Inara - a Wiccan perspective
POSTED BY: incongresswiththebeast
UPDATED: Friday, May 12, 2006 15:14
VIEWED: 21618
PAGE 5 of 10
Quote:
Originally posted by ThePistonEngine:
You refer to the lack of Pagan texts.
I know that you didn't say this, but I really don't want to confer with BB. Just thought I'd address it.
There is actually a number of base texts that Pagans can work from. I know of Llewellyn's Sourcebook Series, there is probably others. One of which is sitting on my bookshelf, "Three Books Of Occult Philosophy" by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. It was written in the late 15th/early 16th century.
I've only gone through a portion myself, but it is an interesting read
Interestingly enough Agrippa also believed that Christians could practice magick and still be good with God. Something that early Christians actually did without reservation.
At any rate, just thought I'd point out that there are a number of base texts for Pagans.
----
"We're in a giant car heading into a brick wall at 100 miles/hr and everybody's arguing about where they want to sit."
-David Suzuki
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Oh? So now you know I'm the type to complain to get you kicked off. First I'm the "don't give a shit about God one way or the other" type, then I'm the "lets silence this dude type." "
That is awe inspiring illogic. The term "non-sequitur" commonly translates in formal logic as "it does not follow", which is the perfect description of what you've done here. It doesn't follow that if you don't give a shit about religion (something that I merely guessed at idly) that you don't have other prickish qualities. Why would it?
"I believe every post I have made has challenged you to respond, and therefore I really do feel you should be allowed to speak your piece"
And its funny you mention too, because it just doesn't flow off you. You seem the type to demand
someone else shut up people you don't like.
"Maybe you actually have perfectly legitimate grounds for belittling Wiccans and not oftering any backing other than trying to be funny and poke fun"
My God, I've never met so many people that can't understand the word "fun"! I was having fun making fun! And it wasn't like he made some assertion on the matter, what is there to attack?
Well no, I guess that's not true- there was all the prostitute talk. But that was kinda boring for me so I ignored it. It's not a crime to avoid talking philosophy once in a while: I do it enough in my daily life to be sick of it by the weekend.
Firefly and this area is how I chill. Well, that and hard drugs. And by hard I mean injecting Clorox into my eyes. And juggling puppies for hard cash at the Whiskey Go-Go. But that's a whole other subject.
"Well, I'm glad your high sense of intellect only allows you to respond to the most carefully groomed of sentences"
I can't help it if your post was boring. I'm sorry, I was bored- the thing was just bland. Blah blah, you think I'm arrogant. I get it. Condescensding- right. I understand. No good, a stinker. What's the word...pretentious? Yes, I understand.
And notice I responded to virtually every sentence of other posts. There's a hint in there somewhere, if'n you wanna find it.
(oh, as a side issue- I just now saw your post beginning with the sentence "Ok, my last post was written as Bierce posted his last, so I feel the need to respond", so I'm apparently not answering or reading you in order anymore. So all this post was in reference to is the last post of mine you referenced)
"PROVE IT. Refute my arguments, which until very recently have been made against your ideas, not you"
What argument? To my knowledge, you've not said a thing EXCEPT to attack me as opposed to my ideas. Please tell me the hidden genius I missed, I wanna hear it.
You did, however, give a single sentence that deserves refutation, and it is this:
"I was merely calling to your attention that living in the "Land of the Free and Home of the Brave" doesn't give you special priveledge to give unruly and disrespectful opinions"
Actually, that's exacti-fucking-lutely what free speech gives me; special privelage for disrespectful and unruly opinions. I can't even think of a better reason for free speech. I like it so much I'm going to pop it into my next article on the subject. And, I hasten to note, every nasty regime in history has used EXACTLY that same excuse to deny free speech to people it doesn't like. If I only slightly suspected you were the type to get others to stop speech before, I HIGHLY suspect it now.
"I suspect you feel you have absolutely nothing to prove to me, I'm nothing but a screenname on a website"
Ding ding ding! A prize for that man! Did you clue into that secret knowledge when I said as much earlier? You perceptive type you!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I really should go back and read your other earlier posting before going to this one, but oh well. Anyway.
"You see Bierce, your last post is exactly what torques people like me. You talk down to this person as if you are a parent explaining something to a child"
You know, this is true. I can't deny it. That is actually a valid criticism. And I don't even have the excuse of of being a teacher because I was like this BEFORE I taught.
One day I wasn't thinking and when my girlfriend said "I did good" I corrected her before I thought about it: "It's 'I did well'. Now say that again correctly".
She was walking away and her back was turned and she just froze. I think my balls actually said "you're on your own, dude. Don't involve us" and retreated up into my aorta. To this day the right side of my body feels numb and I now hear the color red.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"That is awe inspiring illogic. The term 'non-sequitur' commonly translates in formal logic as 'it does not follow', which is the perfect description of what you've done here. It doesn't follow that if you don't give a shit about religion (something that I merely guessed at idly) that you don't have other prickish qualities. Why would it? "
I was merely reiterating bad assumptions you have made of me. If you failed to recognize your own ideas in the sentance, no fault on me.
Again, you tell me what I seem to demand. You think I want people to shut you up. No! I want you to shut yourself up!
Tell me, how do you find it fun, in response to a post noting parallels between a faith and a character, to belittle that faith? Did you honestly think you'd get a "ROTFLMAO"? Your fun seems to be much at the expense of others.
My arguments have been very clearly exactly why you are, as you so nicely point out, pretentious. They have evolved, even adding some historical context. But the main crux is "You have no special insight to judge the religion of others based on your theological learnings, your experiance you often profess to, and your keenness on logic."
Notice I said "special". We all have insight, we all have experiance. But nothing makes your especially able, or especially unbiased, which you make yourself out to be.
The fact that you use philophers who wrote in the height of religious tyranny as your cornerstones of logic is laughable. They're as biased as anyone else.
Umm, I don't believe I mentioned Freedom of Speech per se. But yes, since that's the broader spectrum this particular point falls under, we'll go with it.
Freedom of Speech means the government can't silence you or coerce your enunciations. Period, end of point. It doesn't mean any opinion you want to state is a priveledge to you, as if it should not be attacked, which was exactly your implication I responded to. Yes, my quote, out of context, is fairly barbaric. Take it in context, and it's simply facing you with your unwillingness to back yourself up. Rather, you threw up the "Freedom of Speech" shield. Freedom of Speech protects you from Uncle Sam, not from my counter points.
_____________
Carry the Nuttin'
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"There is actually a number of base texts that Pagans can work from. I know of Llewellyn's Sourcebook Series, there is probably others. One of which is sitting on my bookshelf, "Three Books Of Occult Philosophy" by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. It was written in the late 15th/early 16th century"
Those are what are called "secondary sources" and reconstructions in theology. You have no primary texts. That was my point. There are no actual Wiccans around because the religion died some jillion years ago, just a vaguely reconfigured new religion called "Wicca" with an extremely tenuous link to an older real religion (or, rather, four). Most everything substantial in the earlier religion is probably gone and permenantly lost to time. There is not a single founding or primary text in modern Wicca (and its unlikely there ever was one, but not impossible: most practices and stories were probably traditions and oral practices permenantly destroyed by a certain monotheism).
Although there isn't much to go on, if you ever get a chance, you should read Ceaser on it: he had interesting things to say about the Gauls and was a pretty perceptive guy when it came to their religious practices. He noticed stuff, which is a pretty impressive find in the 'pre-standardized history' eras. He wasn't Thucidides or anything, but you might be interested in his thoughts on Gaulish mumbo-jumbo.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All very fine historically, but I fail to see how any of this means their any less meaningful, spiritual, or enlightened than the Bible?
Because there is distinguishable break in the history? Because It's a recreated faith? I don't understand how those distinctions put it on a different level than the bible.
We're actually getting into an intellectual discussion. I'm almost enjoying it.
Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
"There is actually a number of base texts that Pagans can work from. I know of Llewellyn's Sourcebook Series, there is probably others. One of which is sitting on my bookshelf, "Three Books Of Occult Philosophy" by Henry Cornelius Agrippa of Nettesheim. It was written in the late 15th/early 16th century"
Those are what are called "secondary sources" and reconstructions in theology. You have no primary texts. That was my point. There are no actual Wiccans around because the religion died some jillion years ago, just a vaguely reconfigured new religion called "Wicca" with an extremely tenuous link to an older real religion (or, rather, four). Most everything substantial in the earlier religion is probably gone and permenantly lost to time. There is not a single founding or primary text in modern Wicca (and its unlikely there ever was one, but not impossible: most practices and stories were probably traditions and oral practices permenantly destroyed by a certain monotheism).
Although there isn't much to go on, if you ever get a chance, you should read Ceaser on it: he had interesting things to say about the Gauls and was a pretty perceptive guy when it came to their religious practices. He noticed stuff, which is a pretty impressive find in the 'pre-standardized history' eras. He wasn't Thucidides or anything, but you might be interested in his thoughts on Gaulish mumbo-jumbo.
_____________
Carry the Nuttin'
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I was merely reiterating bad assumptions you have made of me."
No you weren't, you were conflating them as if they were mutually exclusive propositions, not ticking them off seperately. This raises the distinct possibility that you can't even read what you wrote, a disturbing enough quality.
"Again, you tell me what I seem to demand. You think I want people to shut you up. No! I want you to shut yourself up!"
Your sentences are so entertaining sometimes.
"Tell me, how do you find it fun, in response to a post noting parallels between a faith and a character, to belittle that faith?"
And AGAIN you want me to explain the concept of "fun" to you! It's like a thing with you! I have this vision of you hunched over a computer with a frown, furiously typing.
"My arguments have been very clearly exactly why you are, as you so nicely point out, pretentious"
You delved into the "why"? I thought it was just bald assertion stated over and over and over and over (pant pant) and over and over. I hadn't realized you'd explained why, I missed it. Why?
"Notice I said "special". We all have insight, we all have experiance blah blah".
Oh god, it's the 'we all have assholes and they all stink' lecture: if you think you're going to bore me to death, you're sadly mista...hmm. Maybe you will succeed after all.
"Umm, I don't believe I mentioned Freedom of Speech per se."
So we can talk about it but not refer to it? You save my life from boredom implosion with your, um, "colorful" logic.
"It doesn't mean any opinion you want to state is a priveledge to you, as if it should not be attacked, which was exactly your implication I responded to."
Not only was it NOT my implication, I clearly stated what my real motivation was. And we're back at the mysterious "fun" concept yet again: I'm responding to you not because I don't expect to be attacked, but BECAUSE it delights me that you're attacking and I like to engage. This is fun for me, I smile when I'm typing. This thing where you make up that I don't want you to respond? It's all in your head, dude. You made it up, like playtime.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"All very fine historically, but I fail to see how any of this means their any less meaningful, spiritual, or enlightened than the Bible?"
What the fuck is it with you and making up things that I never said? Listen, cause this is the last time I'm gonna say it before boredom truly sets in: this religion is funny and silly on its own terms, by its own logic. It will never need goth chicks and quartz crystals to make it stupid 'cause it was already there.
You see, the stupidity here is what scientists call "multi-causal", a fancy way of saying there's a whole slew of reasons not to respect it! Why, it's dumb because of it's metaphysical assumptions, the people who worship it, AND the fact that it, you know, technically isn't actually Wicca.
Or, let's put it in terms you understand: maybe you should have an open mind about the many reasons to laugh at it.
"We're actually getting into an intellectual discussion. I'm almost enjoying it."
You know, sometimes I get glimpses of you as a real grim fella. It interests me to think: I wonder how many people here would ACTUALLY get along with the rough and tumble types of the Firefly crew. I don't think everyone would: you, for instance, I could see getting killed by any number of the main male leads you quote.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You misinterpreted what I wrote. I was ticking them off. Oh, was it the structure that threw you off? Did I use a cliche sentance structure in a non cliche way? Excuse me.
Again, instead of actually refuting something, you just mention how it bores you to death. Well, ok. I'll have to accept it. Heck, you've done similar tactics enough already. I guess I'm a slow learner.
"I think instead I'll just say what I want when I want to and otherwise act under the (admittedly incorrect) assumption that I live in a free country."
If that isn't throwing up the shield of Freedom of Speech instead of actually being responsible for what you say, I don't know what is.
Why do people think it's alright to say stupid things because it's writ in a document? It's not. It's simply much more wrong for the government to stop them.
And yes, it clearly delights you at my apparent frustration. I have certainly spoken vehemently enough for you to think I may actually be angry. I think I even tweaked your goad a couple of times. THAT's the problem, you take delight in eliciting other's emotional responses. That's not why I jumped on you from the beginning, back then I thought you might actually be talking from some sort of philosophical context that you were too good to share. Now I realize, as you have all but enunciated yourself, that your full intent is to laugh when other people feel anger.
If I said to you "You didn't make me angry," you probably wouldn't believe me. Because that's ok, that'll be the third bad assumption you've made about my character tonight.
Quote:
Originally posted by BitterBierce:
"I was merely reiterating bad assumptions you have made of me."
No you weren't, you were conflating them as if they were mutually exclusive propositions, not ticking them off seperately. This raises the distinct possibility that you can't even read what you wrote, a disturbing enough quality.
"Again, you tell me what I seem to demand. You think I want people to shut you up. No! I want you to shut yourself up!"
Your sentences are so entertaining sometimes.
"Tell me, how do you find it fun, in response to a post noting parallels between a faith and a character, to belittle that faith?"
And AGAIN you want me to explain the concept of "fun" to you! It's like a thing with you! I have this vision of you hunched over a computer with a frown, furiously typing.
"My arguments have been very clearly exactly why you are, as you so nicely point out, pretentious"
You delved into the "why"? I thought it was just bald assertion stated over and over and over and over (pant pant) and over and over. I hadn't realized you'd explained why, I missed it. Why?
"Notice I said "special". We all have insight, we all have experiance blah blah".
Oh god, it's the 'we all have assholes and they all stink' lecture: if you think you're going to bore me to death, you're sadly mista...hmm. Maybe you will succeed after all.
"Umm, I don't believe I mentioned Freedom of Speech per se."
So we can talk about it but not refer to it? You save my life from boredom implosion with your, um, "colorful" logic.
"It doesn't mean any opinion you want to state is a priveledge to you, as if it should not be attacked, which was exactly your implication I responded to."
Not only was it NOT my implication, I clearly stated what my real motivation was. And we're back at the mysterious "fun" concept yet again: I'm responding to you not because I don't expect to be attacked, but BECAUSE it delights me that you're attacking and I like to engage. This is fun for me, I smile when I'm typing. This thing where you make up that I don't want you to respond? It's all in your head, dude. You made it up, like playtime.
_____________
Carry the Nuttin'
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I dunno, I always thought of Inara's sex thing as being more of the "Eastern Lovemaking" philosophy. Not as metaphysical as wicca, but more practical like from the Kama-Sutra and the way Geisha were trained to entertain men.
I read the Kama-Sutra once to try and understand women. It didn't help.
Have you ever:
Used your teeth as wire strippers?
Given yourself stitches?
Made improvised munitions with no base supplies?
Pissed in a canteen?
Gone a month without bathing?
If so, you MIGHT just be a !HOOAH MOTHERF*CKER!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME