Hello everyone

Status
Not open for further replies.

Thunder's Muse

Well-known member
The Bible is a black and white book. You must be nicer than God (Enyart)


haha! Nice try.

Why do you keep quoting Enyart? Can't you answer for yourself?

My life experiences have made me who I am. I believe God was with me the whole time and that He will use those experiences for His glory. I believe God would be happy with the person I am. I certainly like who I am.



Are we all to be fat cherubs with rosy cheeks and harps at our side? I thought you said you were "flexible". Tell me about this "flexible" deity.


No, I don't believe we have to be 'fat cherubs'. But I don't believe it's our place to condemn another. That's God's job. Not yours. Nice slide away from my original point, too. Maybe this is exactly what I was talking about.


Why do you think God made the prophet Jeremiah and the prophet Ezekiel so different?


Enlighten me.


God understands people. He has also made it clear that sin and rebellion are not the right response to him (Ec 7:9; Mt 5:22; Ro 12:19). Are you more understanding than God?


sigh* Try as hard as you like, you are not going to get me to say 'I am more anything than God.' Perhaps you haven't had need of an understanding God.


He loves people. He hates pride (Mal 1:3). Sometimes he breaks hearts to make them new (Is. 48:4).


Preaching to the choir, man. I have been broken in more ways than is fair to place on one person.
 

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
He wouldn't want to be followed. Any good pastor will point to Christ not himself.

You are correct, but he is gathering a following and leading them down a narrow path!

Was it you that said we aren't supposed to center our lives around our accomplishments? Or do you believe that salvation is through works? What do you think he is doing?

A lot of Evangelists are doing the same thing.

What is it that this Antichrist is supposed to do when he arrives?
 
Last edited:

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
"Why do you keep quoting Enyart? Can't you answer for yourself?"
I think he answered this topic well.

[Jeremiah/Ezekiel] "Enlighten me."
For a body to function it needs different parts. They body of Christ is the same. Some are hearts (tender loving care). Some are kidneys (confronting and removing poison) [(Ro 12:5) Geraci].

"Perhaps you haven't had need of an understanding God...I have been broken in more ways than is fair to place on one person."
Pain is common to all men (Rom. 8:22).
 

Thunder's Muse

Well-known member
I think he answered this topic well.


I'm not discussing this with him. I'm discussing it with you.


I was getting breakfast for my family this morning and I thought, are there not examples in the Bible, where God has been merciful and forgiving? In fact, is that not the whole point to His plan?


For a body to function it needs different parts. They body of Christ is the same. Some are hearts (tender loving care). Some are kidneys (confronting and removing poison) [(Ro 12:5) Geraci].


I would think that a balance of both is the best way.

When I arrived here on TOL, I was very angry at God. Although, I had many excuses for it and many 'reasons' to deny His love for me, the fact remains that behind that anger, was deep hurt.

Now, there were those who mocked me, attacked me. All this did was harden my heart even more.

There were also, those who befriended me and gained my trust. Over time, we had discussions and they explained things to me. At times they were direct and to the point, telling me the truths I needed to hear. The point is, I was more open to the things they had to say because they were willing to listen to me and understand where I was coming from. They planted the seed and allowed God to do the rest.



Pain is common to all men (Rom. 8:22).


Indeed it is.
 

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
Response to comment [from a Christian]: [Nicer Than God by Enyart] "I'm not discussing this with him. I'm discussing it with you."
A few housekeeping items: If I post a link, in general it means that I think it contains important information that the reader may wish to consider.

"I thought, are there not examples in the Bible, where God has been merciful and forgiving? In fact, is that not the whole point to His plan?"
True, his plan is merciful. But you acted as if God's character has changed from the Old Testament to the New. It hasn't. In the flood, for example, God's judgment upon sin and the wicked is revealed as well as his mercy (the waters receded and Noah's family was provided with a new world filled with new possibilities [Gen. 6–8]).

God is love and God is wrath. Both are right. If God is not just, he is not good. But God is just. Therefore, he is good.
[The body of Christ] "I would think that a balance of both is the best way."
That's why God makes people different. If a person is stubborn, God can raise up another person just as stubborn to get his point across if need be.

The prophet Ezekiel did not even mourn the death of his wife (Ezek. 24:16–27). The watching world considered this unusual behavior; but God had a different plan and purpose for him.

Jeremiah was the "weeping prophet". He lamented over: Josiah (2 Chr. 35:25), the prosperity of the wicked (Jer. 12:1–6), the desolation of God’s heritage (Jer. 12:7–13), and over Jerusalem (Jer. 4:14–18; 8; 9:1; 10:19–22; 18:11). Swanson, J., & Nave, O. (1994). New Nave's. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.


"...behind [my] anger, was deep hurt."
You would not be the first person hurt by the world, other people, or God himself. Worship is loving God when you hurt.

"...[T]here were those who mocked me, attacked me. All this did was harden my heart even more."
J. Vernon McGee said that the heart is like clay or wax. When exposed to light, it hardens or melts.

"They planted the seed and allowed God to do the rest."
The seed isn't the problem. The soil is often the problem (Mt 13:3-23; Lu 8:5-15).
 

lucy

New member
J. Vernon McGee said that the heart is like clay or wax. When exposed to light, it hardens or melts.


Ooooh, I like Dr. J. Vernon McGee. I can actually agree with you on this point. Do you have his 5 year through the Bible Mp3 downloads? They are free. He is a very non-judgmental fellow in the way he talks. He doesn't shirk the truth, but neither does talk in that preachy condemning voice most radio preachers use. Shame he's dead now tho - I would have liked to have heard him in person sometime. I would recommend his sermons and commentaries to anyone interested in going through the Bible verse by verse. I don't always agree 100% on what he says, but he was a very well educated intellectual man, even tho he sounds like a real hick on the radio, haha !

God is Loving and Just, not wrath, I think you mean. The wrath thing is part of being just. When someone breaks a law, justice is that the person pay the price (justice demands payment) of breaking the law. The wrath part is whatever is dictated by the law as the restitution for breaking the law or the consequence for breaking the law. Mercy is the part of God that allows God to not have to take out his wrath on us - Since his wrath (the payment for breaking God's law) was taken out on Christ, we can now experience His Love and do not experience His wrath.

I love the song by the group Mercy Me -- "Mercy Came Running". It talks about how once God's justice was satisfied in Christ on the Cross, His mercy came running to us to restore us.
Another great song about God's mercy is by Philips, Craig and Dean - the "In Christ Alone" medley from the album "Let the Worshippers Arise".
 

serpentdove

BANNED
Banned
"Do you have his 5-year through the Bible Mp3 downloads?"
Yes. I podcast him daily.

"He is a very non-judgmental fellow in the way he talks."
Everyone seems to comment on his country drawl. Some are put off by it, but he eventually wins them over.

"Shame he's dead..."
Yes, he went home to be with the Lord in 1988.
"I would recommend his sermons and commentaries to anyone interested in going through the Bible verse by verse."
Me too! He's wonderful.

"I don't always agree 100% on what he says..."
I suggested that Knight start a thread for Topic of the Day on that--Who do you like? And where do you disagree? I only disagree with J. Vernon when it comes to young earth creation. But then again, he did not have the information that we have today. C-14 molecule found in dinosaur bones! I think that today he would be a young earth creationist.

"...[H]e was a very well educated intellectual man, even though he sounds like a real hick on the radio, haha!"
That's right. And he used to say, he that "puts the cookies on the bottom shelf where the kiddies can get at them." He had a simple, clear way of bringing scripture to life.

"God is Loving and Just, not wrath, I think you mean."
No. God is wrath (Ro 1:18). Wrath is just. God is good because he is just. His wrath is not capricious. As J. Vernon used to say, God cannot lower the bar of heaven's standards. He cannot slip you in by the cover of night. Sin must be judged. God's judgment reveals his righteousness (Ro 2:5).
 

lucy

New member
I don't think the words "wrath" and "just" have the same meaning. That's all I was trying to point out.

wrath= 2 retributory punishment for an offense or crime: divine chastisement

justice = 1a: the maintenance or administration of what is just, esp. by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments. 2a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair

(from Websters Dictionary)

Rom. 1:18 ... For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness.....

Does not say that God IS wrath, but that he HAS wrath. That wrath is against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men WHO SUPPRESS the truth. I take it to mean there are some folks who know the truth out there and suppress the truth. That's what I take it that upsets God so much. When I read in the OT about the stuff God was really mad about, it seems to have to do with the oppression of others. Like Is. 5:7 talks about (and many other scriptures). God looked for justice among the Israelites but all He saw was oppression. Every time God brought some other nation against the Israelites one of the reasons was that they were NOT taking care of the poor, rather they were oppressing their fellow Israelites who were weaker or poor, etc. That seemed to be the result of idolatry. If they were worshiping God, the result was they took care of each other. If they were going along with what their neighbors were doing, then oppression and taking advantage of the weak was the rule of the day. Kinda sounds like today you know. Americans (and others) are into worshiping the almighty dollar, power, status, etc. and the result is acting in the best interest of "numero uno" and to heck with everybody else.

I think as Christians we get so focused on the wrath of God itself we forget to look at why He has this wrath. It is because He is just, yes. And His desire is that we care for each other and not take advantage of others. I think most would agree with the 10 commandments if you take them apart and look at them in the light of "what hurts my neighbor" and "what helps my neighbor or shows love towards my neighbor"? Have you ever heard of the GoFish guys? They are great! They produce children's songs for Bible school, Sunday School, etc. and are very jazzy and rock-n-roll in their music. My kids in Sunday School love them. Anyway, they have a great song on the 10 commandments and when you listen to it, it really makes a lot of sense. It's like the playground rules for adults. This is how you play nice with others. Ok, I think I've rattled on enough now....
 
Last edited:

Thunder's Muse

Well-known member
A few housekeeping items: If I post a link, in general it means that I think it contains important information that the reader may wish to consider.


You didn't post a link. You just said you must be nicer than God (Enyart).


A few housekeeping items of my own: I don't like to be misquoted or have my posts taken out of context. If you can't debate this above board, then we have nothing left to say.



True, his plan is merciful.


Amen to that!


But you acted as if God's character has changed from the Old Testament to the New.


Did I now? Please, by all means, show me where I have 'acted' this way.


It hasn't.


I am well aware of this.


In the flood, for example, God's judgment upon sin and the wicked is revealed as well as his mercy (the waters receded and Noah's family was provided with a new world filled with new possibilities [Gen. 6–8]).



Yes and didn't God also say He would never do that again?


God is love and God is wrath. Both are right. If God is not just, he is not good. But God is just. Therefore, he is good.


LOL! Say that 10 times, fast.



That's why God makes people different. If a person is stubborn, God can raise up another person just as stubborn to get his point across if need be.

The prophet Ezekiel did not even mourn the death of his wife (Ezek. 24:16–27). The watching world considered this unusual behavior; but God had a different plan and purpose for him.

Jeremiah was the "weeping prophet". He lamented over: Josiah (2 Chr. 35:25), the prosperity of the wicked (Jer. 12:1–6), the desolation of God’s heritage (Jer. 12:7–13), and over Jerusalem (Jer. 4:14–18; 8; 9:1; 10:19–22; 18:11). Swanson, J., & Nave, O. (1994). New Nave's. Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.


Ok.


You would not be the first person hurt by the world, other people, or God himself.


Isn't that sad.



Worship is loving God when you hurt.


Some people can't do that. That's my point :bang:


J. Vernon McGee said that the heart is like clay or wax. When exposed to light, it hardens or melts.


sigh* You still aren't hearing me, are you?


The seed isn't the problem. The soil is often the problem (Mt 13:3-23; Lu 8:5-15).


And who gets to decide that? You?
 

lucy

New member
lucy said:
Now, may I ask you a few questions about your beliefs?



Sorry to do the copy and paste thingy, but you asked a question that could lead to a complete new thread, especially since it would lead to a very wide ranging discussion, starting with definitions and developing into the basic structure and understandings of so many separate religions. The different denominations of Christianity as an example could take years to properly address. So I'll start with a basic definition.

The Latin word paganus is often misrepresented as an adjective meaning "rural", "rustic" or "of the country". Paganus actually was a noun derived from the word pagus which originally meant 'something stuck in the ground as a landmark'. The root pag means "fixed" and is also the source of the words "page", "pale (stake)", and "pole", as well as "pact" and "peace". In later years it was metaphorically extended to 'rural district, village'. Later the noun paganus was coined to mean 'country dweller. villager' and was not meant as an insult at first. As the Roman Empire strengthened paganus came to mean 'civilian'. It was only after the Roman introduction of the aqueduct system of transporting water throughout the Roman cities that it began to have negative connotations, and did not actually become a slur until it was adopted by Middle English speaking Christians to refer to those who would not embrace Christianity.

So we see that Pagan (paganus) was originally a position or landmark era representing the local people and their beliefs that metamorphosed into, with time, "rural people", "village people", and "civilian" all denoting people that did not live in a city and would be looked upon as the uneducated country dweller, until Christians added the slur as to those that would not embrace Christianity.

A new age belief could be a belief that has just begun, one without a foundational background in an older belief.

It could also be one that is being resurrected from an older structure/system, such as Wicca.

It could also be an older belief structure that is and will be handed down from Mother to son and Father to daughter verbally as in the tradition of old.



I believe in a Godhead... a Goddess and a God, how you wish to portray that is a personal decision. It is difficult to develop a personal relationship with a deity that you cannot relate to, one that cannot be visualized, so in order for humans, at this stage of their intellect, to attempt this relationship it is necessary to put a face on their God. Hence the Christian belief, possibly the development of the Trinity, Jesus is that face.



The same way most people do, through prayer and ritual.



No, as I said my belief has been passed down verbally. At one time there was, but due to events of the past they where sent underground so as not to be lost, but alas that is not what happened.
You will understand this as the growth of certain religious beliefs, during a period that has become known as the "Dark Ages" possibly "the Crusades" it was dangerous to be found with materials that where not Christian, so, many of the Pagan beliefs have been lost to antiquity.



Time! Maturity comes with age, living and learning from others as well as life's experiences. The way man is at 18 years of age is not normally the same as when he is 50, why? Now look at mankind, has he changed in the last 2000 years? 20,000 years? Man is progressing, albeit slowly, but he is learning and changing, and one day will evolve into the thinking, reasoning, compassionate man that he is destined to become.



It is the nature of the beast, man is animal, with attributes that the lower animal kingdom was not given, the ability to learn from experiences and reason out why we need to change.



To impose dominance over others that are seen as being incorrect in their way of life, their beliefs, it is this misplaced animal instinct to rule!



Time and mans ability to learn and reason out what is just and right for his species, is this not what you God Jesus teaches?

Unfortunately man has not evolved to the point to understand this, he is still caught up in various communities or specific beliefs that categorize others into different colors, nationalities, religious doctrines, etc. etc. , all considered prejudices towards heretics!

So why are we heretics? Immaturity of the knowledge that we are of the same species with the same desires, but being afraid that we as a group are not correct and superior to others!

Animal: pertaining to the physical, sensual, or carnal nature of humans, rather than their spiritual or intellectual nature: animal needs.

Namaste : "I honor the place in you in which the entire Universe dwells, I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Integrity, of Wisdom and of Peace. When you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, we are One."

Namaste: "That which is of God in me greets that which is of God in you.

I am sure that this will not suffice as an explanation to your questions and will be cause for more in the future. You see, we are similar in our beliefs, but also separated by a vast ocean of difference, simply due to what we call religious conviction!


Thanks for your clarification. Ok, you did generate more questions for me:

1. What do you pray about?
2. Do your prayers get answered? Are they always answered with a "yes"?
3. Do you pray aloud or "silently"?
4. Why do you believe in a Godess?
5. Are the God and Goddess you believe in from Greek, Egyptian, Nordic or other basis?
6. Do you believe that we are all ultimately one with the universe?
7. Why, if you believe in supernatural beings, did you ultimately reject the God of the Bible and Jesus in particular? I get that you reject the Bible because you do not think it was inspired and was just written by a bunch of nice fellows, but how are the beliefs you hold any more valid? Is it a thing you just take on faith that who you are worshiping and relating to is a representation of the truth?
8. I still don't "get" the source of man's spiritual immaturity. In your belief system, is it only man then that has a spirit? How did he get this spirit if he is animal yet animals do not have a spirit? Also, man does reason and all, but reason does not seem to keep people from wanting power, status, riches, etc. and getting these things by stomping down their fellow man. The "guiltiest" also seem to be those with the most "stuff", too.

Ok, enough for now! You can see I am a very curious person, haha. Hope you don't mind the bombardment, but I really would like to know more...
 

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
lucy said:
Thanks for your clarification. Ok, you did generate more questions for me:

1. What do you pray about?

Many things, but primarily for the guidance of mankind, so that they may learn to live together without all the strife and violence.

2. Do your prayers get answered? Are they always answered with a "yes"?

Occasionally but never with a simple "yes".

3. Do you pray aloud or "silently"?

Both.

4. Why do you believe in a Godess?

Why not? See post #199 speaking of developing a relationship with deity.

5. Are the God and Goddess you believe in from Greek, Egyptian, Nordic or other basis?

From the Celtic beliefs.

6. Do you believe that we are all ultimately one with the universe?

Yes

7. Why, if you believe in supernatural beings, did you ultimately reject the God of the Bible and Jesus in particular?

When did I reject Jesus or God? Jesus was a great teacher and prophet. I believe in God!

I get that you reject the Bible because you do not think it was inspired and was just written by a bunch of nice fellows, but how are the beliefs you hold any more valid?

When did I say any religion/belief was more valid than another? I just don't like your Bible. I don't feel any individual should have the audacity to preach that their God/religion/faith is the one and only way.

Is it a thing you just take on faith that who you are worshiping and relating to is a representation of the truth?

Yes, the same way as you do!

8. I still don't "get" the source of man's spiritual immaturity. In your belief system, is it only man then that has a spirit?

No.

How did he get this spirit if he is animal yet animals do not have a spirit?

When did I say animals did not have a spirit?

Also, man does reason and all, but reason does not seem to keep people from wanting power, status, riches, etc. and getting these things by stomping down their fellow man. The "guiltiest" also seem to be those with the most "stuff", too.

Not all are enlightened enough to find their way past greed!

Ok, enough for now! You can see I am a very curious person, haha. Hope you don't mind the bombardment, but I really would like to know more...

Each makes a choice about how much of their belief they will allow others to know or question, I'm no different, I believe that a persons religious belief is a personal and private affair, I will answer all I can but don't get your feelings hurt if I refuse to discuss certain things.

Blessed be!
 

Wessex Man

New member
Welcome to the forum.

What point would there be to two people who don't really care what the other believes trying to hold a debate? That's pretty much the way most pagans think. Everyone's religious beliefs are their own concern and if your path makes you feel happy and at peace with yourself, then good on ya! Besides, what's the harm in debating with Christians? It's a learning experience as much as anything else. Although I highly doubt anybody will convert me, I might just learn something new. :)


I have read a few interesting things from some neo-pagans which seem to show at least some familiarity with traditional spiritual and metaphysical viewpoints(in a couple of instances even seemingly a familiarity with the levels of being which many modern Christians are unfortunately almost completely ignorant.). However I have in general found it to be an invalid path for several reasons; some of which are shown in your above passage.

It firstly seems far too modernist as far as I can see, it wishes to be far too "progressive", tolerant and relativist even at the expense of consistency and metaphysical truth. As you say above how ever "anyone" wants to worship is fine. I'm a Perennialist, I think many paths lead to God but I would never countenance that amount of relativism. Also it smacks of the related modernist error of individualism, ignoring the necessary cultural, communal and social supports of faith. As if each man were an island.

Secondly looking more at the "tradition" of neo-paganism rather than its metaphysical aspect it does seem to me to be rather an artificial revival of long dead(though often once valid.) customs(not improved by the tendency noted above which includes a definitive eclecticism among many neo-pagans who worship say Thoth alongside Woden or Apollo.) combined with many modernist innovations(like in many instances a moral code that seems to amount to J.S Mill's Harm Principle.).

It is important for almost all, even esoterics, to be guided by a coherent, broad, long evolved and quite encompassing religious tradition in order to discern the real and illusory and work towards the real and for the faith to really be able to connect with its followers and form the necessary broadness, coherency and range of doctrine, ritual and symbolism. As noted above Neo-paganism doesn't seem to have this. It could evolve it over time(as many new faiths have.), if it sorted out its metaphysical problems, but there doesn't seem much point in the West, where neo-paganism resides, has it own long established traditions, it has access to other valid orthodox faiths, and trying to set up new ones would just be disruptive, distracting and fragmenting; or so it seems to me.
 
Last edited:

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Welcome wagon.......

Welcome wagon.......

Hehehe I think SerpentDove gave up on me :p He hasn't said a single thing to me since I responded to his last posts :D

Well,...you know they say some 'cases' are beyond redemption ;) :) - just playing, .......as The Universe has enough Love for all...it being INFINITE. - Life affords enough space and time for all to discover, enjoy and fulfill their life-purpose....and beyond.....

So....Welcome to the Matrix :cheers:

(all pills provided, but you get to choose which to take ;) )


pj
 

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
Welcome to the forum.

I have read a few interesting things from some neo-pagans which seem to show at least some familiarity with traditional spiritual and metaphysical viewpoints(in a couple of instances even seemingly a familiarity with the levels of being which many modern Christians are unfortunately almost completely ignorant.). However I have in general found it to be an invalid path for several reasons; some of which are shown in your above passage.

How can a path to God be considered invalid, without demonstrating how it is incorrect? For it to be invalid it would have to fail the test of the definition: being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law.
Truth being highly subjective on a personal level and cannot be proven incorrect (invalid) especially when speaking of an individuals religious faith.

Neo-pagan, Neo=New or Recent. Meaning? There are those that have come to a pagan belief after many years of experience and teachings of a different belief structure, therefore they would bring knowledge, familiarity, of their former teachings on spirituality and metaphysical views. They come is search of a new path and some are leaving their old path behind completely and totally.

It firstly seems far too modernist as far as I can see, it wishes to be far too "progressive", tolerant and relativist even at the expense of consistency and metaphysical truth. As you say above how ever "anyone" wants to worship is fine. I'm a Perennialist, I think many paths lead to God but I would never countenance that amount of relativism. Also it smacks of the related modernist error of individualism, ignoring the necessary cultural, communal and social supports of faith. As if each man were an island.

But yet 2000 years ago a man did just that ( set himself as an island) Jesus came teaching a new (neo) path ( unfortunately the definition of pagan has morphed over the years and has evolved into; any belief not being Christian, Islam or Jewish, due to those being in force by shear numbers) a path that could have been referred to as Pagan, and was considered Pagan by the Romans, until the title Christian became, after the Crucifixion.

While the standard argument for utilizing a modern text supports distillation of information into a form relevant to modern society, perennialists argue that many of the historical debates and the development of ideas presented by the great books are relevant to any society, at any time, and thus that the suitability of the great books for instructional use is unaffected by their age.

Perennialists freely acknowledge that any particular selection of great books will disagree on many topics; however, they see this as an advantage, rather than a detriment. They believe that the student must learn to recognize such disagreements, which often reflect current debates. The student becomes responsible for thinking about the disagreements and reaching a reasoned, defensible conclusion. This is a major goal of the Socratic discussions. They do not advocate teaching a settled scholarly interpretation of the books, which would cheat the student of the opportunity to learn rational criticism and to know his own mind.

Secondly looking more at the "tradition" of neo-paganism rather than its metaphysical aspect it does seem to me to be rather an artificial revival of long dead(though often once valid.) customs(not improved by the tendency noted above which includes a definitive eclecticism among many neo-pagans who worship say Thoth alongside Woden or Apollo.) combined with many modernist innovations(like in many instances a moral code that seems to amount to J.S Mill's Harm Principle.).

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

Please demonstrate how an individual may harm society by believing in God!

Or is it your posit that all Pagan beliefs are out to harm you and society?

It is important for almost all, even esoterics, to be guided by a coherent, broad, long evolved and quite encompassing religious tradition in order to discern the real and illusory and work towards the real and for the faith to really be able to connect with its followers and form the necessary broadness, coherency and range of doctrine, ritual and symbolism. As noted above Neo-paganism doesn't seem to have this.

Please remember you stated "It is important for almost all", but not necessarily for every individual.

Please show how you can discern the real from the illusory of Christianity. Can you prove your God? Or that your God is the one and only?

It could evolve it over time(as many new faiths have.), if it sorted out its metaphysical problems, but there doesn't seem much point in the West, where neo-paganism resides, has it own long established traditions, it has access to other valid orthodox faiths, and trying to set up new ones would just be disruptive, distracting and fragmenting; or so it seems to me.

Since a relationship with God or Jesus or whatever deity you choose to follow is one of a personal individual relationship, and that the solitary eclectic individual selects that which becomes truth to them (not needing the approval of the masses (religious community)or the gathering of large groups) how is it disruptive, distracting or fragmenting?

If it is "so it seems to you" where do you get your authority ( an please don't say the "Bible" since we are making the decision of authority between beliefs, it would be unfair and improper, especially since we don't all adhere to that teaching) to make that assertion?
 
Last edited:

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
Well,...you know they say some 'cases' are beyond redemption ;) :) - just playing, .......as The Universe has enough Love for all...it being INFINITE. - Life affords enough space and time for all to discover, enjoy and fulfill their life-purpose....and beyond.....

So....Welcome to the Matrix :cheers:

(all pills provided, but you get to choose which to take ;) )


pj

:thumb: Pass the pills brother!
^
^
^
^
^
I can just imagine the comments that will bring!:rotfl:
 
Last edited:

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
You didn't post a link. You just said you must be nicer than God (Enyart).

Expecting an answer from ReptiFeathers is futile.

A few housekeeping items of my own: I don't like to be misquoted or have my posts taken out of context. If you can't debate this above board, then we have nothing left to say.

When has he ever done anything "above board"?


Some people can't do that. That's my point :bang

And still you expect him to "get the point"?

sigh* You still aren't hearing me, are you?

It's difficult to hear when going LaLaLaLaLa.

And who gets to decide that? You?

Of course, he has license to do it, it says so in his handbook!
 

lucy

New member
Many things, but primarily for the guidance of mankind, so that they may learn to live together without all the strife and violence.



Occasionally but never with a simple "yes".



Both.



Why not? See post #199 speaking of developing a relationship with deity.



From the Celtic beliefs.



Yes



When did I reject Jesus or God? Jesus was a great teacher and prophet. I believe in God!



When did I say any religion/belief was more valid than another? I just don't like your Bible. I don't feel any individual should have the audacity to preach that their God/religion/faith is the one and only way.



Yes, the same way as you do!



No.



When did I say animals did not have a spirit?



Not all are enlightened enough to find their way past greed!



Each makes a choice about how much of their belief they will allow others to know or question, I'm no different, I believe that a persons religious belief is a personal and private affair, I will answer all I can but don't get your feelings hurt if I refuse to discuss certain things.

Blessed be!

Thank you for your reply! So, do I understand the following to be things you believe, correct?

- You do believe in God, just not my God
- You believe Jesus was a good teacher, but not that he is divine
- You disagree with the basic message of the Bible that Jesus is the only way to God - there are many ways to God
- Animals have souls and spirits just like people do?
-Truth is relative - at least spiritual truths. Truths like gravity are absolute, but if we are talking spiritual truth, you can believe whatever works for you?
-You believe Jesus taught a new path to God - His message has no connection to the teachings of the Old Testament?
- Great books (e.g. the Bible, etc.) are good for development of rational criticism, but should not be taken as necessarily as having absolute truths that God has revealed to man?


Ok, I also read Wessex's post but did not get a lot of it. What is a Perenialist? Thanks so much for your patience with me!
 

Wessex Man

New member
How can a path to God be considered invalid, without demonstrating how it is incorrect? For it to be invalid it would have to fail the test of the definition: being without foundation or force in fact, truth, or law.
Truth being highly subjective on a personal level and cannot be proven incorrect (invalid) especially when speaking of an individuals religious faith.
Well this is what I reject by definition, I'm a Perennialist, I certainly reject the idea that truth is highly subjective. I'm a Perennialist and hold traditional metaphysics, particularly Platonist, Vendantist and Sufi(though I'm not very knowledgeable on Sufism) Metaphysics, pretty much like Freelight's non-dualism but I'm not as relativist, as the beacon of truth; it being Intellectually and logically the greatest guide to reality. That is my measure of Truth, it is truth, but I do not reject all who don't completely live up to this metaphysics, only those who stray greatly and do not discern between the real and illusion or do not lead men to the real. I accept say Shintoism because it comes close enough to metaphysical truth and has a tradition to guide its followers to the truth well enough, whereas I reject say Marxism because it does not come close enough to the truth and certainy does not guide individual's there.

That is the one pillar I judge by, the other is that of tradition, whether the religion has an organic, long-evolved and encompassing tradition and whether if it doesn't there is need for another metaphysically sound faith which has no such developed tradition yet.


But yet 2000 years ago a man did just that ( set himself as an island) Jesus came teaching a new (neo) path ( unfortunately the definition of pagan has morphed over the years and has evolved into; any belief not being Christian, Islam or Jewish, due to those being in force by shear numbers) a path that could have been referred to as Pagan, and was considered Pagan by the Romans, until the title Christian became, after the Crucifixion.
Jesus was not just a man, he was the logos in (generic)human form. I'm not sure your point. The divine has given us revelation to help guide us in life, I see little reason to doubt the historical truth of most of the revelations or as they could be called collective Intellections.
While the standard argument for utilizing a modern text supports distillation of information into a form relevant to modern society, perennialists argue that many of the historical debates and the development of ideas presented by the great books are relevant to any society, at any time, and thus that the suitability of the great books for instructional use is unaffected by their age.
I mean the philosophical and metaphysical kind of Perennialists such as Rene Guenon and Frithjof Schuon.

http://www.worldwisdom.com
Perennialists freely acknowledge that any particular selection of great books will disagree on many topics; however, they see this as an advantage, rather than a detriment. They believe that the student must learn to recognize such disagreements, which often reflect current debates. The student becomes responsible for thinking about the disagreements and reaching a reasoned, defensible conclusion. This is a major goal of the Socratic discussions. They do not advocate teaching a settled scholarly interpretation of the books, which would cheat the student of the opportunity to learn rational criticism and to know his own mind.
Yeah sorry I should have been more specific, wrong kind of Perennialists:

http://www.religioperennis.org

That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
Which is a load of rubbish to be honest, not only does it have little metaphysical or traditional truth but it is based on an very inaccurate, atomistic individualist idea of the individual and society where society is something ephemeral and the individual largely self-sufficing so there needs to be no social authority or state authority that could interfere against the individual's will. If one views society, culture and social associations, and their formative role of the individual, as more important then one can quickly recognise their may be times when it is certainly justified to interfere, either through social authorities like parents or the state(though by having strong social associations I'd hope to less need the state's interference.), in what could be considered consensual actions.

Please demonstrate how an individual may harm society by believing in God!

Or is it your posit that all Pagan beliefs are out to harm you and society?
I posit that extra belief systems are simply a disruption and distraction during this declining period of the West, the important thing is for a tradition to be dominant in the cultures of the West and guide it, there are more than enough to choose from already. I'd recommend its particular historical tradition of Christianity to which its culture adapted to and which it adapted over many centuries.

Please remember you stated "It is important for almost all", but not necessarily for every individual.

Please show how you can discern the real from the illusory of Christianity. Can you prove your God? Or that your God is the one and only?
Well it is Platonism or Vendanta from which I measure the real or illusory. Christianity simply lives up to that; as an ancient orthodox tradition it was bound to. Christianity helps to focus on the absolute, on God, and bring us to him, it particularly helps to focus on the fall of man from God and the repairing of this fall. Christian theology isn't perfect metaphysics but it is quite close and a lot of its deviations are necessary for an broad based faith. It is not obviously the best for Indians or Arabs in general but I'd say it was generally the best for those of Western, Christian cultures.

Since a relationship with God or Jesus or whatever deity you choose to follow is one of a personal individual relationship, and that the solitary eclectic individual selects that which becomes truth to them (not needing the approval of the masses (religious community)or the gathering of large groups) how is it disruptive, distracting or fragmenting?
Well this is inaccurate. Anyone who has studied history can see that religion thrives mostly when it is communal and ritualistic, particularly when it is embedded in a society and culture.

They can also see that religions develop traditions which aim to bring together their ideas on theology, ethics, doctrine and symbolism in a coherent and encompassing way, traditions which take quite some time and scope to really evolve to this level. These traditions also intersect with the community of the religion adapting it and adapting to it.

Neo-paganism is disruptive and fragmentary because the West needs to shore up its traditions, mostly various forms of Christianity, and it certainly has no need of yet another tradition. I'd be almost as against anyone trying to convert the West to Hinduism or Islam, although these have more developed traditions(though they are not adapted to the West, nor the West to them.) and they don't have the metaphysical and doctrinal problems of neo-paganism(though this could be overcome and perhaps is by a few neo-paganism.).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top