, to obey this command."

 

[TeaDidikai]

Aesi

Yes, and I was talking about the Satanists I've known, wasn't I?

And yet you are ignorant in the ways of many other kinds of Satanists (who are very moral people indeed), and you (say it with me folks!) Commit a Hasty Generalization based upon a Biased Sample.

[quote It's when people dismiss both gods and values together that disturbs me, which is why I put all these descriptions in the same sentence. My summary of the whole description of Satanism given to me. The whole is what I object, not the parts. (Not most of them, anyway.) Well, if instead of taking a bunch of Wannabe's words for it- you actually studied, you wouldn't be able to claim them as immoral.

Quote:

It was a function of the Satanism as seen by the Satanists I knew. I feel like a broken record here.

Okay, so Anton's Satanism was moralistic. What were those morals, then?

Ping. Question for Pirate.

There are as far as I recall, prohibitions against hurting others who do not harm you first, prohibitions against being dishonest, against theft, against being an idiot, against giving unwarrented advice, and a host of other things that involve proper conduct with those in the society and in dealing with those who violate hospitality.

To be blunt- the prohibitions listed within the Satanic Bible are a lot more compassionate than those listed within the Torah.

Quote:

And I disagree with this idea wherever it crops up. If I all I could do with my influence was cry when someone commits murder after murder, I would shed every tear in my body in protest. Someone could kill him, certainly. Neither would be punished by law, so why shouldn't they do it? Because even in the absence of rule, law, reason, or even conscience, we can still live by our morals if we so choose. We still have the chance to understand the value of every life and the effects our choices have on others.

You seem to have amoral and immoral confused. The Doc's Satanism was at best- amoral.

Educate yourself Aesi.

Quote:

"Kindness benefits everyone, so it should be given without the reservation or hesitation of a person who is weighing what their own benefits will be."

Did you not read this part? I believe kindness is always better.

Of course I did. What I am pointing out is the double standard you set.

Quote:

"Only kind or compassionate because it benefits them, never concerned with others' well-being, never feeling a desire to become a person who is kind for kindness' sake."

Like animals. Which you believe is ingraned within your soul. stare

Quote:

Maybe Satanism has a place for it. I don't know.

THEN WHY THE ******** ARE YOU MAKING JUDGMENTS ABOUT s**t YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT!

Quote:

But that alone isn't going make me think better of Satanism. After all, my LDS teachers always taught me this, too, but I don't agree with the whole of their religion.

rolleyes Good grief.

Quote:

My experience is mine. I can choose whether or not to further it. I weigh my experience, my knowledge from other sources, and my beliefs to come up with my judgment. So far, my judgment is that Satanism is not something I want involvement with.

And my intial point is that you are already practicing an aspect of Atheistic Satanism.

Guess you better toss your own theology out.

Quote:

Regardless of whether you think that's right or wrong, or based on your estimation of my experience and logic, I am free to decide that, right?

Of course.

You're apparently are generating a very lrge negative field called "idiocy" so I need to go talk to the intelligent people and gain what I lost to the singularity which is your brain.

Quote:

I did not ever say that all Satanists -are- bad people or even that I -think- they are all bad people. I dislike Satanism.

Which you don't know s**t about.
Congrats. You judge individuals based on misrepresentations of their theology.

Quote:

At this moment, if I met a Satanist who was a moral person, I'd respect the person but worry about that particular choice. I'd also jump them with questions, not for justification of their choice but for verification or dismissal of the thoughts I have on it thus far and for satisfaction of curiosity. LaVey, well, I can't claim personal experience with the guy. He may have had a good heart, he may not have. From what I have been told by those who did meet him, and from the poor character of those I've known who admire him, I tend to be suspicious of him.

Welcome to bigotry 101.
Lesson 1:
“I've known too bloody many Satanists to be comfortable with them.” Means you are a bigot. Good, bad or indifferent.

Doesn’t it feel all warm and cuddly to know that as someone who preaches “kindness” you can hide behind your unfounded judgments of individuals.
You’re also a hypocrit.
“Kindness benefits everyone, so it should be given without the reservation or hesitation of a person who is weighing what their own benefits will be.”

I smell hesitation and reservation.

I need a Pirate Signal.

Quote:

You do that. Meanwhile, if you have such spite for the thoughts (See, these are my "thoughts", not my "conclusions".) I've derived from my experiences, then why are you slapping me in the face with those same thoughts? The purpose of this guild is to learn, right? If you have the benefit of opinions from moral Satanists, I'd jump at the chance to hear them. I think poorly of Satanism at the moment, but since I don't know why a moral Satanist would choose it, I'd love to be informed. From them, not any third party.

In that case- you really need to scrap the sum total of your theology. No really- after all, if you are only interested in learning from the source- you need to pretty much do a huge a** invocation rite and talk to YHVH. While you are at it- ask him why Lilith is a part of Midrash and not the Torah.

Quote:

Here, you've shot down my experiences with a few Satanists with nothing but hearsay and your own beliefs, theories, thoughts, whatever. Yet, you've always demanded that I back up my statements regarding my own beliefs, theories, thoughts, and whatever else. And even if I haven't always brought up the best sources, I have always done the best I can to support my claims. So, you back up yours. I'll give your views on Satanism more credit when you do.

Here's the problem with this kiddo.

I've actually read the Satanic Bible. No- I don't keep a copy around any more. I know real Satanists, not those snot nosed brats that say they are Satanists to piss their parents off.

And not the idiots who took everything Anton said at face value.

Your "experience" < My Experience because the people and texts I based my experience on is an Authority.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

If everything is equal in value, then nothing is valuable.

I am inclined to agree. As are Satanists.

Again, derived from what immoral Satanists have told me of their beliefs. Theirs. Not all. I don't apply it to all Satanists, but since it was Satanists who told me, I keep it in mind as someone's interpretation of their religion. If I meet a moral Satanist, it'll be one of the first questions I ask them.

Quote:

Because the Satanists I've known have believed that all things are of equal value, this is one of the major reasons why I questioned their beliefs.

Okay. ******** it. Direct- What, prey tell, makes you think these people are actually Satanists?

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

You might consider them better. The legend of her being an attacker of newborn children makes her an interesting example of female cruelty and I like her defiance of Adam.

None of which is conical.

Quote:

Quote:

She's a jealous woman,

Care to elaborate on that?

Canonical, you mean? As it turns out, it is not only legend.

Zohar - Vol. 14 Vayikra, Section 45, Verse 320

320. In ancient books, it has been said that LILIT fled from Adam before that, NAMELY BEFORE EVE WAS PREPARED. We did not understand it this way, because this female, LILIT, was with him. As long as this woman, EVE, was not made to be with Adam, LILIT was with him. When EVE was designed to be with him, LILIT fled to the sea, destined to harm the world.

And:

Zohar - Vol. 20 Mishpatim, Section 3, Verse 320

Verse 320. The sinful LILIT comes and visits the spirit, of this child that is born, which came about from this awful merger with the sound of the serpent that rattles inside her. This SPIRIT plays with the child until the evil LILIT arrives, just as a woman might visit another woman's child and prattle with it until its mother arrives. Many times, this SPIRIT, a messenger of the evil LILIT, may kill it.

So, according to the Zohar, Lilith flees from Adam who remains with Eve. This is, to me, a jealous response.

And, if she herself is not the killer of children in canon, she does command the spirits who kill. However, there was once a fair trade in protective amulets showing Lilith bound by sacred words or by literal chains and inscribed with the names of the three angels from Ben Sira's telling of Lilith's story in his Alphabet. The Alphabet is not exactly a brilliant source material, given the author's well-documented and rampant chauvinism as well as the tale's questionable grounds. It may be, however, the largest contributor to the stories of Lilith herself attacking children. Still, its version was embraced, amulets populated homes in the Middle East and Europe, and they are still made and sold today in Jerusalem's Mea Shaarim sector. They, ostensibly, protect a child from all of Lilith's minions, but also from the demon herself.

You do know that she isn't in Torah, that her tradition is only present within the Midrash, yes?

You are aware that Midrash is not part of the canon, correct?

Quote:

Sefer Raziel - Text of an amulet against Lillith

OUT LILITH! I adjure you, Lilith, in the name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and in the names of the three angels sent after you, Senoi, Sansenoi and Semangeloff, to remember the vow you made that whenever you find their names you will cause no harm, neither you nor your cohorts; and in their names and in the names of the seals set down here, I adjure you, Queen of Demons, and all your multitudes, to cause no harm to a woman while she carries a child nor when she gives birth, nor to the children born to her, neither during the day nor during the night, neither through their food nor through their drink, neither in their heads nor in their hearts. By the strength of these names and seals, I so adjure you, Lilith, and all your offspring, to obey this command."

Yes. We are aware that she is a demon. I'm waiting for you to show me where any of her ties to Adam are part of Torah. Have fun.  

[iolitefire]

Quote:

My only qualm with this is that...you know...dieties aren't known for being thoughtful or compassionate towards people who have no idea what they're talking about.

I can't really imagine Ares going... "What? Some idiot over in Bumdirt, Kansas decided that I'm actually a god of peace cause he says so? And invoked my name in the same breath as he invoked the name of a dragon which dosen't exsist? Oh well....even though I ACTUALLY am a God of war and destruction, I think I'll just let this one slide...I'm not going to let my pride get the better of me over something silly when I could just pinch the fabric of reality and ruin this idiot's next three months of pitiful exsistance."

Um...yeah...I really can't go with you on that one.

Lol, very true. Some deities are short tempered like that. But in the Morrigan's case, I view her to be more level headed. Also, consider this: A compassionate deity would attempt to aid people even if he/she was being disrespected. An apathetic or uninterested deity just won't care in the end. And that's different then being compassionate.
Besides, is everyone who goofs up going to smited? Do they really deserve that much attention from a god to be smited? I suppose some Western deities might be smite-happy but then again, those in the Greek pantheon tend to be a tad reckless.
I consider the Morrigan to be one of the least understood deities thats worshipped in Neopaganism. I mean, seriously. I once saw someone who said that they worship the Morrgan because they liked crows. If the Morrigan is going to take the time and effort to smite every single person who disrespected her, then a big chunk of Neopagans would be smited.
In the end, it depends on the god and how they are being disrespected. Most offenders can be simply ignored and avoided at the end of the day. If there is a serious offense, like a true follower being killed or something like that, that would be a call for some smiting. I think.

As for thoughtforms, I've honestly heard of them before but under a different name. Normally they act like dopplegangers, look a likes but without true substance. When you worship deities who are big on action such as combat, it's obvious that a thoughtform doesn't have the potency as a god.
If the thoughtform does have the ability to grant power and strength unto others and can be recognized by other deities or spirits as a real deal, is it still a thoughtform? And if it is, couldn't it be possible that a being with that much power can be considered a god onto its self? If a thoughtform can have as much power as the god it's mimicking, then how do we know its still a thoughtform?