LOGICALLY, sensibly, and reasonably speaking, ONLY the Holy Bible
presents the absolute authority from God that requires us all people
on earth to understand, obey, and seek the Maker, our Lord otherwise
we get eternal punishment and damnation to the lake of fire, as it is
written...

 "Seek the LORD, All you humble of the earth Who have carried out His
ordinances; Seek righteousness, seek humility. Perhaps you will be
hidden In the day of the LORD’S anger."    -Zephaniah 2:3

 The apostles were sent during their times, and in our times there is
one. Therefore thru that preacher sent from God, we can have the faith
by HEARING the words of God from him. Because only thru that preacher
who had the faith of Christ, we can surely walk with God in our lives
from now and forever.

 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see
whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out
into the world."     -1 John 4:1

http://sword44.blogspot.com

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:26:25 +1100, "Yowie"
 blethered:

>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:caogn3976g2ji7k7p4erv24degvukipt7b@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:14:26 -0600, Gale 
>> blethered:
>>
>>>Halla wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:13:36 -0800 (PST), "sent4_777@yahoo.ca"
>>>>  blethered:
>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>ONLY the Holy Bible
>>>>>presents the absolute authority from God that requires us all people
>>>>>on earth to understand, obey, and seek the Maker, our Lord otherwise
>>>>>we get eternal punishment and damnation to the lake of fire, as it is
>>>>>written...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oooookay... any non-frothing Christian-types lurking who want to tell
>>>> me (in a non-frothing way) where that above paragraph might be true?
>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>
>>>What I don't understand -- within the context and claims of that
>>>particular writer -- is why certain folks so insistently worship a deity
>>>who they have defined as patently evil. You want to worship some deity
>>>that casts poor, puny humans into a 'lake of fire'?
>>>
>>
>> Well yeah, I struggle with that meself. Presumably if %Nominated_Deity
>> does it, it's *not* evil, because said deity says it's not. So...
>> er... that's OK then. There must be more to it than that, otherwise
>> *only* idiots would be Christians and that's not the case. I feel I
>> don't get the true flavour from outside, but I don't want to venture
>> in too far. :-) I am an interested observer. Well, OK, a nosey
>> observer.
>
>Most weserners are indoctrinated with some form of Christianity from the day 
>they are born. 

Incidentally, are you telling me I am not an outside observer?

>It permeates the culture, the language etc etc. One cannot 
>help but know *something* about it if you live inthe west, even if its a 
>limited or twisted view.
>

Yebbut indoctrinated how? My family has Christians in it, churchgoers
and supporters too, my own parents attended church for the minimum
amount of time to get me christened, can't recall if they married in a
church (wasn't there at the time, see ;-), but although they might
have gone to church as children they certainly haven't in years past.
I don't know what their beliefs are (and I'm nto terribly interested
in finding out, either). So although I am a product of the west, and
more particularly the West of Scotland, how have I been indoctrinated
exactly? I have phrases and attitudes which I know have a churchy
influence (We're a' Jock Tamson's Bairns, in the name of the Wee Man,
that sort of thing), but I'm not sure how Christianity of the local
brand has contributed to my outlook.  

>One can grow up actively Christian, and for those, its 'life as normal' all 
>the way through. Those who 'find' Christianity sometime later tend to (in my 
>experience) have low self esteem. The low self esteem is needed to accept 
>that they fall short in the eyes of God. They also want to feel better about 
>themselves, and when they find that Christianity will forgive or 'wash away' 
>those 'sins', then they accept the message. 

OK, how about those with low self esteem who do not pursue religion
(and in particular Christianity)? I know you're not saying that all
those with low self esteem convert or relapse or whatever, but why do
some find religion and not others?

>Its a psychologically very 
>powerful experience, one that is full of a brighteness, love, hope etc. It 
>is like falling in love.
>

Another mechanism I don't understand. :-)

>Once they *feel* that, then they know it to be true. After that, they start 
>accepting the Bible - as they've been told to - as the Word of God, and 
>can -  using that feeling of love and joy that they have and continue to 
>experience - believe pretty much anything that is written about a 'being' 
>they 'know' (through personal experience) to be pure love. 

<aware of straying dangerously close to very lofty theology> What *is*
'pure love'?

>They know, for 
>example, that loving parents have to teach children painful lessons, that 
>loving parents have to punish their children for htem to learn, 

The way you say that rather implies that all lessons must be painful. 

>and that 
>there is a certain peace and acceptance of Bad Shit Happening when one has 
>faith that a benevolent loving deity is doing it for The Greater Good, even 
>if you don't happen to understand why said deity is doing (or allowing) such 
>shitty things to happen right now.

One may have that acceptance without raising a flag for a particular
deity. 

>
>The Christian is also welcomed into a community and groups that re-inforce 
>the belief. Christains tend to hang around together and therefore most of 
>their social circle are of the samebelief. they go to church together, play 
>together, become another family. Going to church becomes the social 
>highlight of hte week, where the message is reinforced and the Christian 
>faith reinvigorated, and you come out spritually 'refreshed' and feeling 
>good about life. Its psychologically addictive.

I don't know about that bit. I know some churchgoers who may not agree
about the social highlight bit, but then I don't tend to see them when
they've just left a service so I can't really comment. 

>
>Thats not to say that other religions are different. I've read incredible 
>Muslim and Wiccan conversions, the experience fo the seeker finally finding 
>love,acceptance, the presence of Deity, knowing that they are *special*, and 
>hten enjoying the social aspects of interacting with other like minded 
>individuals.

Sounds more like a jigsaw finally being solved to me. Some folk are
going to fit into a certain pattern that will not suit others. They're
lucky if they find the right fit in their life, I suspect most seekers
don't.

>
>In the West, however, the 'default' religion still seems to be some brand of 
>Christianity as its what we are indoctirnated with, and therefore the most 
>common 'conversion' experience for those seeking more spiritual fulfillment 
>will still be to Christianity. But that percentage is dropping and Paganism 
>is growing.

I have met a few folk who seem to regard paganism as a church without
walls and that pesky oppressive masculinity. Which sounds pretty much
like a different type of church to me rather than any flavour of
paganism I know.

>
>I can't explain it much better than that.
>
>I don't know of anyone who critically analysed the worlds religions and 
>decided, rationally and logically, one that was 'best' or even 'most fitting 
>for htem' and converted. Usually its an experiential thing.

Well yeah. Is there anything that isn't though? 

>
>Does that help?

A bit, thanks. :-)


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 09:22:00 +1100, "Yowie"
 blethered:

<snip>
>
>Your reasons as to why you are Pagan are probably quite similar to the 
>reasons someone else is a Christian / Buddhist / Hindu / whatever... you've 
>had some sort of experience that convinced you it was right. Otherwise, 
>surely, we'd all be athiests.

Uh. You're not saying that Pagans have to believe in gods, are you? 

>
>Yowie
>(pls forgive typos - hard to type well with cat in the way) 
>

Heh.


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:03rln3t3skoldjfb9fhvvaldb7jggihitp@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 09:22:00 +1100, "Yowie"
>  blethered:
>
> <snip>
>>
>>Your reasons as to why you are Pagan are probably quite similar to the
>>reasons someone else is a Christian / Buddhist / Hindu / whatever... 
>>you've
>>had some sort of experience that convinced you it was right. Otherwise,
>>surely, we'd all be athiests.
>
> Uh. You're not saying that Pagans have to believe in gods, are you?

Nope, not at all (well, not in the 'some guy in the sky' sort of God... but 
AFAIK, Paganism does generally have a belief in the supernatural to some 
degree or another). But why *are* you a Pagan rather than a... well, 
anything else? What convinced you that you were on the right spiritual path 
with Paganism? (assuming that you are a Pagan of some sort, posting to URP 
and all). If you don't mind me asking, that is :-)

Yowie

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:rbqln31j36rjl6b2dv05p4m7eh2vro54vs@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:26:25 +1100, "Yowie"
>  blethered:
>
>>"Halla"  wrote in message
>>news:caogn3976g2ji7k7p4erv24degvukipt7b@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:14:26 -0600, Gale 
>>> blethered:
>>>
>>>>Halla wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 21:13:36 -0800 (PST), "sent4_777@yahoo.ca"
>>>>>  blethered:
>>>><snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>ONLY the Holy Bible
>>>>>>presents the absolute authority from God that requires us all people
>>>>>>on earth to understand, obey, and seek the Maker, our Lord otherwise
>>>>>>we get eternal punishment and damnation to the lake of fire, as it is
>>>>>>written...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oooookay... any non-frothing Christian-types lurking who want to tell
>>>>> me (in a non-frothing way) where that above paragraph might be true?
>>>>>
>>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>What I don't understand -- within the context and claims of that
>>>>particular writer -- is why certain folks so insistently worship a deity
>>>>who they have defined as patently evil. You want to worship some deity
>>>>that casts poor, puny humans into a 'lake of fire'?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well yeah, I struggle with that meself. Presumably if %Nominated_Deity
>>> does it, it's *not* evil, because said deity says it's not. So...
>>> er... that's OK then. There must be more to it than that, otherwise
>>> *only* idiots would be Christians and that's not the case. I feel I
>>> don't get the true flavour from outside, but I don't want to venture
>>> in too far. :-) I am an interested observer. Well, OK, a nosey
>>> observer.
>>
>>Most weserners are indoctrinated with some form of Christianity from the 
>>day
>>they are born.
>
> Incidentally, are you telling me I am not an outside observer?

well, no-one is, really.  But, yeah, assuming you grew up in the 'Western 
World' you probably accept some of the things that originated within 
Christianity as just plain 'normal' even though they were quite radical at 
the time. (The idea of all people being equal, for example, or a 'day of 
rest' each week for everyone, even slaves)

>>It permeates the culture, the language etc etc. One cannot
>>help but know *something* about it if you live inthe west, even if its a
>>limited or twisted view.
>>
>
> Yebbut indoctrinated how? My family has Christians in it, churchgoers
> and supporters too, my own parents attended church for the minimum
> amount of time to get me christened, can't recall if they married in a
> church (wasn't there at the time, see ;-), but although they might
> have gone to church as children they certainly haven't in years past.
> I don't know what their beliefs are (and I'm nto terribly interested
> in finding out, either). So although I am a product of the west, and
> more particularly the West of Scotland, how have I been indoctrinated
> exactly? I have phrases and attitudes which I know have a churchy
> influence (We're a' Jock Tamson's Bairns, in the name of the Wee Man,
> that sort of thing), but I'm not sure how Christianity of the local
> brand has contributed to my outlook.

I don't have any data on this, but I have a theory (wry smile) that the rise 
in Paganism, in the West, is the rejection of The Church without a rejection 
of the general moral ideals (I mean *very* generally, there). I mean, is 
Wicca becoming more popular in Hindu and Muslim cultures? for example.

You also grew up knowing what Christmas was about (in general, anyway), what 
the Bible is (generally) and some of the rituals that happen in church. It 
happens on TV all the time, its even parodied in The Simpsons. Perhaps its 
less strong in Britain than it is in the USA (and I think its somewhere in 
between where I'm from in Australia) but you can (and did) make the 
observation that what Christians generally say they stand for is not what is 
said in the Bible (especially the Old Testament).  You wouldn't be able to 
make that sort of criticism without being reasonably familiar with 
Christianity.

>>One can grow up actively Christian, and for those, its 'life as normal' 
>>all
>>the way through. Those who 'find' Christianity sometime later tend to (in 
>>my
>>experience) have low self esteem. The low self esteem is needed to accept
>>that they fall short in the eyes of God. They also want to feel better 
>>about
>>themselves, and when they find that Christianity will forgive or 'wash 
>>away'
>>those 'sins', then they accept the message.
>
> OK, how about those with low self esteem who do not pursue religion
> (and in particular Christianity)? I know you're not saying that all
> those with low self esteem convert or relapse or whatever, but why do
> some find religion and not others?

*Shrug*. I've wondered that myself. Scientifically, I wonder if those people 
who find religion (or something that they can throw themselves into *like* a 
religion) have a more developed 'God Spot' in their brain than those who 
don't.

>>Its a psychologically very
>>powerful experience, one that is full of a brighteness, love, hope etc. It
>>is like falling in love.
>>
>
> Another mechanism I don't understand. :-)

Hae you ever fallen bone crunchingly in love and the world has been perfect, 
wonderful and beautiful? Its sorta kinda like that experience. I wonder if 
dropping a large amount of Ecstacy mimics it (I haven't tried E so can't 
tell you)

>>Once they *feel* that, then they know it to be true. After that, they 
>>start
>>accepting the Bible - as they've been told to - as the Word of God, and
>>can -  using that feeling of love and joy that they have and continue to
>>experience - believe pretty much anything that is written about a 'being'
>>they 'know' (through personal experience) to be pure love.
>
> <aware of straying dangerously close to very lofty theology> What *is*
> 'pure love'?

Sheesh, you ask hard questions :-) Again, its sort of an experience, 
possibly a delusion, of perfect inner contentment and acceptance, makes your 
heart sing, etc etc. At least, thats how I understand the experience that 
people seemt o claim is 'pure love'.

>
>>They know, for
>>example, that loving parents have to teach children painful lessons, that
>>loving parents have to punish their children for htem to learn,
>
> The way you say that rather implies that all lessons must be painful.

Ooops, not really what I meant

Just that thats how they get around the Bad Things Happen To Good People 
when a Benevolant God Has The Power To Stop Bad Things Happening dilemma.

But most Christians also have a profound sense (at least when they feel 
'right' with God) that they are *loved* in a very special sort of way.

>
>>and that
>>there is a certain peace and acceptance of Bad Shit Happening when one has
>>faith that a benevolent loving deity is doing it for The Greater Good, 
>>even
>>if you don't happen to understand why said deity is doing (or allowing) 
>>such
>>shitty things to happen right now.
>
> One may have that acceptance without raising a flag for a particular
> deity.

True, but it does make that bitter pill somewhat easier to swallow (at 
least, IMHO) if you put your faith that its 'all going to work out in the 
end' rahter than ust taking it as 'shit happens'.

<snip>

> Sounds more like a jigsaw finally being solved to me. Some folk are
> going to fit into a certain pattern that will not suit others. They're
> lucky if they find the right fit in their life, I suspect most seekers
> don't.

Most people of a particular religion aren't 'seekers' - they just sort of 
accepted it as a matter of their culture and birth. Those who *are* seekers 
usually find a religion that is compatable with their particular cultural 
baggage, so its usually some sort of Christianity and indeed Paganism for us 
in the West in this era (Indian faiths were more popular in the 70's, New 
Age in the 80's and now seems to be Wiccanish Paganism as the new 'not 
Christianity' religion). And seekers don't usually examine *all* 
possibilities at once and compare - they tend to at least 'taste' each one 
seperately. I myself have gone on a fairly convoluted spiritual trek, and 
have found myself straddling Wiccanish neo-Paganism and Quakerism. Yeah, go 
figure.

<snip>

> I have met a few folk who seem to regard paganism as a church without
> walls and that pesky oppressive masculinity. Which sounds pretty much
> like a different type of church to me rather than any flavour of
> paganism I know.

That would be the Llewellyn do it yourself Paganism :-) And it *is* almost 
"Christianity Lite". But it does suggest that many people find 
dissatisfaction within mainstream Christianity as it is, but only want to 
get rid of the bits that are old and distasteful in this modern age, rather 
than rejecting it wholesale.

>>I don't know of anyone who critically analysed the worlds religions and
>>decided, rationally and logically, one that was 'best' or even 'most 
>>fitting
>>for htem' and converted. Usually its an experiential thing.
>
> Well yeah. Is there anything that isn't though?

Science? <g,d,r>

>>Does that help?
>
> A bit, thanks. :-)

Religion is a strange and irrational thing. I always wonder what sort of 
evolutionary purpose it served, because it is *so* illogical.

Yowie

Yowie  wrote:

> pls forgive typos - hard to type well with cat in the way

(Channeled message)

Prrow - hard to type well with human in the way. Meowww-prr
-- 
http://www.decohen.com
Send e-mail to the Reply-To address;
mail to the From address is never read

"Yowie"  wrote in message 
news:5u0tjcF1f84diU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Halla"  wrote in message 
> news:03rln3t3skoldjfb9fhvvaldb7jggihitp@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 09:22:00 +1100, "Yowie"
>>  blethered:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>Your reasons as to why you are Pagan are probably quite similar to the
>>>reasons someone else is a Christian / Buddhist / Hindu / whatever... 
>>>you've
>>>had some sort of experience that convinced you it was right. Otherwise,
>>>surely, we'd all be athiests.
>>
>> Uh. You're not saying that Pagans have to believe in gods, are you?
>
> Nope, not at all (well, not in the 'some guy in the sky' sort of God... 
> but AFAIK, Paganism does generally have a belief in the supernatural to 
> some degree or another). But why *are* you a Pagan rather than a... well, 
> anything else? What convinced you that you were on the right spiritual 
> path with Paganism? (assuming that you are a Pagan of some sort, posting 
> to URP and all). If you don't mind me asking, that is :-)

Are you talking to me or to Halla? :) I'm 
agnostic-for-want-of-a-better-label. Some days it's "agnostic veering 
towards hard atheism", others it's more an attitude of "I don't bother gods 
and they don't bother me".  I post here because it's my home ng, although I 
tend to be away from home a lot ;)

Jani

"Francis Cameron"  wrote in message 
news:5+eRgLBXgjeHFwiy@topdeck.demon.co.uk...
> In message , Jani  
> writes
>>Possibly Buddhism? If you count that as a religion, rather than a 
>>philosophy, that is ...
>
> We owe this situation to Tylor, who was once the Professor of Anthropology 
> at the University of Oxford. He defined religion as the belief in 
> spiritual beings, which is fine as a starter but falls to bits when it 
> comes to being all-inclusive. Or so anthropologists of my acquaintance 
> have said. They, the anthropologists, think of spiritual beings in terms 
> of God, gods, goddesses and others, then go on to say that Buddhists have 
> none of the above and therefore are outside Tylor's category.
>
> I suspect that Tylor really meant supernatural beings, but for some reason 
> chose not to use that label. If he had there would be no problem in 
> accommodating the Buddhists. After all, they believe in reincarnation. 
> Reincarnation requires the existence of spiritual beings in those periods 
> between the physical episodes. Ergo, Buddhism does fit into Tylor's 
> category and Buddhism is therefore a religion.

According to that particular definition, yes. But by the same token, anyone 
who believes in nothing more than the continued existence of a non-physical 
self would be "practising a religion".

Jani

"Yowie"  wrote in message 
news:5tt8caF1elonpU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Jani"  wrote in message 
> news:H7KdnUO_lZOwZ-XaRVnytAA@pipex.net...

[]

>> Possibly Buddhism? If you count that as a religion, rather than a 
>> philosophy, that is ...
>
> In my opinion, its hard to truly follow a 'way of life' when the head 
> knows it but when the heart doesn't also 'know it'. To fully embrace 
> Buddhism, one (IMHO) first needs to *feel* something about Buddhism and 
> indeed Buddha. Otherwise it is just a 'pick and choose' buffet, where most 
> of the pickings are from the Buddhist table but the person isn't an 
> 'active Buddhist' but just another syncretist. Simply following the 
> teaching sof Buddha doesn't make one a Buddhist any more than simply 
> following the teachings of Jesus makes one a Christian. There has to be 
> some sort of *conviction* there, and that happens in the heart, not the 
> head.

As I understand it, some Buddhist paths have the equivalent of "saints" or 
"demigods", but others don't: all that's required is to follow the Way, and 
having "feelings" for Buddha would constitute attachment, and therefore be 
an obstacle.

Jani

In message , Jani 
 writes
>According to that particular definition, yes. But by the same token, 
>anyone who believes in nothing more than the continued existence of a 
>non-physical self would be "practising a religion".

You make a very good point.

-- 
Francis

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 18:42:37 +1100, "Yowie"
 blethered:

>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:03rln3t3skoldjfb9fhvvaldb7jggihitp@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 09:22:00 +1100, "Yowie"
>>  blethered:
>>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>Your reasons as to why you are Pagan are probably quite similar to the
>>>reasons someone else is a Christian / Buddhist / Hindu / whatever... 
>>>you've
>>>had some sort of experience that convinced you it was right. Otherwise,
>>>surely, we'd all be athiests.
>>
>> Uh. You're not saying that Pagans have to believe in gods, are you?
>
>Nope, not at all (well, not in the 'some guy in the sky' sort of God... but 
>AFAIK, Paganism does generally have a belief in the supernatural to some 
>degree or another). But why *are* you a Pagan rather than a... well, 
>anything else? What convinced you that you were on the right spiritual path 
>with Paganism? (assuming that you are a Pagan of some sort, posting to URP 
>and all). If you don't mind me asking, that is :-)

No, I don't, depends if you want the concise answer or the long
rambling one though. ;-)

For myself, I don't know - Paganism as an umbrella term fits better
than any of the churchy terms, and I sort of define as what I'm *not*.
I am not a follower of Jesus, I am not a follower of Yahweh or Jehovah
or whoever, I have little time for following rules handed down from
some ancient book or other (laws, now, that's a little different...
<g> I tend to stick with those). I have no experience of Judaism,
Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism or any other path and very little of
Christianity so I have a sort of animism going on which fits better
with paganism than any other path. 

I've previously wondered here what is spiritual and what is not (and
not, as I first triped, what is spiritualism and what's not...), I
don't actually know if I qualify as being spiritual at all in any
sense other than I try to see things that are really there. <g>

The jury is also out on supernatural matters, depends what you mean by
the word I suppose. All is natural, is it not? <nods in janet's
direction> <:-)

Suppose apart from that I had need of a label to explain that I am
aware of (dimly) and concerned with (vaguely) the world around in a
more than materialistic way. I did think about becoming Wiccan a while
back but decided it's not for me, and since no other more formal path
has appealed or appeared in front of me (and I haven't gone
trail-blazing) I have stuck as yer generic, common or garden Pagan.
Oh, plus I'm in the PF Scotland (sometimes) so I sort of have to say I
am. ;-> If I weren't a Pagan I'd be a Humanist and I don't like humans
much. 

Anyway, perhaps I've been incredibly lucky but I've met more nice[1]
Pagans than I have any other group of folk. ;-)

<looks at previous paragraphs> Phew. Aren't you glad I went for the
concise answer? ;-)

[1] D'you, after I started looking for a description I hit all sorts
of problems. <g> Sane and rational? Er... Nice? Maybe not then...
um... ;-) But you know what I mean. I hope.


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:00:49 -0000, "Jani" 
blethered:

>
>"Yowie"  wrote in message 
>news:5u0tjcF1f84diU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Halla"  wrote in message 
>> news:03rln3t3skoldjfb9fhvvaldb7jggihitp@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 09:22:00 +1100, "Yowie"
>>>  blethered:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>Your reasons as to why you are Pagan are probably quite similar to the
>>>>reasons someone else is a Christian / Buddhist / Hindu / whatever... 
>>>>you've
>>>>had some sort of experience that convinced you it was right. Otherwise,
>>>>surely, we'd all be athiests.
>>>
>>> Uh. You're not saying that Pagans have to believe in gods, are you?
>>
>> Nope, not at all (well, not in the 'some guy in the sky' sort of God... 
>> but AFAIK, Paganism does generally have a belief in the supernatural to 
>> some degree or another). But why *are* you a Pagan rather than a... well, 
>> anything else? What convinced you that you were on the right spiritual 
>> path with Paganism? (assuming that you are a Pagan of some sort, posting 
>> to URP and all). If you don't mind me asking, that is :-)
>
>Are you talking to me or to Halla? :) I'm 
>agnostic-for-want-of-a-better-label. Some days it's "agnostic veering 
>towards hard atheism", 

See, I tend to have a problem with believing in the non-existence of
gods as much as I do with being devoted to one or more in particular.
<shrugs> Weird, huh?

>others it's more an attitude of "I don't bother gods 
>and they don't bother me".  

An attitude I agree with. <g>

>I post here because it's my home ng, although I 
>tend to be away from home a lot ;)

You wanderer you. ;-)


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:13:52 +1100, "Yowie"
 blethered:

>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:rbqln31j36rjl6b2dv05p4m7eh2vro54vs@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 21:26:25 +1100, "Yowie"
>>  blethered:
>>
<snip> (sorry if I got some attribs too)

>>>Most weserners are indoctrinated with some form of Christianity from the 
>>>day
>>>they are born.
>>
>> Incidentally, are you telling me I am not an outside observer?
>
>well, no-one is, really.  But, yeah, assuming you grew up in the 'Western 
>World' you probably accept some of the things that originated within 
>Christianity as just plain 'normal' even though they were quite radical at 
>the time. (The idea of all people being equal, for example, or a 'day of 
>rest' each week for everyone, even slaves)

Good point. I have wondered what our system of law would be like
without some sort of religious backup, or indeed if it is as rooted in
Christianity as some commentators would lead us to believe. Is that
why some people are still described as 'Good Christians' when they've
never really espoused any religious view - because they keep the law
and are nice?

>
>>>It permeates the culture, the language etc etc. One cannot
>>>help but know *something* about it if you live inthe west, even if its a
>>>limited or twisted view.
>>>
>>
>> Yebbut indoctrinated how? My family has Christians in it, churchgoers
>> and supporters too, my own parents attended church for the minimum
>> amount of time to get me christened, can't recall if they married in a
>> church (wasn't there at the time, see ;-), but although they might
>> have gone to church as children they certainly haven't in years past.
>> I don't know what their beliefs are (and I'm nto terribly interested
>> in finding out, either). So although I am a product of the west, and
>> more particularly the West of Scotland, how have I been indoctrinated
>> exactly? I have phrases and attitudes which I know have a churchy
>> influence (We're a' Jock Tamson's Bairns, in the name of the Wee Man,
>> that sort of thing), but I'm not sure how Christianity of the local
>> brand has contributed to my outlook.
>
>I don't have any data on this, but I have a theory (wry smile) that the rise 
>in Paganism, in the West, is the rejection of The Church without a rejection 
>of the general moral ideals (I mean *very* generally, there). I mean, is 
>Wicca becoming more popular in Hindu and Muslim cultures? for example.

I've wondered that too, and suspected not. :-) That's just a suspicion
though. <equally wry g> I've also wondered how much of our morals are
ultimately derived from Christianity, and how much are what might be
called 'common decency'?

>
>You also grew up knowing what Christmas was about (in general, anyway), what 
>the Bible is (generally) and some of the rituals that happen in church. 

True.

>It 
>happens on TV all the time, its even parodied in The Simpsons. Perhaps its 
>less strong in Britain than it is in the USA (and I think its somewhere in 
>between where I'm from in Australia) but you can (and did) make the 
>observation that what Christians generally say they stand for is not what is 
>said in the Bible (especially the Old Testament).  You wouldn't be able to 
>make that sort of criticism without being reasonably familiar with 
>Christianity.
>

Well I might suspect so but I can't call them on it because I have
little knowledge of what Christians are supposed to stand for, I only
know they're supposed to be followers of Christ and that some who
bandy the label about are rather careless with it. Perhaps that's one
of the reasons I say I am a Pagan, too - I have enough respect for the
label 'Christian' not to apply it to myself even for convenience.

>>>One can grow up actively Christian, and for those, its 'life as normal' 
>>>all
>>>the way through. Those who 'find' Christianity sometime later tend to (in 
>>>my
>>>experience) have low self esteem. The low self esteem is needed to accept
>>>that they fall short in the eyes of God. They also want to feel better 
>>>about
>>>themselves, and when they find that Christianity will forgive or 'wash 
>>>away'
>>>those 'sins', then they accept the message.
>>
>> OK, how about those with low self esteem who do not pursue religion
>> (and in particular Christianity)? I know you're not saying that all
>> those with low self esteem convert or relapse or whatever, but why do
>> some find religion and not others?
>
>*Shrug*. I've wondered that myself. Scientifically, I wonder if those people 
>who find religion (or something that they can throw themselves into *like* a 
>religion) have a more developed 'God Spot' in their brain than those who 
>don't.

Could be, suppose we have to wait on the neuroscientists or whoever
deciding that one. ;-)

>
>>>Its a psychologically very
>>>powerful experience, one that is full of a brighteness, love, hope etc. It
>>>is like falling in love.
>>>
>>
>> Another mechanism I don't understand. :-)
>
>Hae you ever fallen bone crunchingly in love and the world has been perfect, 
>wonderful and beautiful? 

Um... <looks blank> Briefly, perhaps. Which seems like a sad sort of
admission to make. I was excrutiatingly smug for ages when I got
together with the husband bloke, does that count? ;-)

>Its sorta kinda like that experience. I wonder if 
>dropping a large amount of Ecstacy mimics it (I haven't tried E so can't 
>tell you)

Dunno, haven't tried it either. :-) But then, would I have a basis of
comparison then? See, now I've got to go and try it just to find out.
;-)

>
>>>Once they *feel* that, then they know it to be true. After that, they 
>>>start
>>>accepting the Bible - as they've been told to - as the Word of God, and
>>>can -  using that feeling of love and joy that they have and continue to
>>>experience - believe pretty much anything that is written about a 'being'
>>>they 'know' (through personal experience) to be pure love.
>>
>> <aware of straying dangerously close to very lofty theology> What *is*
>> 'pure love'?
>
>Sheesh, you ask hard questions :-) 

<produces 'Professional Nosey Person' card> I'd say I'm sorry, but...
;-)

>Again, its sort of an experience, 
>possibly a delusion, of perfect inner contentment and acceptance, makes your 
>heart sing, etc etc. At least, thats how I understand the experience that 
>people seemt o claim is 'pure love'.

Well that's just the thing, experiences are personal and frankly
having your heart sing either sounds like a hormone inbalance or some
seriously high blood pressure. </cynic> ;-)

>
>>
>>>They know, for
>>>example, that loving parents have to teach children painful lessons, that
>>>loving parents have to punish their children for htem to learn,
>>
>> The way you say that rather implies that all lessons must be painful.
>
>Ooops, not really what I meant

I suspected not, somehow.

>
>Just that thats how they get around the Bad Things Happen To Good People 
>when a Benevolant God Has The Power To Stop Bad Things Happening dilemma.

Well yes. Power doesn't imply action, of course, and I wonder if it's
some of the old tales in the older bits of the Bible that have lead
people to believe it does.

>
>But most Christians also have a profound sense (at least when they feel 
>'right' with God) that they are *loved* in a very special sort of way.

Must be nice, mind you. I've experienced something similar myself,
come to think of it, at moments when I needed to be cradled like a
child I have felt that I have been. Perhaps perfect love is giving
without needing in return? And on the other side, receiving without
worrying about having to give? A profound sense of 'It's alright,
really'? ;-)

>
>>
>>>and that
>>>there is a certain peace and acceptance of Bad Shit Happening when one has
>>>faith that a benevolent loving deity is doing it for The Greater Good, 
>>>even
>>>if you don't happen to understand why said deity is doing (or allowing) 
>>>such
>>>shitty things to happen right now.
>>
>> One may have that acceptance without raising a flag for a particular
>> deity.
>
>True, but it does make that bitter pill somewhat easier to swallow (at 
>least, IMHO) if you put your faith that its 'all going to work out in the 
>end' rahter than ust taking it as 'shit happens'.

But again, I can do that without praising (or blaming) deity.
Certainly without public praise, raising of temples, etc. <:->

>
><snip>
>
>> Sounds more like a jigsaw finally being solved to me. Some folk are
>> going to fit into a certain pattern that will not suit others. They're
>> lucky if they find the right fit in their life, I suspect most seekers
>> don't.
>
>Most people of a particular religion aren't 'seekers' - they just sort of 
>accepted it as a matter of their culture and birth. 

My apologies, I didn't mean to imply that all people are seekers. I
meant that of those who *do* seek, not all find what they were looking
for. Or maybe they do but they've also accepted that they're seekers,
so they keep on looking. 

>Those who *are* seekers 
>usually find a religion that is compatable with their particular cultural 
>baggage, so its usually some sort of Christianity and indeed Paganism for us 
>in the West in this era (Indian faiths were more popular in the 70's, New 
>Age in the 80's and now seems to be Wiccanish Paganism as the new 'not 
>Christianity' religion). 

As much as I know of the history of not-Christianity religions I'll
just have to agree with you on this one. :-)

>And seekers don't usually examine *all* 
>possibilities at once and compare - they tend to at least 'taste' each one 
>seperately. 

True.

>I myself have gone on a fairly convoluted spiritual trek, and 
>have found myself straddling Wiccanish neo-Paganism and Quakerism. Yeah, go 
>figure.

Sounds quite rational to me. ;-) But then, I tend to admire Quakers in
general. 

>
><snip>
>
>> I have met a few folk who seem to regard paganism as a church without
>> walls and that pesky oppressive masculinity. Which sounds pretty much
>> like a different type of church to me rather than any flavour of
>> paganism I know.
>
>That would be the Llewellyn do it yourself Paganism :-) 

I assume it's the word 'Llewellyn' that is the derogatory one there?
;-)

>And it *is* almost 
>"Christianity Lite". But it does suggest that many people find 
>dissatisfaction within mainstream Christianity as it is, but only want to 
>get rid of the bits that are old and distasteful in this modern age, rather 
>than rejecting it wholesale.

<nods> 

>
>>>I don't know of anyone who critically analysed the worlds religions and
>>>decided, rationally and logically, one that was 'best' or even 'most 
>>>fitting
>>>for htem' and converted. Usually its an experiential thing.
>>
>> Well yeah. Is there anything that isn't though?
>
>Science? <g,d,r>

Does present the problem of conveying the readings to a human brain
without someone experiencing them though... ;-)

>
>>>Does that help?
>>
>> A bit, thanks. :-)
>
>Religion is a strange and irrational thing. I always wonder what sort of 
>evolutionary purpose it served, because it is *so* illogical.
>

<nods> Some of the things that can be conveyed through religion convey
an advantage - basic things about health and hygience and so on which
would prevent sickness to an extent, things about not bashing your
neighbour on the head (leading to bashings in return from irate
relatives), but certainly the history of Christianity's
(Christianities?) churches seem to me to show that someone along the
way figured out a way to rake in lots of cash as a nice sideline. 

Oh, nearly forgot </cynic> again. ;-)


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

"Yowie"  wrote in message 
news:5u0vdvF1fkkf5U1@mid.individual.net...

[]

> well, no-one is, really.  But, yeah, assuming you grew up in the 'Western 
> World' you probably accept some of the things that originated within 
> Christianity as just plain 'normal' even though they were quite radical at 
> the time. (The idea of all people being equal, for example, or a 'day of 
> rest' each week for everyone, even slaves)

*Does* christianity teach that everyone is equal? I though there was a 
distinction made between those who "accept Christ as Lord" and those who 
don't?

[]

> I don't have any data on this, but I have a theory (wry smile) that the 
> rise in Paganism, in the West, is the rejection of The Church without a 
> rejection of the general moral ideals (I mean *very* generally, there).

There's an interesting book, by someone whose name I have completely 
forgotten, which puts forward the idea that (in the US at least) many people 
left christianity for paganism or newage, but are now coming back to it as 
better-informed or more "liberal" christians. IOW they've rejected the more 
traditional, conservative church ideologies and infrastructures, but their 
paganism was only a temporary foray into "other ways" which they're now 
using to reform or update their original faith.


I mean, is
> Wicca becoming more popular in Hindu and Muslim cultures? for example.

Converting to Wicca from Hinduism or Islam would mean more than changing 
one's personal spiritual beliefs, though. You have to take into account how 
many social / cultural / legal factors are involved, as well. And, since 
neither faith is monolithic, it's probably easier to find a variant of Islam 
or Hinduism which is better suited to the individual's own "way" than to 
reject the entire ideology in favour of another one.

> You also grew up knowing what Christmas was about (in general, anyway), 
> what the Bible is (generally) and some of the rituals that happen in 
> church. It happens on TV all the time, its even parodied in The Simpsons. 
> Perhaps its less strong in Britain than it is in the USA (and I think its 
> somewhere in between where I'm from in Australia) but you can (and did) 
> make the observation that what Christians generally say they stand for is 
> not what is said in the Bible (especially the Old Testament).  You 
> wouldn't be able to make that sort of criticism without being reasonably 
> familiar with Christianity.

Well, Britain has been predominantly Christian for a long time. When 
something is thoroughly imbued in the ideology, it's hard to avoid it - 
daily religious rituals in schools, for instance, or bible stories 
referenced in casual conversation, or assumptions that legislation based on 
Christian moral standards is "right". I grew up in a non-church-going, 
mainly agnostic household, and I *still* got the indoctrination, just from 
turning the TV on or stepping out the door. Halla, being a bit younger than 
me, probably wasn't quite so surrounded by it.

[]


> Religion is a strange and irrational thing. I always wonder what sort of 
> evolutionary purpose it served, because it is *so* illogical.

Religion offers a framework which "makes sense", FSV of "sense", of the 
apparently illogical world around us, and adds community bonding and moral 
dogma - er, guidance - into the mix for good measure. It also ensures that 
leaders will never be short of followers, and vice versa ;-)

Jani

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:bocon3lh6itmub8m6lt9cfe3jgh0cuen9f@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 16:00:49 -0000, "Jani" 
> blethered:

[]

>>Are you talking to me or to Halla? :) I'm
>>agnostic-for-want-of-a-better-label. Some days it's "agnostic veering
>>towards hard atheism",
>
> See, I tend to have a problem with believing in the non-existence of
> gods as much as I do with being devoted to one or more in particular.
> <shrugs> Weird, huh?

Not really .... having *evidence* for one thing can sit quite happily in 
most people's minds alongside *believing* something else.


>>others it's more an attitude of "I don't bother gods
>>and they don't bother me".
>
> An attitude I agree with. <g>

Thought you might ;)


>>I post here because it's my home ng, although I
>>tend to be away from home a lot ;)
>
> You wanderer you. ;-)

Well, you know how undomesticated I am ;-)

Jani

On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:51:07 -0000, "Jani" 
blethered:

>
>"Yowie"  wrote in message 
>news:5u0vdvF1fkkf5U1@mid.individual.net...
<snip>
>
>> Religion is a strange and irrational thing. I always wonder what sort of 
>> evolutionary purpose it served, because it is *so* illogical.
>
>Religion offers a framework which "makes sense", FSV of "sense", of the 
>apparently illogical world around us, and adds community bonding and moral 
>dogma - er, guidance - into the mix for good measure. It also ensures that 
>leaders will never be short of followers, and vice versa ;-)

I'll possibly (ha!) have something to say on the rest of the post in a
little while, however I wanted to reply to this bit because I've just
reached Larousse's Dictionary of World Folklore down off the shelf and
came across this in the introduction:

"Since [folklore] is found in every culture, from the most primitive
to the most sophisticated, it may be assumed to fulfil a universal
need among society. In pre-literate groups folklore may be primarily
the transmission of learned information, a vital part of group
survival." and so on. 

So, is religion simply a form of folklore? Doesn't tell us *why* it's
an important human thing mind you...


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

"Jani"  wrote in message 
news:-aadnVfBCpQDveDanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>
> "Yowie"  wrote in message 
> news:5u0vdvF1fkkf5U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> []
>
>> well, no-one is, really.  But, yeah, assuming you grew up in the 'Western 
>> World' you probably accept some of the things that originated within 
>> Christianity as just plain 'normal' even though they were quite radical 
>> at the time. (The idea of all people being equal, for example, or a 'day 
>> of rest' each week for everyone, even slaves)
>
> *Does* christianity teach that everyone is equal? I though there was a 
> distinction made between those who "accept Christ as Lord" and those who 
> don't?

There are a few examples of Jesus treating non-Jews (or non-Christians) 
equally, or at least, with respect (eg, the good samaritan). There's also 
these passages:

1 Corinthians 12:13
For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, 
slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are 
all one in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 3:11
Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, 
Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Some people take that to mean that only Christians are equal with each 
other, but thats not my interpretation - I read it that *everyone* was made 
by God, therefore *everyone* is equal - including women! A radical thought 
for 2000 years ago. Heck, a radical thought for today!

Of course, inthe Old Testament, such thigns didn't seem to apply, and it was 
perfectly OK - indeed sanctioned and blessed by God to go around beating the 
crap out of your neighbours, killing the men, women and boychidlren, and 
keeping the virgins as spoils of war.

And we don't even begin to talk about 'Church Tradition' such as the 
Crusades or even refusing to allow women and gay people equal rights within 
the church.

But the New testament clearly says that everyone is equal in the eyes of 
God.

<hope you don't mind Bible quotes>

>> I don't have any data on this, but I have a theory (wry smile) that the 
>> rise in Paganism, in the West, is the rejection of The Church without a 
>> rejection of the general moral ideals (I mean *very* generally, there).
>
> There's an interesting book, by someone whose name I have completely 
> forgotten, which puts forward the idea that (in the US at least) many 
> people left christianity for paganism or newage, but are now coming back 
> to it as better-informed or more "liberal" christians. IOW they've 
> rejected the more traditional, conservative church ideologies and 
> infrastructures, but their paganism was only a temporary foray into "other 
> ways" which they're now using to reform or update their original faith.

Heh, sounds like me. I found fundamentalism was starving my brain, looked at 
it critically and jumped allt he way to hard athiesm. Then I found 
Wiccanesque Paganism, found some really good, wholseome, useful things in 
there (probably the lack of dogma and direct relationship to Deity) and once 
I worke dout that I never had any issue with the teachings of Jesus but my 
issues were with the church, I started searching for somethign that took all 
the good things from Paganism but coudl recognise Jesus. Thems the Quakers. 
I still like doing the odd circle, but Quakers (at least the ones I know) 
don't really care whther I do the circle thing or get down on my knees with 
hands clasped together, or do the Hakka - if I find that the best way to 
commune with God, then good luck to me, it seems. Quakers have a great deal 
of respect for an individual's relationship with God, and do not preach. One 
thing I hated about fundism with teh need to convert people - by force if 
necessary.

> I mean, is
>> Wicca becoming more popular in Hindu and Muslim cultures? for example.
>
> Converting to Wicca from Hinduism or Islam would mean more than changing 
> one's personal spiritual beliefs, though. You have to take into account 
> how many social / cultural / legal factors are involved, as well. And, 
> since neither faith is monolithic, it's probably easier to find a variant 
> of Islam or Hinduism which is better suited to the individual's own "way" 
> than to reject the entire ideology in favour of another one.

But Christianity isn't monolithic either. Thats why I contend that 
Paganism - at least the general sort of Llewellyn Paganism, is more of a 
'Christianity Lite' for those who have grown up in culture that has been 
strongly influenced by Christianity but don't actually want to accept all 
the cultural baggage becoming actively Christian involves (and accepting the 
hypocritical and patriachal BS that is involved). It doesn't mean changing 
one's culture or social interactions (at least, not much) whereas converting 
to Islam (for example) is a much more radical step to make - especailly in 
the west today.

>> You also grew up knowing what Christmas was about (in general, anyway), 
>> what the Bible is (generally) and some of the rituals that happen in 
>> church. It happens on TV all the time, its even parodied in The Simpsons. 
>> Perhaps its less strong in Britain than it is in the USA (and I think its 
>> somewhere in between where I'm from in Australia) but you can (and did) 
>> make the observation that what Christians generally say they stand for is 
>> not what is said in the Bible (especially the Old Testament).  You 
>> wouldn't be able to make that sort of criticism without being reasonably 
>> familiar with Christianity.
>
> Well, Britain has been predominantly Christian for a long time. When 
> something is thoroughly imbued in the ideology, it's hard to avoid it - 
> daily religious rituals in schools, for instance, or bible stories 
> referenced in casual conversation, or assumptions that legislation based 
> on Christian moral standards is "right". I grew up in a non-church-going, 
> mainly agnostic household, and I *still* got the indoctrination, just from 
> turning the TV on or stepping out the door. Halla, being a bit younger 
> than me, probably wasn't quite so surrounded by it.

I note that those of us with British and Western European heritage do have 
the advantage of havign easy access to alot of stories and mythologies to 
'reconstruct' Paganism, and Wicca is hevailiy influenced by these stories. 
Asatru (which I know even less about) is clearly heaviliy influenced by 
Norse mythology. One assumes that if we grew up in Turkey, for example, 
which has a secular government but Islam is still the predominant religion, 
we'd be familiar with Islam, but also be familiar with the older stories 
that originated fromt hat region. I wonder what sort of Paganism (if any) 
would sprout from there?

I guess I'm veering into "why and  how does a religion develop and why do 
people believe that particular one rather than another different one" 
territory.

Yowie

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:dpdon39kmn86gqh8691ebn5hokh1cplogl@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:13:52 +1100, "Yowie"
>  blethered:
>
>>"Halla"  wrote in message
 blethered:

<Much snipping>

>>>>Once they *feel* that, then they know it to be true. After that, they
>>>>start
>>>>accepting the Bible - as they've been told to - as the Word of God, and
>>>>can -  using that feeling of love and joy that they have and continue to
>>>>experience - believe pretty much anything that is written about a 
>>>>'being'
>>>>they 'know' (through personal experience) to be pure love.
>>>
>>> <aware of straying dangerously close to very lofty theology> What *is*
>>> 'pure love'?
>>
>>Sheesh, you ask hard questions :-)
>
> <produces 'Professional Nosey Person' card> I'd say I'm sorry, but...
> ;-)

Hey, can I get one of those, too?

>
>>Again, its sort of an experience,
>>possibly a delusion, of perfect inner contentment and acceptance, makes 
>>your
>>heart sing, etc etc. At least, thats how I understand the experience that
>>people seemt o claim is 'pure love'.
>
> Well that's just the thing, experiences are personal and frankly
> having your heart sing either sounds like a hormone inbalance or some
> seriously high blood pressure. </cynic> ;-)

Some say its simply an overdose of endorphins and oxytocin. I'm a bit of an 
oxytocin junkie myself, the world *ought* to be all hugs & puppies (and 
kitties and teddybears and cute well behaved children) etc etc if I had my 
way. :-)

> Must be nice, mind you. I've experienced something similar myself,
> come to think of it, at moments when I needed to be cradled like a
> child I have felt that I have been.

Christians (and indeed other religious people) would explain that as being 
comforted by their Deity. Over in ARWM, I've read several accounts of people 
writing about the hand of the Goddess comforting them in their hour of need.

> Perhaps perfect love is giving
> without needing in return? And on the other side, receiving without
> worrying about having to give? A profound sense of 'It's alright,
> really'? ;-)

I wonder if its not that cuddly warm safe feeling that one had as a baby, 
snuggled into our mother's bosom?

<snip>

>>True, but it does make that bitter pill somewhat easier to swallow (at
>>least, IMHO) if you put your faith that its 'all going to work out in the
>>end' rahter than ust taking it as 'shit happens'.
>
> But again, I can do that without praising (or blaming) deity.
> Certainly without public praise, raising of temples, etc. <:->

Ah, but public praise and raising of temples etc can also be like the 
primitive form of insurance. "Hey, all pwerful being, if I please you, 
you'll protect me from the things I fear, right?"

<snip>

>>That would be the Llewellyn do it yourself Paganism :-)
>
> I assume it's the word 'Llewellyn' that is the derogatory one there?
> ;-)

Indeed. Although I'm probably one myself :-)

>>>>I don't know of anyone who critically analysed the worlds religions and
>>>>decided, rationally and logically, one that was 'best' or even 'most
>>>>fitting
>>>>for htem' and converted. Usually its an experiential thing.
>>>
>>> Well yeah. Is there anything that isn't though?
>>
>>Science? <g,d,r>
>
> Does present the problem of conveying the readings to a human brain
> without someone experiencing them though... ;-)

Eeeep! I'm having flash backs of my University days of a course called 
"Science and Social Studies: The cultural impact of biotechnology" (I only 
did it because it didnt' have any pre-reqs, would give me third year points, 
and fitted in with my time table, not because I thought it sounded even 
remotely interesting. I was wrong of course)

I came into the class as scientist; the rest were sociologists. We had many 
hours of argument - mostly lively, intelligent, passionate and thoroughly 
enjoyable argument.

I woudl still argue that there is one single objective reality and we are 
stuck interpretting it as best we can - being aware that we are as 
observers. The sociologists said there was no such thing as one reality and 
everyone made it up for themselves. It got interesting after that... and 
made me argue that in that case we had no right to treat a person who we 
thought was delusional because their reality was just as valid as ours. 
Although I got my BSc in chemistry, I got my best marks fromt hat course, 
and not coincidentally it was the one I enjoyed the most (but I am still a 
scientist and not a sociologist)

>>>>Does that help?
>>>
>>> A bit, thanks. :-)
>>
>>Religion is a strange and irrational thing. I always wonder what sort of
>>evolutionary purpose it served, because it is *so* illogical.
>>
>
> <nods> Some of the things that can be conveyed through religion convey
> an advantage - basic things about health and hygience and so on which
> would prevent sickness to an extent, things about not bashing your
> neighbour on the head (leading to bashings in return from irate
> relatives), but certainly the history of Christianity's
> (Christianities?) churches seem to me to show that someone along the
> way figured out a way to rake in lots of cash as a nice sideline.
>
> Oh, nearly forgot </cynic> again. ;-)

Isn't the cash making (or at least powerful making) sideline common in every 
well established religion?

I still want an explanation for the the millions of people who swear that 
htey have experienced Deity, have had their life changed by Deity - all very 
different Deitys with different religions attached. is it all the same 
thing? Is the human race just kinda schizophrenic?

Yowie

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:44:45 +1100, "Yowie"
 blethered:

>"Halla"  wrote in message 
>news:dpdon39kmn86gqh8691ebn5hokh1cplogl@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:13:52 +1100, "Yowie"
>>  blethered:
>>
>>>"Halla"  wrote in message
> blethered:
>
><Much snipping>
>
>>>>>Once they *feel* that, then they know it to be true. After that, they
>>>>>start
>>>>>accepting the Bible - as they've been told to - as the Word of God, and
>>>>>can -  using that feeling of love and joy that they have and continue to
>>>>>experience - believe pretty much anything that is written about a 
>>>>>'being'
>>>>>they 'know' (through personal experience) to be pure love.
>>>>
>>>> <aware of straying dangerously close to very lofty theology> What *is*
>>>> 'pure love'?
>>>
>>>Sheesh, you ask hard questions :-)
>>
>> <produces 'Professional Nosey Person' card> I'd say I'm sorry, but...
>> ;-)
>
>Hey, can I get one of those, too?
>

Could do, why? ;-)

>>
>>>Again, its sort of an experience,
>>>possibly a delusion, of perfect inner contentment and acceptance, makes 
>>>your
>>>heart sing, etc etc. At least, thats how I understand the experience that
>>>people seemt o claim is 'pure love'.
>>
>> Well that's just the thing, experiences are personal and frankly
>> having your heart sing either sounds like a hormone inbalance or some
>> seriously high blood pressure. </cynic> ;-)
>
>Some say its simply an overdose of endorphins and oxytocin. I'm a bit of an 
>oxytocin junkie myself, the world *ought* to be all hugs & puppies (and 
>kitties and teddybears and cute well behaved children) etc etc if I had my 
>way. :-)

Well... ooh no. Strangely enough for someone who likes the 'everyone
be excellent to one another' mantra I'm rather concerend with balance,
so if your world was like that I'm afraid I'd be out cutting swathes
through it with various sharp inplements. <:-/ Sorry and all that. ;-)

>
>> Must be nice, mind you. I've experienced something similar myself,
>> come to think of it, at moments when I needed to be cradled like a
>> child I have felt that I have been.
>
>Christians (and indeed other religious people) would explain that as being 
>comforted by their Deity. Over in ARWM, I've read several accounts of people 
>writing about the hand of the Goddess comforting them in their hour of need.

I do describe myself as vaguely religious too. I don't have any
particular religions, or a name for whatever happens to be out there.
I do recognise that feeling though, perhaps I am too
stubborn/proud/both to acknowledge it properly. (I also feel it
*doesn't matter*, we don't *need* to go pinning labels onto something
that apparently just *is*.)

>
>> Perhaps perfect love is giving
>> without needing in return? And on the other side, receiving without
>> worrying about having to give? A profound sense of 'It's alright,
>> really'? ;-)
>
>I wonder if its not that cuddly warm safe feeling that one had as a baby, 
>snuggled into our mother's bosom?

Often described as unconditional love. I think though that perfect
love would not be unconditional, the person receiving it would place
conditions on themself to reflect such a love outwards again because
it *is* perfect. Or maybe not. <grins, shrugs>

>
><snip>
>
>>>True, but it does make that bitter pill somewhat easier to swallow (at
>>>least, IMHO) if you put your faith that its 'all going to work out in the
>>>end' rahter than ust taking it as 'shit happens'.
>>
>> But again, I can do that without praising (or blaming) deity.
>> Certainly without public praise, raising of temples, etc. <:->
>
>Ah, but public praise and raising of temples etc can also be like the 
>primitive form of insurance. "Hey, all pwerful being, if I please you, 
>you'll protect me from the things I fear, right?"

Heh." 'Says who?' <fx:smite> ";-)

>
><snip>
>
>>>That would be the Llewellyn do it yourself Paganism :-)
>>
>> I assume it's the word 'Llewellyn' that is the derogatory one there?
>> ;-)
>
>Indeed. Although I'm probably one myself :-)

Oh me too. <rolls eyes> I do have a Scott Cunningham book of some sort
here. Does it speak better for me that I can't remember which one?
Plus my liking of fuzzy books is well documented - they're pretty. <g>

>
>>>>>I don't know of anyone who critically analysed the worlds religions and
>>>>>decided, rationally and logically, one that was 'best' or even 'most
>>>>>fitting
>>>>>for htem' and converted. Usually its an experiential thing.
>>>>
>>>> Well yeah. Is there anything that isn't though?
>>>
>>>Science? <g,d,r>
>>
>> Does present the problem of conveying the readings to a human brain
>> without someone experiencing them though... ;-)
>
>Eeeep! I'm having flash backs of my University days of a course called 
>"Science and Social Studies: The cultural impact of biotechnology" (I only 
>did it because it didnt' have any pre-reqs, would give me third year points, 
>and fitted in with my time table, not because I thought it sounded even 
>remotely interesting. I was wrong of course)

Heh. I did some philosophy because it sounded interesting. I was
wrong, of course. ;-)[1]

>
>I came into the class as scientist; the rest were sociologists. We had many 
>hours of argument - mostly lively, intelligent, passionate and thoroughly 
>enjoyable argument.
>
>I woudl still argue that there is one single objective reality and we are 
>stuck interpretting it as best we can - being aware that we are as 
>observers. 

<nods> Although of course we can't tell for sure... I think we just
have to agree that there may or may not be something 'real' out there,
and carry on as if there is. ;-)

>The sociologists said there was no such thing as one reality and 
>everyone made it up for themselves. 

Up to a point, yeah. 

>It got interesting after that... and 
>made me argue that in that case we had no right to treat a person who we 
>thought was delusional because their reality was just as valid as ours. 

Again, up to a point. Depends whether they are stuck in a harmful (to
them, or others) reality. It's the idea of Other, isn't it? Dealt with
that a bit in English, and of course philosophy. 'Different bad! Same
good!' and all that.

>Although I got my BSc in chemistry, I got my best marks fromt hat course, 
>and not coincidentally it was the one I enjoyed the most (but I am still a 
>scientist and not a sociologist)

Sociology gets all the good books, have you noticed that? ;-) Perhaps
I should have done that as a subject, seems a good field for nosey
people. 

>
>>>>>Does that help?
>>>>
>>>> A bit, thanks. :-)
>>>
>>>Religion is a strange and irrational thing. I always wonder what sort of
>>>evolutionary purpose it served, because it is *so* illogical.
>>>
>>
>> <nods> Some of the things that can be conveyed through religion convey
>> an advantage - basic things about health and hygience and so on which
>> would prevent sickness to an extent, things about not bashing your
>> neighbour on the head (leading to bashings in return from irate
>> relatives), but certainly the history of Christianity's
>> (Christianities?) churches seem to me to show that someone along the
>> way figured out a way to rake in lots of cash as a nice sideline.
>>
>> Oh, nearly forgot </cynic> again. ;-)
>
>Isn't the cash making (or at least powerful making) sideline common in every 
>well established religion?
>

I expect so. 

>I still want an explanation for the the millions of people who swear that 
>htey have experienced Deity, have had their life changed by Deity - all very 
>different Deitys with different religions attached. is it all the same 
>thing? Is the human race just kinda schizophrenic?
>

We're the beasts that can imagine ourselves and each other and things
that we've never seen - what do you think? :->

Going to look to see if it's still snowing now. :-)


[1] OK that's a slight fib - it was fine until we got to logic, then
my brain melted.


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

"Yowie"  wrote in message 
news:5u52gaF1gc26sU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Jani"  wrote in message 
> news:-aadnVfBCpQDveDanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>> "Yowie"  wrote in message 
>> news:5u0vdvF1fkkf5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> []
>>
>>> well, no-one is, really.  But, yeah, assuming you grew up in the 
>>> 'Western World' you probably accept some of the things that originated 
>>> within Christianity as just plain 'normal' even though they were quite 
>>> radical at the time. (The idea of all people being equal, for example, 
>>> or a 'day of rest' each week for everyone, even slaves)
>>
>> *Does* christianity teach that everyone is equal? I though there was a 
>> distinction made between those who "accept Christ as Lord" and those who 
>> don't?
>
> There are a few examples of Jesus treating non-Jews (or non-Christians) 
> equally, or at least, with respect (eg, the good samaritan). There's also 
> these passages:
>
> 1 Corinthians 12:13
> For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or 
> Greeks, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
>
> Galatians 3:28
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you 
> are all one in Christ Jesus.
>
> Colossians 3:11
> Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, 
> Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

Yet slaves still had to obey their earthly masters, even if they were 
brethren in Christ.
 Thus men and women in Christ must obey the rules for their own gender.

> Some people take that to mean that only Christians are equal with each 
> other, but thats not my interpretation - I read it that *everyone* was 
> made by God, therefore *everyone* is equal - including women! A radical 
> thought for 2000 years ago. Heck, a radical thought for today!

Far too radical and certainly NOT in keeping with Bible teaching.

 " 3 But I would have you know, that the head [Strong's : Chief: Supreme] of 
every man is Christ; and the head [Strong's : Chief: Supreme] of the woman 
is the man; and the head [Strong's : Chief: Supreme] of Christ is God. 4 
Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his 
head. 5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered 
dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For 
if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for 
a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought 
not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but 
the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman; but 
the woman of the man. 9  Neither was the man created for the woman; but the 
woman for the man."
1 Cor 11:3-9 (KJV)

> Of course, inthe Old Testament, such thigns didn't seem to apply, and it 
> was perfectly OK - indeed sanctioned and blessed by God to go around 
> beating the crap out of your neighbours, killing the men, women and 
> boychidlren, and keeping the virgins as spoils of war.

God knows best....in all particular circumstances.

> And we don't even begin to talk about 'Church Tradition' such as the 
> Crusades or even refusing to allow women and gay people equal rights 
> within the church.

Same-sex or hetro fornicators have no part in God's coming Kingdom, like or 
not.
And women are to be silent in the churches as God has commanded.

> But the New testament clearly says that everyone is equal in the eyes of 
> God.

Equal in the promises, but not in status or pecking order before God.
 See above.

> <hope you don't mind Bible quotes>

I Luve um! ......{;o;}

Jeff...
"11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not 
a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but 
the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Tim 2:11-14 (KJV)

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:30:54 +1100, "Yowie"
 blethered:

>"Jani"  wrote in message 
>news:-aadnVfBCpQDveDanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>> "Yowie"  wrote in message 
>> news:5u0vdvF1fkkf5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> []
>>
>>> well, no-one is, really.  But, yeah, assuming you grew up in the 'Western 
>>> World' you probably accept some of the things that originated within 
>>> Christianity as just plain 'normal' even though they were quite radical 
>>> at the time. (The idea of all people being equal, for example, or a 'day 
>>> of rest' each week for everyone, even slaves)
>>
>> *Does* christianity teach that everyone is equal? I though there was a 
>> distinction made between those who "accept Christ as Lord" and those who 
>> don't?
>
>There are a few examples of Jesus treating non-Jews (or non-Christians) 
>equally, or at least, with respect (eg, the good samaritan). There's also 
>these passages:
>
>1 Corinthians 12:13
>For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks, 
>slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.

So there's no distinction apart from all those distinctions?

>
>Galatians 3:28
>There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are 
>all one in Christ Jesus.
>

"Otherwise though..."

>Colossians 3:11
>Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, 
>Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
>
>Some people take that to mean that only Christians are equal with each 
>other, but thats not my interpretation - I read it that *everyone* was made 
>by God, therefore *everyone* is equal - including women! A radical thought 
>for 2000 years ago. Heck, a radical thought for today!

I sorta read it as 'everyone is equally god's
property/creation/concern [delete as applicable]' rather than being a
comment on how people were supposed to treat one another in every day
life. 

>
>Of course, inthe Old Testament, such thigns didn't seem to apply, and it was 
>perfectly OK - indeed sanctioned and blessed by God to go around beating the 
>crap out of your neighbours, killing the men, women and boychidlren, and 
>keeping the virgins as spoils of war.

I see that sort of thing as an example of how the religion changed to
fit the society of the day, there are some people who like to try and
claim that it has all been set down in a certain way since the
beginning and that none of it contradicts other bits and so on. Does
knowing that attitudes have changed even within the lifetime of one's
religion mean that one has a wider problem with the religion? I
wouldn't have thought so, but mentioning that sort of thing to some
does seem to be heard as criticism.

>
>And we don't even begin to talk about 'Church Tradition' such as the 
>Crusades or even refusing to allow women and gay people equal rights within 
>the church.

Within the anywhere, really. 

>
>But the New testament clearly says that everyone is equal in the eyes of 
>God.

God's not the one handing down orders at the office though, now is he?
;->

>
><hope you don't mind Bible quotes>
>
>>> I don't have any data on this, but I have a theory (wry smile) that the 
>>> rise in Paganism, in the West, is the rejection of The Church without a 
>>> rejection of the general moral ideals (I mean *very* generally, there).
>>
>> There's an interesting book, by someone whose name I have completely 
>> forgotten, which puts forward the idea that (in the US at least) many 
>> people left christianity for paganism or newage, but are now coming back 
>> to it as better-informed or more "liberal" christians. IOW they've 
>> rejected the more traditional, conservative church ideologies and 
>> infrastructures, but their paganism was only a temporary foray into "other 
>> ways" which they're now using to reform or update their original faith.
>
>Heh, sounds like me. I found fundamentalism was starving my brain, looked at 
>it critically and jumped allt he way to hard athiesm. 

You have a scale then? 
'Fundamentalist-----------------------------------------Hard Atheism'?
Made me think now, which is unfair when I am uncaffeinated. ;-) I
think I'd put fundamentalism and hard atheism next to each other, and
my scale would have fluffy-funny-newage on the other end of the scale.
<g>

>Then I found 
>Wiccanesque Paganism, found some really good, wholseome, useful things in 
>there (probably the lack of dogma and direct relationship to Deity) and once 
>I worke dout that I never had any issue with the teachings of Jesus but my 
>issues were with the church, I started searching for somethign that took all 
>the good things from Paganism but coudl recognise Jesus. 

Heh. From what I've heard of the teachings of Jesus there's nowt wrong
with them at all. I can acknowledge that without doing anything else
with the fact. :-)

>Thems the Quakers. 
>I still like doing the odd circle, but Quakers (at least the ones I know) 
>don't really care whther I do the circle thing or get down on my knees with 
>hands clasped together, or do the Hakka - if I find that the best way to 
>commune with God, then good luck to me, it seems. Quakers have a great deal 
>of respect for an individual's relationship with God, and do not preach. 

I've read a bit about some Quakers in history, by golly they can be
right stubborn if they feel they have to be. 

>One 
>thing I hated about fundism with teh need to convert people - by force if 
>necessary.

That doth indeed sucketh mightily.

<snip>

Sorry, can't brain today, I have teh dumb. Or a cold. One of the two. 

>
>I guess I'm veering into "why and  how does a religion develop and why do 
>people believe that particular one rather than another different one" 
>territory.

Well go on then. :-) <waits> 


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."

In message , Yowie 
 writes
>There are a few examples of Jesus treating non-Jews (or non-Christians)
>equally, or at least, with respect (eg, the good samaritan). There's also
>these passages:
>
>1 Corinthians 12:13
>For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or Greeks,
>slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
>
>Galatians 3:28
>There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are
>all one in Christ Jesus.
>
>Colossians 3:11
>Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian,
>Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

=====================================================

If I may so, gently: these are not the words of Jesus. They are the 
words of Paul of Tarsus.

-- 
Francis Cameron
Oxford

On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:13:52 +1100, "Yowie"
 wrote:

>Religion is a strange and irrational thing. I always wonder what sort of 
>evolutionary purpose it served, because it is *so* illogical.

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, which I read over the New Year
while staying with a friend in Edinburgh, has a go at this.
Unfortunately I can't remember what conclusion, if any, he comes to.
This probably says something about the sort of Hogmanay I had.

I was, actually, surprised to find that I agreed with a great deal of
what he says in the book, though he tends to labour all his points too
much for my taste, and he has occasional odd lapses of logic.  But
it's certainly worth reading.

-- 

Wood Avens

"Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth
should that mean that it is not real?"

spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:hvcqn35ou3gnrg3h309spv4f3b3dndte8g@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:51:07 -0000, "Jani" 
> blethered:
>
>>
>>"Yowie"  wrote in message
>>news:5u0vdvF1fkkf5U1@mid.individual.net...
> <snip>
>>
>>> Religion is a strange and irrational thing. I always wonder what sort of
>>> evolutionary purpose it served, because it is *so* illogical.
>>
>>Religion offers a framework which "makes sense", FSV of "sense", of the
>>apparently illogical world around us, and adds community bonding and moral
>>dogma - er, guidance - into the mix for good measure. It also ensures that
>>leaders will never be short of followers, and vice versa ;-)
>
> I'll possibly (ha!) have something to say on the rest of the post in a
> little while, however I wanted to reply to this bit because I've just
> reached Larousse's Dictionary of World Folklore down off the shelf and
> came across this in the introduction:
>
> "Since [folklore] is found in every culture, from the most primitive
> to the most sophisticated, it may be assumed to fulfil a universal
> need among society. In pre-literate groups folklore may be primarily
> the transmission of learned information, a vital part of group
> survival." and so on.
>
> So, is religion simply a form of folklore? Doesn't tell us *why* it's
> an important human thing mind you...

I'd say folklore is a part of religion - possibly an essential part? is 
folklore the same as myth? - but not the *only* part.  I think you have to 
take into account the community function of religion, as well as individual 
"spirituality" or "belief" or whatever.

Jani

"Yowie"  wrote in message 
news:5u52gaF1gc26sU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Jani"  wrote in message 
> news:-aadnVfBCpQDveDanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>
>> "Yowie"  wrote in message 
>> news:5u0vdvF1fkkf5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> []
>>
>>> well, no-one is, really.  But, yeah, assuming you grew up in the 
>>> 'Western World' you probably accept some of the things that originated 
>>> within Christianity as just plain 'normal' even though they were quite 
>>> radical at the time. (The idea of all people being equal, for example, 
>>> or a 'day of rest' each week for everyone, even slaves)
>>
>> *Does* christianity teach that everyone is equal? I though there was a 
>> distinction made between those who "accept Christ as Lord" and those who 
>> don't?
>
> There are a few examples of Jesus treating non-Jews (or non-Christians) 
> equally, or at least, with respect (eg, the good samaritan). There's also 
> these passages:
>
> 1 Corinthians 12:13
> For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or 
> Greeks, slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
>
> Galatians 3:28
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you 
> are all one in Christ Jesus.
>
> Colossians 3:11
> Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, 
> Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.

But Paul is addressing *christians*, there. The reason there's no 
distinction is *because* they're christians. The Greeks, Jews, barbarians, 
etc, still exist, and are not considered "equal".


> Some people take that to mean that only Christians are equal with each 
> other, but thats not my interpretation - I read it that *everyone* was 
> made by God, therefore *everyone* is equal - including women! A radical 
> thought for 2000 years ago. Heck, a radical thought for today!

I think the closest you can get to women being "equal" in the christian 
scriptures is that the woman's role in the domestic / private sphere should 
be more highly respected; there's little to suggest that women should have 
the same political voice in the public sphere as men have (keeping silent in 
church being a pretty obvious example, there).
>
> Of course, inthe Old Testament, such thigns didn't seem to apply, and it 
> was perfectly OK - indeed sanctioned and blessed by God to go around 
> beating the crap out of your neighbours, killing the men, women and 
> boychidlren, and keeping the virgins as spoils of war.

OTOH, isn't it the Jewish scriptures which acknowledge the importance of the 
female principle, and Wisdom as feminine?

> And we don't even begin to talk about 'Church Tradition' such as the 
> Crusades or even refusing to allow women and gay people equal rights 
> within the church.

Depends on the denomination. As far as I know, RCC and Orthodox don't allow 
women priests, f'r instance, but the Anglican church does (and Anglicans can 
be quite "traditional" in other respects).

>
> But the New testament clearly says that everyone is equal in the eyes of 
> God.
>
> <hope you don't mind Bible quotes>

Not at all, but I don't think those particular ones prove your point ;)

>
>>> I don't have any data on this, but I have a theory (wry smile) that the 
>>> rise in Paganism, in the West, is the rejection of The Church without a 
>>> rejection of the general moral ideals (I mean *very* generally, there).
>>
>> There's an interesting book, by someone whose name I have completely 
>> forgotten, which puts forward the idea that (in the US at least) many 
>> people left christianity for paganism or newage, but are now coming back 
>> to it as better-informed or more "liberal" christians. IOW they've 
>> rejected the more traditional, conservative church ideologies and 
>> infrastructures, but their paganism was only a temporary foray into 
>> "other ways" which they're now using to reform or update their original 
>> faith.
>
> Heh, sounds like me. I found fundamentalism was starving my brain, looked 
> at it critically and jumped allt he way to hard athiesm. Then I found 
> Wiccanesque Paganism, found some really good, wholseome, useful things in 
> there (probably the lack of dogma and direct relationship to Deity) and 
> once I worke dout that I never had any issue with the teachings of Jesus 
> but my issues were with the church, I started searching for somethign that 
> took all the good things from Paganism but coudl recognise Jesus. Thems 
> the Quakers.

It never ceases to amuse me that George Fox had his famous vision on the top 
of Pendle Hill - which is far better known in Britain for being the home of 
the Lancashire witches :)


> I still like doing the odd circle, but Quakers (at least the ones I know) 
> don't really care whther I do the circle thing or get down on my knees 
> with hands clasped together, or do the Hakka - if I find that the best way 
> to commune with God, then good luck to me, it seems. Quakers have a great 
> deal of respect for an individual's relationship with God, and do not 
> preach. One thing I hated about fundism with teh need to convert people - 
> by force if necessary.

So, would you consider yourself a Quaker Christian, if you *had* to have a 
label?

>> I mean, is
>>> Wicca becoming more popular in Hindu and Muslim cultures? for example.
>>
>> Converting to Wicca from Hinduism or Islam would mean more than changing 
>> one's personal spiritual beliefs, though. You have to take into account 
>> how many social / cultural / legal factors are involved, as well. And, 
>> since neither faith is monolithic, it's probably easier to find a variant 
>> of Islam or Hinduism which is better suited to the individual's own "way" 
>> than to reject the entire ideology in favour of another one.
>
> But Christianity isn't monolithic either.

True, but in most western countries converting from Christianity to Wicca, 
for instance, wouldn't involve the kind of *cultural* upheaval that it would 
in an Islamic or Hindu society. Christianity might be a strong influence on 
law, social mores and so on, but it's not an integral, inseparable part of 
them.


Thats why I contend that
> Paganism - at least the general sort of Llewellyn Paganism, is more of a 
> 'Christianity Lite' for those who have grown up in culture that has been 
> strongly influenced by Christianity but don't actually want to accept all 
> the cultural baggage becoming actively Christian involves (and accepting 
> the hypocritical and patriachal BS that is involved). It doesn't mean 
> changing one's culture or social interactions (at least, not much) whereas 
> converting to Islam (for example) is a much more radical step to make - 
> especailly in the west today.

I was looking at it from the other way around (converting out of Islam, 
instead of to). But, yes, I agree that christianity-with-tits is a hell of a 
soft option, and something of an insult to genuine Wiccans, as well.


>>> You also grew up knowing what Christmas was about (in general, anyway), 
>>> what the Bible is (generally) and some of the rituals that happen in 
>>> church. It happens on TV all the time, its even parodied in The 
>>> Simpsons. Perhaps its less strong in Britain than it is in the USA (and 
>>> I think its somewhere in between where I'm from in Australia) but you 
>>> can (and did) make the observation that what Christians generally say 
>>> they stand for is not what is said in the Bible (especially the Old 
>>> Testament).  You wouldn't be able to make that sort of criticism without 
>>> being reasonably familiar with Christianity.
>>
>> Well, Britain has been predominantly Christian for a long time. When 
>> something is thoroughly imbued in the ideology, it's hard to avoid it - 
>> daily religious rituals in schools, for instance, or bible stories 
>> referenced in casual conversation, or assumptions that legislation based 
>> on Christian moral standards is "right". I grew up in a non-church-going, 
>> mainly agnostic household, and I *still* got the indoctrination, just 
>> from turning the TV on or stepping out the door. Halla, being a bit 
>> younger than me, probably wasn't quite so surrounded by it.
>
> I note that those of us with British and Western European heritage do have 
> the advantage of havign easy access to alot of stories and mythologies to 
> 'reconstruct' Paganism, and Wicca is hevailiy influenced by these stories.

Could you elaborate on that?

> Asatru (which I know even less about) is clearly heaviliy influenced by 
> Norse mythology. One assumes that if we grew up in Turkey, for example, 
> which has a secular government but Islam is still the predominant 
> religion, we'd be familiar with Islam, but also be familiar with the older 
> stories that originated fromt hat region. I wonder what sort of Paganism 
> (if any) would sprout from there?

Well, Islam has its own brand of "pagan", which as I understand it is 
pre-Mohammedan beliefs and practices. So presumably any kind of "Islamic 
paganism" would come from those roots. I don't know, that's an interesting 
point.

>
> I guess I'm veering into "why and  how does a religion develop and why do 
> people believe that particular one rather than another different one" 
> territory.

Has there ever been a religion which didn't develop because of political and 
economic factors? I think it *always* comes down to swaying public opinion, 
one way or another.

Jani

"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist"  wrote in 
message news:eXlfj.27010$KC3.13313@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...

[]

> Jeff...
> "11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer 
> not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in 
> silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve. 14 And Adam was not 
> deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression." 1 Tim 
> 2:11-14 (KJV)

You won't get very far with that here, Jeff ;)

Jani

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:fj9sn3hd9dd1228fr81cpfgerh26gr8027@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:30:54 +1100, "Yowie"
>  blethered:

[]

>>Of course, inthe Old Testament, such thigns didn't seem to apply, and it 
>>was
>>perfectly OK - indeed sanctioned and blessed by God to go around beating 
>>the
>>crap out of your neighbours, killing the men, women and boychidlren, and
>>keeping the virgins as spoils of war.
>
> I see that sort of thing as an example of how the religion changed to
> fit the society of the day, there are some people who like to try and
> claim that it has all been set down in a certain way since the
> beginning and that none of it contradicts other bits and so on. Does
> knowing that attitudes have changed even within the lifetime of one's
> religion mean that one has a wider problem with the religion? I
> wouldn't have thought so, but mentioning that sort of thing to some
> does seem to be heard as criticism.

Are we still on christianity here? Because if not, I'd suspect you of 
lurking in some the places wot I lurk ;-)



> You have a scale then?
> 'Fundamentalist-----------------------------------------Hard Atheism'?
> Made me think now, which is unfair when I am uncaffeinated. ;-) I
> think I'd put fundamentalism and hard atheism next to each other, and
> my scale would have fluffy-funny-newage on the other end of the scale.
> <g>

Heh. Nice to know I'm at the same end of the scale whichever phase I'm in ;)


>>Then I found
>>Wiccanesque Paganism, found some really good, wholseome, useful things in
>>there (probably the lack of dogma and direct relationship to Deity) and 
>>once
>>I worke dout that I never had any issue with the teachings of Jesus but my
>>issues were with the church, I started searching for somethign that took 
>>all
>>the good things from Paganism but coudl recognise Jesus.
>
> Heh. From what I've heard of the teachings of Jesus there's nowt wrong
> with them at all. I can acknowledge that without doing anything else
> with the fact. :-)

That was my earlier point. Christians are (supposedly) distinguished from 
everyone else because they accept Christ as Lord, and hence the doctrine of 
salvation. I was most intrigued to learn that for *some* people (mentioning 
no names, since apparently my posts here are Being Watched, ooh scary), it 
doesn't matter what they believe or don't believe, as long as they identify 
as christians.

[]

> Sorry, can't brain today, I have teh dumb. Or a cold. One of the two.

Here ya go. Hot toddy, heavy on the whisky: doesn't matter if it's teh dumb 
or teh cold, after a couple of these, you won't care anyway.

Jani

"Wood Avens"  wrote in message 
news:t9nsn3tld10ts0b3n3loi36qst6gtujjqf@4ax.com...

[]
> I was, actually, surprised to find that I agreed with a great deal of
> what he says in the book, though he tends to labour all his points too
> much for my taste, and he has occasional odd lapses of logic.  But
> it's certainly worth reading.

I like Dawkins, he always vaguely reminds me of Douglas Adams' non-fiction 
twin ;) And a lot of what he says seems to have the underlying, exasperated 
agenda of "OK, if I'm wrong, *prove* that I'm wrong, don't just flap 
mindlessly and squawk at me!"

Jani

On 2008-01-05, Jani  wrote:

> I  like Dawkins,  he always  vaguely  reminds me  of Douglas  Adams'
> non-fiction twin ;)

Interestingly  the two were  good friends.   Even more  interesting is
Adams' description of reading _The Selfish Gene_:

    ... one  of those absolutely  shocking moments of  revelation when
    you understand that the world is fundamentally different from what
    you thought it  was. ... I'm hesitating to use  the word, but it's
    almost like a religious experience.

Regards, 

Jeremy Henty

"Jeremy Henty"  wrote in message 
news:slrnfo05ls.2u1.onepoint@omphalos.onepoint...
> On 2008-01-05, Jani  wrote:
>
>> I  like Dawkins,  he always  vaguely  reminds me  of Douglas  Adams'
>> non-fiction twin ;)
>
> Interestingly  the two were  good friends.   Even more  interesting is
> Adams' description of reading _The Selfish Gene_:
>
>    ... one  of those absolutely  shocking moments of  revelation when
>    you understand that the world is fundamentally different from what
>    you thought it  was. ... I'm hesitating to use  the word, but it's
>    almost like a religious experience.

Is that in Salmon? It sounds familiar, but I've only read Salmon once, so 
everything except whodunnit whooshed over my head and is awaiting the second 
reading.

Jani
(still finding new things in music videos, never mind books)

"Halla"  wrote in message 
news:fj9sn3hd9dd1228fr81cpfgerh26gr8027@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 08:30:54 +1100, "Yowie"
>  blethered:
>
>>"Jani"  wrote in message
>>news:-aadnVfBCpQDveDanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@pipex.net...
>>>
>>> "Yowie"  wrote in message
>>> news:5u0vdvF1fkkf5U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>> []
>>>
>>>> well, no-one is, really.  But, yeah, assuming you grew up in the 
>>>> 'Western
>>>> World' you probably accept some of the things that originated within
>>>> Christianity as just plain 'normal' even though they were quite radical
>>>> at the time. (The idea of all people being equal, for example, or a 
>>>> 'day
>>>> of rest' each week for everyone, even slaves)
>>>
>>> *Does* christianity teach that everyone is equal? I though there was a
>>> distinction made between those who "accept Christ as Lord" and those who
>>> don't?
>>
>>There are a few examples of Jesus treating non-Jews (or non-Christians)
>>equally, or at least, with respect (eg, the good samaritan). There's also
>>these passages:
>>
>>1 Corinthians 12:13
>>For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body-whether Jews or 
>>Greeks,
>>slave or free-and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.
>
> So there's no distinction apart from all those distinctions?
>
>>
>>Galatians 3:28
>>There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you 
>>are
>>all one in Christ Jesus.
>>
>
> "Otherwise though..."
>
>>Colossians 3:11
>>Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian,
>>Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.
>>
>>Some people take that to mean that only Christians are equal with each
>>other, but thats not my interpretation - I read it that *everyone* was 
>>made
>>by God, therefore *everyone* is equal - including women! A radical thought
>>for 2000 years ago. Heck, a radical thought for today!
>
> I sorta read it as 'everyone is equally god's
> property/creation/concern [delete as applicable]' rather than being a
> comment on how people were supposed to treat one another in every day
> life.

Fair enough. The Bible is very open to interpretation. No doubt I am putting 
my opwn biases onto it, too.

>
>>
>>Of course, inthe Old Testament, such thigns didn't seem to apply, and it 
>>was
>>perfectly OK - indeed sanctioned and blessed by God to go around beating 
>>the
>>crap out of your neighbours, killing the men, women and boychidlren, and
>>keeping the virgins as spoils of war.
>
> I see that sort of thing as an example of how the religion changed to
> fit the society of the day, there are some people who like to try and
> claim that it has all been set down in a certain way since the
> beginning and that none of it contradicts other bits and so on. Does
> knowing that attitudes have changed even within the lifetime of one's
> religion mean that one has a wider problem with the religion? I
> wouldn't have thought so, but mentioning that sort of thing to some
> does seem to be heard as criticism.

I dunno - I guess it depends which way around you wanna play a "book" 
religion. Some people think that the Bible is the unalterable word of God 
and any deviation from what is written in said 2000+ year old document is 
heresy, and others s