The semantics of Paganism

[Gho the Girl]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Gho the Girl

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Gho the Girl

Or even the god of the Old Testament. Goodness Gracious does He have a temper at times.

Are you trying to say you don't worship YHVH, or that YHVH has changed?

I'm saying that the god of the OT, the selected parts of the Torah that were carried over into the Bible, isn't the same as the God that I worship. Whether this is due to dualism or change, I don't know for certain.

Quote:

Because last I checked, even Jesus had a bit of a temper.

There's a bit of a temper, throwing over tables at a temple, and then there's destroying entire cities for pissing Him off, killing the first born of an entire nation, prohibiting Moses from ever entering the promised land he'd spent so much of his life getting YHVH's people to, stuff like that.

I'm not saying it was wrong of him to do. I'm saying that the temperament of the OT god is more aggressive and destructive and angry than that of the NT god.

I don't really know about that. He's still a god with conditions you can't capitulate against,

Other gods don't have this?

Quote:

he's still a God who sends his servitors to tempt people to destruction,

I don't see this mentioned in the gospels that I follow.

Quote:

and he's still a God who's not above teaching people a hard ******** lesson and using torture to do it.

Again, this isn't in the gospels that I follow.

Quote:

Sounds less like he changed and more like he kept a promise.

I disagree.  

[Gho the Girl]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Gho the Girl

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Gho the Girl

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Are you trying to say you don't worship YHVH, or that YHVH has changed?

I'm saying that the god of the OT, the selected parts of the Torah that were carried over into the Bible, isn't the same as the God that I worship. Whether this is due to dualism or change, I don't know for certain.

Quote:

Because last I checked, even Jesus had a bit of a temper.

There's a bit of a temper, throwing over tables at a temple, and then there's destroying entire cities for pissing Him off, killing the first born of an entire nation, prohibiting Moses from ever entering the promised land he'd spent so much of his life getting YHVH's people to, stuff like that.

I'm not saying it was wrong of him to do. I'm saying that the temperament of the OT god is more aggressive and destructive and angry than that of the NT god.

I don't really know about that. He's still a god with conditions you can't capitulate against,

Other gods don't have this?

Quote:

he's still a God who sends his servitors to tempt people to destruction,

I don't see this mentioned in the gospels that I follow.

Quote:

and he's still a God who's not above teaching people a hard ******** lesson and using torture to do it.

Again, this isn't in the gospels that I follow.

So you follow neither the Gospels of Mark, Luke nor Matthew?

Not as closely as certain gnostic gospels.

Quote:

And I'm not saying other Gods don't do that. I'm saying that he's doing things inline with his previous actions.

So because two entities do the same thigns, they are the same entity?  

[Gho the Girl]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Gho the Girl

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Gho the Girl

Celeblin Galadeneryn

I don't really know about that. He's still a god with conditions you can't capitulate against,

Other gods don't have this?

Quote:

he's still a God who sends his servitors to tempt people to destruction,

I don't see this mentioned in the gospels that I follow.

Quote:

and he's still a God who's not above teaching people a hard ******** lesson and using torture to do it.

Again, this isn't in the gospels that I follow.

So you follow neither the Gospels of Mark, Luke nor Matthew?

Not as closely as certain gnostic gospels.

Understandable, but I'd still have to see why the other gospels contradict what I'm talking about. I definitely don't have to hold to canon because it's canon, but a lack of contradiction isn't going to convince me that he doesn't do these things.

Quote:

Quote:

And I'm not saying other Gods don't do that. I'm saying that he's doing things inline with his previous actions.

So because two entities do the same thigns, they are the same entity?

You're arguing that one entity is actually two because of a shift in paradigm. I'm arguing against the paradigm shift, not that two entities are one because of similar purpose.

Through a mixture of 1 John 4:7 and experiencing God, I don't see the tribal god of Israel in what I have felt. Having attended Jewish services, whatever they invoke is not what I have seen to be God. I don't question the divinity of their god, they're just not the same entity. The god of Israel is a mountain, while the deity I have experienced is Gaia.  

[rmcdra]

I'll throw in my two cents here for Cel and Gho.

The primary thing about Mark and Matthew is who the audience was written toward. I personally include these texts in the canon I follow because they are using what was understood about YHVH to describe this God that Jesus presented.

Now Luke is one I'm torn over. I've heard evidence that it predates the Gospel of the Lord, but I've also heard evidence that the Gospel of the Lord predates Luke. If anyone would like to provide more evidence to support or counter that would be great.

If I may invoke a statement that I remember Tea posting a few months ago in the Christo-Paganism thread, that YHVH is not explicitly mentioned as the Father or God in the New Testament.  

[Gho the Girl]

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Gho the Girl

Celeblin Galadeneryn

Gho the Girl

Celeblin Galadeneryn

So you follow neither the Gospels of Mark, Luke nor Matthew?

Not as closely as certain gnostic gospels.

Understandable, but I'd still have to see why the other gospels contradict what I'm talking about. I definitely don't have to hold to canon because it's canon, but a lack of contradiction isn't going to convince me that he doesn't do these things.

Quote:

Quote:

And I'm not saying other Gods don't do that. I'm saying that he's doing things inline with his previous actions.

So because two entities do the same thigns, they are the same entity?

You're arguing that one entity is actually two because of a shift in paradigm. I'm arguing against the paradigm shift, not that two entities are one because of similar purpose.

Through a mixture of 1 John 4:7 and experiencing God, I don't see the tribal god of Israel in what I have felt. Having attended Jewish services, whatever they invoke is not what I have seen to be God. I don't question the divinity of their god, they're just not the same entity. The god of Israel is a mountain, while the deity I have experienced is Gaia.

Wait wait...

Are you trying to say that Jesus is the representative of one of the Greek Primordial forces now?

I was trying to refer to the concept of "Whole earth" which is named after one of the greek primordial forces.

My apologies, that wasn't clear.

Quote:

Furthermore, if you mean the world instead of Gaia, where are you going with this analogy? Your god is more important than the God of the Israelites, "bigger" in some sort of sense, or encompasses the God of the Israelites?

Theoretically, I hold a hethenotheistic viewpoint.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

I believe that definitions are personal. I have found that definitions are quite necessary for individuals because they create a frame work for all future thought.

Differentiating between Neo Pagan and Pagan while perhaps not having any truly deep relevance (two individuals may call themselves different titles and then believe the same things and have a ten page argument about whose title is proper) Helps the people organize the world around them. It allows them to create contexts for their thoughts.

There are two different methods for defining the world. The first method is using definitions strictly out of your educational or religious back ground. This seems to be true for people who are highly indoctrinated in a certain set of beliefs. As they are indoctrinated they tend to look at the entire world from this view point.

The second way is where people try to use sets of definitions which seem universalizable.

I wouldn't truly discredit either set of definitions but people who have highly rigid definitions seem to get in more arguments because there is less wiggle room, less bend that they are willing to accept concerning meaning.

Whether this is pretentious or not depends on the individuals involved. Pretention can show itself in many ways, a person could be pretentious when it comes to taking into consideration everyones point of view. I mean its a matter of pride right?

What I thiink is more common is that people use rigid definitions in a way to protect their beliefs in order to not have to question them. By throwing the word Neo in they don't have to question whether or not their beliefs are true to the original religion. It excuses errors they may have.

By saying they are Pagan it validates their beliefs by saying that they are following an old religion.

I personally don't follow any religion and believe strongly that people should just believe what they feel is right. I try to be practical and look at results, as long as their belief system works for them isn't causing any sort of psychological issues, is fulfilling their needs, and they aren't harming others, why should we really care what they call themselves.  

[Tikat]

Ishtar Shakti

I believe that definitions are personal. I have found that definitions are quite necessary for individuals because they create a frame work for all future thought.

The problem with your hypothesis is the assumption that language exists for the individual to construct frameworks, and not for the community to communicate.

As a result, definitions have little to do with what a person's opinion on what words should mean, but instead reflect what they mean when communicating to outsiders. After all, we don't need to think in words to communicate with ourselves. Some think in pictures, in moods or other patterns.

Quote:

Differentiating between Neo Pagan and Pagan while perhaps not having any truly deep relevance (two individuals may call themselves different titles and then believe the same things and have a ten page argument about whose title is proper) Helps the people organize the world around them. It allows them to create contexts for their thoughts.

If the argument is between someone who is using the correct definition and someone who is arguing for a made up incorrect personal definition, there is a right and wrong position. And the Relativism presented in your argument becomes self defeating.

If all definitions are relative, then the statement "all definitions are relative" would be true one hundred percent of the time. For this to happen, the definition of each word in the sentence would have to remain constant, thus creating a contradiction, since these concepts could no longer be relative to the individual.

Quote:

There are two different methods for defining the world. The first method is using definitions strictly out of your educational or religious back ground. This seems to be true for people who are highly indoctrinated in a certain set of beliefs. As they are indoctrinated they tend to look at the entire world from this view point.

Having read your other posts, I gotta say, this is really insulting.

You completely ignore those who use this method because they either believe in objective definitions and have a character trait of seeking accuracy and intellectual honesty, those who use this method because they believe communication should be accurate and refuse to allow their personal feelings bias their position, and likely a host of other thought patterns that I haven't familiarized myself with.

It's arrogant at best, ignorant at worse.

Quote:

The second way is where people try to use sets of definitions which seem universalizable.

Could you use a word that exists in the English language so others can understand you?

Quote:

I wouldn't truly discredit either set of definitions but people who have highly rigid definitions seem to get in more arguments because there is less wiggle room, less bend that they are willing to accept concerning meaning.

When fighting for what is right, being willing to speak out against what is wrong isn't a character flaw.

Quote:

Whether this is pretentious or not depends on the individuals involved. Pretention can show itself in many ways, a person could be pretentious when it comes to taking into consideration everyones point of view. I mean its a matter of pride right?

No, it isn't. Pretentiousness is a matter of making unjustified positions, or so it was cited as such earlier. I haven't looked it up. If I'm wrong, I'll retract.

Quote:

What I thiink is more common is that people use rigid definitions in a way to protect their beliefs in order to not have to question them. By throwing the word Neo in they don't have to question whether or not their beliefs are true to the original religion. It excuses errors they may have.

I think this is again, highly ignorant and highly insulting, since it assumes motivations on the part of individuals who may simply be seeking intellectual honesty or using correct definitions.

It would be really nice if you would stop accusing people of being thoughtless lazy thinkers simply because they do not hold to a relativistic world view.

Quote:

By saying they are Pagan it validates their beliefs by saying that they are following an old religion.

To Everyone:
Show of hands please.
Who here thinks their faith is validated for being old?
Who here thinks they are practicing an old religion?

Quote:

I personally don't follow any religion and believe strongly that people should just believe what they feel is right.

So, does this mean that you support groups such as the Thugee, Frostian Wiccans, The Lord Our Righteousness Church and the Union County groups should be allowed to do what they want just because it is a religion?

Quote:

I try to be practical and look at results, as long as their belief system works for them isn't causing any sort of psychological issues, is fulfilling their needs, and they aren't harming others, why should we really care what they call themselves.

They believe they fit your standards. They feel they are doing the right thing and aren't harming anyone.

Why not actually take a stand, rather than giving justification fodder for those who indulge themselves at other's expense?  

[Recursive Paradox]

Ishtar Shakti

I believe that definitions are personal.

We've gone over this stupidity before.

Definitions are placements of meanings on words to allow communication between people. If they were personal they would lose all ability to create communication because they would be different among all people.

Quote:

There are two different methods for defining the world. The first method is using definitions strictly out of your educational or religious back ground. This seems to be true for people who are highly indoctrinated in a certain set of beliefs. As they are indoctrinated they tend to look at the entire world from this view point.

Wrong. Not all highly indoctrinated people use strict definitions from an educational or religious background. Not all low indoctrinated or non indoctrinated individuals avoid using strict definitions from those backgrounds.

Quote:

The second way is where people try to use sets of definitions which seem universalizable.

False dilemma fallacy. There are a lot of ways that people define things. Most of them are wrong (including that second option you voiced), being that the function of language is to communicate using concrete concepts, not by messing with the concepts because they seem to connect better. This is especially true because dominant cultures will seek to erase other cultures by changing the concepts of language to exclude them.

Quote:

I wouldn't truly discredit either set of definitions but people who have highly rigid definitions seem to get in more arguments because there is less wiggle room, less bend that they are willing to accept concerning meaning.

Less "wiggle room", meaning less opportunity to deface the discussion, make s**t up, spout pseudointellectual babble and largely make an a** of oneself by redefining everything to suit one's purposes instead of allowing for communication.

Gosh, how awful that there's less "wiggle room"

Quote:

Whether this is pretentious or not depends on the individuals involved. Pretention can show itself in many ways, a person could be pretentious when it comes to taking into consideration everyones point of view. I mean its a matter of pride right?

Oh, I see what you did there. You redefined the word pretension (also spelled it wrong) to mean something that has absolutely nothing to do with its actual meaning. Either that or you have no clue what it means.

Good show.

Quote:

What I thiink is more common is that people use rigid definitions in a way to protect their beliefs in order to not have to question them.

Amusingly enough, it's actually more common for people to claim that definitions are personal, subjective, in flux or adjustable for context to allow themselves to avoid questioning beliefs.

Whereas the rigid definitions often require questioning of beliefs when conflict is created (and often is by ignorance).

Quote:

By saying they are Pagan it validates their beliefs by saying that they are following an old religion.

This doesn't even make sense.

Quote:

I personally don't follow any religion and believe strongly that people should just believe what they feel is right. I try to be practical and look at results, as long as their belief system works for them isn't causing any sort of psychological issues, is fulfilling their needs, and they aren't harming others, why should we really care what they call themselves.

Actually culture rape, redefining religious zones, religious appropriation, erasure of cultures and religions and a host of other issues arising from redefining words to suit your fancy and accost other religions (especially closed ones) so one can make their eclectic... thing is extraordinarily harmful.

But I guess we have different definitions of harm, because yanno, definitions are personal and all.  

[Recursive Paradox]

Tikat

To Everyone:
Show of hands please.
Who here thinks their faith is validated for being old?

Old doesn't have anything to do with validity. So no.

Quote:

Who here thinks they are practicing an old religion?

If 8 years is old, then yes. Otherwise, no.  

[Ishtar Shakti]

Language exists for both practices.
But you are also making the assumption that definitions have to use words.

Also please take into consideration the difference between talking within a small group of people (such as a religious sect) and working with a larger group that may not have the same contextual frame work as yourself.

The definitions which exist within a small group and the definitions which exist outside of that group may be different.

Such as within Group A may read a text and consider it a valid text that accurately depicts the state of a religion and thus they may call themselves Pagan as they would consider it accurate. While Group B may think that the text isn't an accurate depiction and thus they might call themselves Neo Pagan as they don't believe they are accurately portraying that religion.

Neo= New which means that its not traditional, even if both group A+B are practicing in the exact same manner.

Understand?

Also people may have disputes concerning the terms, what the terms mean, the level of validity needed, etc. etc. etc.

I mean Really? What constitutes a proper definition? I could go into specifics but I don't feel like getting sucked into the general mess that people make of the matter.

Quote:

You completely ignore those who use this method because they either believe in objective definitions and have a character trait of seeking accuracy and intellectual honesty, those who use this method because they believe communication should be accurate and refuse to allow their personal feelings bias their position, and likely a host of other thought patterns that I haven't familiarized myself with.

There are huge flaws in believing in objective definitions mostly if your trying to cross language or cultural barriers. I mean, is their only one definition for god? Is their only one definition for transubstantiation? Is their only one definition for right? One definition for wrong? One definition for family? It seems conceited to me to try to limit people by imposing my definitions on them.

Intellectual Honesty would take into account your own bias', to deny they exist and not take them into account seems to imply that you wouldn't be intellectually honest

Quote:

one must realize that we, as human beings, are more than mere purveyors of logic. We inherently generalize, categorize, prioritize, and harmonize what we see, and most of this takes place without our conscious awareness. While these aspects of thinking are of inestimable value, they also possess certain dangers; for example, they can inadvertently lead us into hasty judgments, and cause selective "blindness" toward new information.

http://www.ics.uci.edu/~arvo/honesty.html

I try to embrace my own bias' and acknowledge them and the bias' of others. I try to acknowledge the limits of communication. The limitations of language and definitions. The inconsistencies and evolution of communication, and the way that people internalize information.

As to the religions you mentioned I don't know them. I don't know if they are harming people, but I am fairly sure that the people whom you believed are being harmed are the best judges of their internal states.
When it comes down to interacting with Other people you do not speak for them and you can't because you only know Your internal state. This seems fairly easy to observe though I do know that not everyone agree's with me.

By Saying you are Pagan doesn't that mean that you are following the Old religion? The original religion? This is one of those arguments that I really Don't care about. It depends on what you believe a Pagan is. Vs. Neo Pagan which means you are following a new adaptation of the religion. Is this not the commonly accepted Definition of the religion.

Or course what Pagan and neo Pagan means to the practitioners is not going to synchronize across the board. Generally I don't give a ******** because... I believe that Pagan means any non judeo-christain-muslim religion. I think neo pagan is a misnomer. I've just heard the argument between "new" and "old" from other people.

P.S... if this is you tea. Please if your going to block me don't go on a mule and continue to talk to me.