A rant on anti-Chrisian Wiccans.

Also, you accuse me of speaking for the gods because i say the would be offended, but saying they would accept your mixed up ways is an assumtion of what they would say as well.

How about, since neither of us know, we treat them with the individual respect they deserve. I would say anything other than that is at risk of offending.

 

If the majority of cultural gods are from the ancestors of the culture, as in people of that culture raised to godhead by their decendants, then wouldnt the "human projection" be just as accurate?

 

Again, I'm sure if my gods have an issue with my practice they'd take it up with me, not you. They're very competent gods, and can speak for themselves.

Get over yourself.

 

So how is it ok for you to speak your ways, in a full of yourself kind of way, yet you piss on me for doing the same?

Maybe your gods dont say anything to you about what you do is because they dont recognize you in what you do?

I would ignore you if were them.

 

Well obviously you're not god material.

You've got a fucking hell of a lot of nerve to go dictating the structure of other people's relationship to the divine.

I don't give a fat damn who or what you worship, Heron. It is not your belief system I have a problem with, it is your behavior. The problem I have is with your aggressive, self-righteous intolerence. When your beliefs and practices cross the line into other people's space, it's invasive.

And I would say that calling someone else's relationship with the divine to be false simply because it doesn't mirror yours, as you did above, is crossing that line.

I know my relationship with the Sacred is valid the same way you know that yours is valid, and I do not have to justify it you or anyone else. I am not ragging on your belief system. I am not ragging on your gods. I am quite simply fed up with you ragging on everybody else's and your unjust expectation that everyone must hold the same spiritual truths and priorities as you do.

Again, other people's relationship with the divine is quite simply none of your fucking business, whether they're Pagan, Christian, or of the Cult of Flying Spaghetti Monster. You have yet to conclusively prove that other people's spirituality affects you in anyway, so you're just going to have to deal, just like the fundie Christians who want to put the 10 Commandments in public space or the fundie Muslims who want the world to be ruled according to Islamic law all have to deal.

I don't want to argue with you and I don't want to piss you off. You are a very creative artist and a thorough scholar. You are obviously very devout in your beliefs, they obviously work well for you and they are something that you hold dear. Your relationship to your gods is sacred in your experience, and respect for that experience is sacred in mine.

Having respect does not mean embracing the doctrine or dogma or lack thereof. But to insist on applying your values and beliefs to other people's spiritual experiences is unjust, arrogant and invasive. Again, it's not your beliefs I find offensive, indeed, such devotion is rare and worthy of admiration. What offends me is the judgemental behavior.

 

I have ragged noones gods, i dont think everyone should believe the way I do, just dont steal and borrow out of respect and tolerance for others religions.

If people openly debate their relationship to the "divine" then it is my business.

Here is an analogy, for malaka too since he likes them.

If you order a BLT sandwich, but replace the tomatoes with cheese, and the lettuce with ham, and I tell you that you cant call it a BLT, i am not being a BLT fundamentalist. I am showing common sense.

Along the same lines, you replace what you dont like with what you do, but never know what a BLT truely tastes like because you cannot include something you dont like about something in the sandwhich that you call a BLT.

So are you eating a Ham and cheese sandwich with bacon? Or a BLT?

Make a sandwhich how you want it, but dont expect me, or anyone else
to accept it as something it isnt.

And, to everyone, I am sorry, apparently I am not allowed to comment on topics such as this because I have a differing opinion, and express it in a way not allowed by the defendants.

My bad.

 

Why not? gods turn themselves from people all the time.

 

You are operating under the assumption that an ecclectic sandwich maker is trying to make a BLT. Most of the ecclectics I know (including myself) don't claim to be strict adherents of any of the parent paths they draw inspiration from. Someone may start with a BLT and replace the lettuce and tomato, but as you yourself noted, they still have a sandwich. And that sandwich is still nourishing to the body. It might not meet your nutritional needs, but it could be better at meeting theirs without the lettuce and tomato, or with gluten-free bread.

What bothers me is that you get so offended by other people's "sandwiches", even to the point of declaring that they're gods must be ignoring them because they haven't been stricken down for heresy or something. "Heretics" can be spiritual people, too.

And I don't object to you voicing your opinion. I do not dislike you, Heron. It is the ridicule, sneering and put-downs of those with differing views I find hard to take.

 

I didnt say they must be ignoring you, i said they may be. Stop putting words in my mouth. I was having a pretty good debate, and you jumped in with accusations of me being a meany-poo-poo head to the poor ecclectics.

Paganism is the BLT, ecclectisism is the ham and cheese with bacon. Dont call yourself pagan is all you are doing is making a New Age section stew, full of cool Celtic gods, heavenly angels, yoga, tofu, and a few Hindu concepts for spice.

 

pa·gan ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pgn)
n.
One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
One who has no religion.
A non-Christian.
A hedonist.
A Neo-Pagan.

adj.
Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
Professing no religion; heathen.
Neo-Pagan.

Um, Heron, which of these definitions did not apply to any of the so-called "eclectics" here? Buddy, if there's a re-enactment of the Spanish Inquisition, or a worldwide Sharia law adopted, you and I and the other posters in this thread would be motherfuckin' burnin' on pikes next to one another. I think we need to go over some semantics issues here, eh?

 

what a crap definition, sounds like a Christians definition of a pagan, not a pagans definition.

Fair enough though, would rather have a fluffy ecclectic for a neighbor than a christian lol.

How easily one is labeled the bad guy when more than one disagrees with his view.

But still, I stand by the division of New Agey and pagan.

Maybe i just need better terms.

 

No biggie...debating helps us all clarify our own worldviews and should serve to broaden our understandings of things from different perspectives. I wouldn't say you've been labeled the "bad guy" here at all; people are just passionate, yourself included, about their beliefs. As a matter of fact, my offer still stands to continue discussions over a grog of mead by a campfire, lol.
By the way, pretty much all the Websters/Dictionary.com/American Heritage, etc. are variations of the definition above. For a more complex genealogy of the term "pagan" (literal translation, "country dweller"), see this site; http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism.htm My only point through this whole debate is that we can all learn something from belief systems other than our own (which you need not ADOPT necessarily), and that I hate orthodoxy & fundamentalism within the context of ANY religion or spiritual belief system. 'Nuff said. Cheers, and y'all have a wonderful day!

 

All language is ambiguous by it's very nature - simply verbal symbols for other things, often easily confused. Words are mis-read, mis-translated, misunderstood, mispronounced and taken out of context. That is the nature of language. There will always be arguments like this (and often upon reflection it appears that both debaters were actually aguing for the same thing, but not understanding each other's words - in this particular case, though, I think that is only partially true).

Where you use the term "New Agey," for instance, I think my own (albeit, somewhat less-respectful) term "Crystal-squeezer" has the same basic connotation.

As for heresy, I'm all for it. I think, historically, every great move forward in religious thought was started by a heretic.