Piscivore
Smelling fishy
The GM said:
Or where a definition is necessarily final. How many Oxford Dictionary editions are there, again?
"As it harm none, do what you will"
- Thread starter CFLarsen
- Start date
Or where a definition is necessarily final. How many Oxford Dictionary editions are there, again?
Z
Variable Constant
The GM said:
So Clausy is not a true Skeptic, then?
Did he leave us? And just when I had found all that evidence (Internet evidence, but still) up there. Oh well.
Z
Variable Constant
Well, 'tis only 1800 here, but as I was enjoying debating Claus - in spite of his fallacies - and he appears to be absent - I think it's time for Civ III.
Later, dudez!
Later, dudez!
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
I see Claus is still asking for names, while refusing to provide the same type of evidence..
We need a name of a professed Wiccan who interprets the rede in the same way as you do?
We need a name of a professed Wiccan who interprets the rede in the same way as you do?
Piscivore
Smelling fishy
Diogenes said:
Heh, Claus MacCarthy?
zaayrdragon said:
I was hoping for something more like this, but if all you have is a local yobbo.... Not convincing.
zaayrdragon said:
But no evidence, then.
zaayrdragon said:
I refer to my posts.
zaayrdragon said:
How can you have something as basic as "Do no harm, etc", if it isn't final? There is nothing final in Wicca?
zaayrdragon said:
But your claim cannot be checked.
zaayrdragon said:
Can you also name him, so we can check it?
Z
Variable Constant
Yep - just like most folks, even Wiccans don't know much about their own credo. But, then, many of them still thing Gardner invented the whole thing, too.
Nice data-mining, by the way.
Anyway, you're welcome to whatever interpretation of this advice you like. To further discuss this with you would be fruitless. Evidence has been presented, but is not of the quality/quantity/content you desire. Well, frankly, I'm not overly obsessed about the whole affair. I don't really care if the blue fairy dropped out of the sky and gave the Rede to Wiccans, or if Gardner made the whole mess up; I don't really care what the history of it was, or whether there are a dozen flying Popes doing weddings in Vegas.
What I care about, is being happy, being free, and not causing too much friction along the way.
Since you have only demonstrated a closed mind during this thread - since, no matter what is presented to you, it is never enough and never correct - you have earned a rare and unusual status among those I deal with. You may step beside your moral and mental peers, 1inChrist, Riddick, and Hammegk. Your pedantism has bored me for the last time.
Such a pity.
Nice data-mining, by the way.
Anyway, you're welcome to whatever interpretation of this advice you like. To further discuss this with you would be fruitless. Evidence has been presented, but is not of the quality/quantity/content you desire. Well, frankly, I'm not overly obsessed about the whole affair. I don't really care if the blue fairy dropped out of the sky and gave the Rede to Wiccans, or if Gardner made the whole mess up; I don't really care what the history of it was, or whether there are a dozen flying Popes doing weddings in Vegas.
What I care about, is being happy, being free, and not causing too much friction along the way.
Since you have only demonstrated a closed mind during this thread - since, no matter what is presented to you, it is never enough and never correct - you have earned a rare and unusual status among those I deal with. You may step beside your moral and mental peers, 1inChrist, Riddick, and Hammegk. Your pedantism has bored me for the last time.
Such a pity.
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
Still no names from Claus, of Wiccans who claim that the Wiccan Rede is talking about bacteria and grass..
Chirrrrrrrp.....
Chirrrrrrrp.....
Z
Variable Constant
I may have Clausy on ignore, but I still think there's a couple of interesting things to be discussed, for those of you who are able to think and listen and do your own footwork, instead of relying on others to do it for you.
This idea about the Sedevacantist church got me thinking a bit: What makes a valid church? Claus' response about Pope Pius XIII came across as very insulting to that church. "Oh, a loclal. That don't count." But it does count, doesn't it, as a religion? They are a breakaway church, following all Catholic rules and processes, up to Vatican II. In their eyes, in fact, they are following a truer version of Catholicism than the current Italian mob are. Who is Claus to say they don't count? Who's to say they aren't right?
But when you get right down to it, almost every religion is valid in its own right - as valid as any other, at least. And if another religion has a pope too, then that makes two popes.
Heck, according to the Discordian crowd, there's roughly six billion Popes. So I guess every married Roman Catholic priest has a Pope's blessing!
Aside from all that, though, it's pretty clear Claus is about as informed on religion as lifegazer is on science or 1inChrist on the Bible: namely, he has some slight general knowledge, and nothing more. And I really pity him, because he obviously needs to discuss religion - to debunk it, if he can - and clearly lacks the tools to do so. I mean, five minutes of internet research, and he would have avoided making a total fool of himself.
In a way, his central point - that the Wiccan Rede, as taken literally, is an untenable position (is that the right word?) - is true. But every rule, every law, every moral is in the same boat, to one degree or another. And at least the Wiccan Rede doesn't try to say it's a law. Yes, some Wiccan churches do try to apply it as a law; but not all, and certainly not those operated by educated and well-informed Wiccans. Many Wiccans also believe that rites, rituals, and spells have to be done precisely, formulaicly, with exact tools and proper intonations, etc. But at the core, that's not a central property of Wicca.
Wicca is about taking personal responsibility for your faith. We have priests and priestesses, but we don't need them to commune with the Divine. We don't need to appeal to clergy in little booths for forgiveness for our sins. We accept that if we do wrong, we'll pay for it.
The Rede isn't about bacteria or field mice or people's feelings; it's about personal responsibility. And it's advice, not law - no matter what Claus or anyone else has to say about it - somewhat like Proverbs. Certainly, there are very few churches who take every single bit of advice in the Bible as law - that, too, would be an impossible position, considering.
...
Then there's the whole 'Gimme a name' routine. Did he, or did he not, ask for a name, so that he could verify the claim? The first name I gave him, I couldn't verify myself - and said so. So I did what I felt was the honorable thing, admitted this, and then found not one, but three websites with extensive info on married Roman Catholic priests. Did Claus do as he claimed he wanted to do, and research these sites himself? No - he simply scoffed and demanded more in-depth evidence.
I don't think anyone on an internet forum is going to fax Claus certificates and documents just to prove a point. If he's all-fired intent on knowing whether it's true or not, he could contact some of these priests and demand evidence for himself. But it's a matter of public record, really - not too difficult to discover, if that was his real intent.
But that isn't it, is it? He's not here to admit that he might have been wrong. He's not here to listen to evidence or facts or anything else. He's here to make fun of believers, of woos, and do his best to smear them in any way he can, short of outright slander. It's pretty pathetic, when other non-believers, skeptics, and atheists are telling him he's wrong, and he still can't accept that.
I really pity him. He's locked into a vicious, close-minded cycle of contempt and hate. Sure, there's no reason he has to respect people who believe things that are clearly false. But does that also give him the right to completely disrespect those who are telling him things for which evidence exists? He could read those passages listed on the link about Jesus and the New Covenant for himself, and come to his own decision - but he'd rather scoff. He could look up the Roman Catholic position on marriage and priests for himself - but he'd rather scorn. He could research the meaning of an archaic term like 'Rede' and learn that it's not a law, but a piece of advice - but he'd rather criticize.
These are the reasons he is now on ignore. If he had actually looked at the presented material, and found flaws then, I might have continued the discussion. But he's built his strawman, and he really, REALLY wants to see it burn. That's all good and well - enjoy your flames, Claus. I'm too cool to burn.
Oh, and those links to Wiccan sites - Did I, or did I not already admit that Wiccans interpret the Rede in many different ways?
Oh well. Whatever.
OK, I'm done with my rant. It just steams me to have to deal with ignorant bigots. Sorry, everyone else. Let's see if we can't get discussion back on track, OK?
This idea about the Sedevacantist church got me thinking a bit: What makes a valid church? Claus' response about Pope Pius XIII came across as very insulting to that church. "Oh, a loclal. That don't count." But it does count, doesn't it, as a religion? They are a breakaway church, following all Catholic rules and processes, up to Vatican II. In their eyes, in fact, they are following a truer version of Catholicism than the current Italian mob are. Who is Claus to say they don't count? Who's to say they aren't right?
But when you get right down to it, almost every religion is valid in its own right - as valid as any other, at least. And if another religion has a pope too, then that makes two popes.
Heck, according to the Discordian crowd, there's roughly six billion Popes. So I guess every married Roman Catholic priest has a Pope's blessing!
Aside from all that, though, it's pretty clear Claus is about as informed on religion as lifegazer is on science or 1inChrist on the Bible: namely, he has some slight general knowledge, and nothing more. And I really pity him, because he obviously needs to discuss religion - to debunk it, if he can - and clearly lacks the tools to do so. I mean, five minutes of internet research, and he would have avoided making a total fool of himself.
In a way, his central point - that the Wiccan Rede, as taken literally, is an untenable position (is that the right word?) - is true. But every rule, every law, every moral is in the same boat, to one degree or another. And at least the Wiccan Rede doesn't try to say it's a law. Yes, some Wiccan churches do try to apply it as a law; but not all, and certainly not those operated by educated and well-informed Wiccans. Many Wiccans also believe that rites, rituals, and spells have to be done precisely, formulaicly, with exact tools and proper intonations, etc. But at the core, that's not a central property of Wicca.
Wicca is about taking personal responsibility for your faith. We have priests and priestesses, but we don't need them to commune with the Divine. We don't need to appeal to clergy in little booths for forgiveness for our sins. We accept that if we do wrong, we'll pay for it.
The Rede isn't about bacteria or field mice or people's feelings; it's about personal responsibility. And it's advice, not law - no matter what Claus or anyone else has to say about it - somewhat like Proverbs. Certainly, there are very few churches who take every single bit of advice in the Bible as law - that, too, would be an impossible position, considering.
...
Then there's the whole 'Gimme a name' routine. Did he, or did he not, ask for a name, so that he could verify the claim? The first name I gave him, I couldn't verify myself - and said so. So I did what I felt was the honorable thing, admitted this, and then found not one, but three websites with extensive info on married Roman Catholic priests. Did Claus do as he claimed he wanted to do, and research these sites himself? No - he simply scoffed and demanded more in-depth evidence.
I don't think anyone on an internet forum is going to fax Claus certificates and documents just to prove a point. If he's all-fired intent on knowing whether it's true or not, he could contact some of these priests and demand evidence for himself. But it's a matter of public record, really - not too difficult to discover, if that was his real intent.
But that isn't it, is it? He's not here to admit that he might have been wrong. He's not here to listen to evidence or facts or anything else. He's here to make fun of believers, of woos, and do his best to smear them in any way he can, short of outright slander. It's pretty pathetic, when other non-believers, skeptics, and atheists are telling him he's wrong, and he still can't accept that.
I really pity him. He's locked into a vicious, close-minded cycle of contempt and hate. Sure, there's no reason he has to respect people who believe things that are clearly false. But does that also give him the right to completely disrespect those who are telling him things for which evidence exists? He could read those passages listed on the link about Jesus and the New Covenant for himself, and come to his own decision - but he'd rather scoff. He could look up the Roman Catholic position on marriage and priests for himself - but he'd rather scorn. He could research the meaning of an archaic term like 'Rede' and learn that it's not a law, but a piece of advice - but he'd rather criticize.
These are the reasons he is now on ignore. If he had actually looked at the presented material, and found flaws then, I might have continued the discussion. But he's built his strawman, and he really, REALLY wants to see it burn. That's all good and well - enjoy your flames, Claus. I'm too cool to burn.
Oh, and those links to Wiccan sites - Did I, or did I not already admit that Wiccans interpret the Rede in many different ways?
Oh well. Whatever.
OK, I'm done with my rant. It just steams me to have to deal with ignorant bigots. Sorry, everyone else. Let's see if we can't get discussion back on track, OK?
Still no evidence.
However, it would be courteous of you to allow me to address your points, instead of merely talking to me.
By putting me on ignore because you can't provide evidence of your own claims is hardly productive. You don't want debate (anymore), you want to pontificate.
You are afraid that your points will be met with scrutiny, so you simply close your ears to that.
Why don't you open a blog instead? There, you can rant all you like, but you won't have to pretend to be open to scrutiny, when it is clear that you are not.
However, it would be courteous of you to allow me to address your points, instead of merely talking to me.
By putting me on ignore because you can't provide evidence of your own claims is hardly productive. You don't want debate (anymore), you want to pontificate.
You are afraid that your points will be met with scrutiny, so you simply close your ears to that.
Why don't you open a blog instead? There, you can rant all you like, but you won't have to pretend to be open to scrutiny, when it is clear that you are not.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
zaayrdragon said:
I think everyone has their own religion, whether they realize it or not. Some of them may agree, or at least think they do, and thus they can band together and act collectively as a religion....but that doesn't make their beliefs any more legitimate than others'. In fact, I'd say established religions are slightly less legitimate, because they don't require individual thought (although certainly followers of established religions can, but they aren't forced to). A unique-to-one-person religion requires the believer to think for himself a bit.
Plus, I doubt that all the followers of a religion actually believe all the same things, whether they know it or not.
I doubt the nature of the universe is open to a referendum, so having strength of numbers on the side of a particular set of beliefs is pretty meaningless. Apart from all the social, economic, and political clout, I mean. And being able to have bigger church picnics.
Z
Variable Constant
TragicMonkey said:
Good points.
'Wicca' is a very broad term that includes both followers of establishment - Dianics and Gardnerians come to mind - and 'unique to one' believers. It also includes closet followers - Wiccans that we refer to as 'read-it-in-a-book' Wiccans. These are the ones who buy the latest Silver Ravenwolf book and practice it to the letter, without thought, but claim to be taking personal responsibility for their faith.
Might as well write a Wiccan Bible, huh?
The tradition I am associated with is very loose in its 'establishment'. There are a core of basic concepts to learn, which mainly entails tradition history, basic New Age concepts like crystals and psychicism, and a few ritual formats. But at the same time, there is an overriding edict to seek your own way, to write your own rituals, to use your own tools - or none at all, of course. There's a dress code for the clergy, but it applies only rarely. More of an, 'If you'd like, you can do this' attitude.
Even so, there are some who try to blindly follow. There's a constant barrage of questions for the church leaders about process and format and exact wordings. And a definite air of disappointment when the answer is, 'It's your thing, you figure it out.'
BTW, I have a selfish and immature request: if Larsen finally provides his evidence (and, yes, a few web-page links would suffice) of Wiccans who follow the letter of the Rede precisely and literally, would someone mind quoting it? Then I'll have good reason for taking him off ignore and continuing the discussion with him. Otherwise - I did my part, he fell through - end of discussion. Thanks!