|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 7:36 pm
|
|
|
|
deadmanjake Another one, because he is very annoying in the threads about homosexuality, would be VHG. Even when shown the verses of the New Testament that say the Old Laws are gone and replaced by the Law of Agape, he still preaches them. He is not the only one, but he has been a major one.
Off topic: deadman...could you please enlighten me of which verses those might be? I've been getting into a (friendly/casual) debates on and off lately, and I would really like to be able to bring them up by verse as opposed to a vauge reference.
I've always taken fluffy bunny as a broad term, one with multiple definitions, which could be applied individually, a few at a time, all of them at once, or some other combination.
Here are my definitions
1. Someone who has no idea of what the implications or terms of the supposed faith are, largely due to purposely perpetuated ignorence or simply sloth and laziness.
2. Someone who takes a look at the terms, practices, and beliefs of their faith as a whole, and then only chooses ones with which they already agree with to practice or follow. Reasons for this purposeful segrigation of thought and faith tend to be vauge or hazy at best.
3. Someone who uses a faith or set of religious beliefs, not for their spirtual implications, but for the mood and ambiance which they can create or which is associated with those beliefs.
4. Someone who uses a faith or a religion to rebel against a source, or sources, of authority, and only practices lip service to the tenents and terms of the religion.
5. Someone who uses "popular" or personally desired definitions or interpertation of religion script, tennents, or termanology over historically acurate means, with little or no logical reasoning behind it. Also: someone who holds their own source of information about a given religion or sect as uncounterable for little to no reason at all.
I think those really call the principal definitions and cases of fluff-dom. It's a catch-all term that decribes main sources of religious dumb-assed-ness in my book, and it seems to have a variety of uses. I.e.: It's not really surprisiing you don't have a concrete definition of the word Dul...I don't think most people do.
r
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 8:27 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 6:47 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 7:36 am
|
|
|
|
missmagpie Dulliath *stands up* Hello, my name is Dulliath and I am a recovering IRAB. Several books, actually. Mostly Cunningham, who I still think is not bad for Pagan 101. However, in Solitary Wicca (if I remember correctly, and I am paraphrasing here as most of my library went away in Hurricaine Wilma) he stated that you should take what works for you, and set the rest to the side. Actually I quite like Cunningham... in moderation. I don't know about his Wicca stuff but some of his elemental stuff had good ideas. By the way, I believe this topic has been debated before in this guild. I remember being given a link to it, so it's probably a few pages back. That's where I believe a lot of the references for the current definition came from.
This topic was in the M&R thread a while ago. It went on a long time, and no fluffies entered the discussion except to call me racist for using the term. rolleyes
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:45 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 8:59 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:03 am
|
|
|
|
deadmanjake missmagpie deadmanjake This topic was in the M&R thread a while ago. It went on a long time, and no fluffies entered the discussion except to call me racist for using the term. rolleyes No, I mean the one in this guild. I don't go into M&R very much any more. Found it!I didnt join this guild til a little bit ago. The one I made in M&R was last spring I think. All the fluffy topics made it go away though sad I was quite ammused by being called a racist for calling someone a fluffy bunny. Heh. Bunnies are a whole race to themselves! Good god they do breed like rabbits! They breed so much they've created their own ethnicity! xd
That's pretty funny. The topic I linked to was well before I got here too. It's somewhere on page 11 of the guild forum. Someone kindly directed me to it when I asked a while ago. So this thread can be a sort of continuation of that one...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 9:13 am
|
|
|
|
missmagpie deadmanjake missmagpie deadmanjake This topic was in the M&R thread a while ago. It went on a long time, and no fluffies entered the discussion except to call me racist for using the term. rolleyes No, I mean the one in this guild. I don't go into M&R very much any more. Found it!I didnt join this guild til a little bit ago. The one I made in M&R was last spring I think. All the fluffy topics made it go away though sad I was quite ammused by being called a racist for calling someone a fluffy bunny. Heh. Bunnies are a whole race to themselves! Good god they do breed like rabbits! They breed so much they've created their own ethnicity! xd That's pretty funny. The topic I linked to was well before I got here too. It's somewhere on page 11 of the guild forum. Someone kindly directed me to it when I asked a while ago. So this thread can be a sort of continuation of that one...
Well, the way some of them act, you would think they were the minority, when it seems that they are becoming the majority in some religions.
I found mine on page 23. For all those interested, it is back in M&R.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 3:16 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Nov 18, 2006 4:00 pm
|
|
|
|
Dulliath Kuroiban 2. Someone who takes a look at the terms, practices, and beliefs of their faith as a whole, and then only chooses ones with which they already agree with to practice or follow. Reasons for this purposeful segrigation of thought and faith tend to be vauge or hazy at best. That is where I started out. *stands up* Hello, my name is Dulliath and I am a recovering IRAB. Several books, actually. Mostly Cunningham, who I still think is not bad for Pagan 101. However, in Solitary Wicca (if I remember correctly, and I am paraphrasing here as most of my library went away in Hurricaine Wilma) he stated that you should take what works for you, and set the rest to the side. i think the added point into that definition would be "while still claiming the original title".
while we've stated time and time again, hey it's okay to be an eclectic pagan, with respect to closed cultures, claiming a title of which one only follows certain tenants is not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|