Discussion:
The Pagan Way
(too old to reply)
The Talesinator
2003-07-26 18:54:27 UTC
Permalink
[Note: As I have never been one to gossip or talk behind someone's back,
copies of this post have been sent to the people involved to give them a
fair shot at responding. It is more than they gave me]



The Internet has been a very useful tool for the Pagan community. It has
allowed the local communities to stay up to date and in touch with what is
going on and it has become the thread tying Pagans from around the world
together allowing them to share the commonalities of and the differences in
their experiences. It has also taken that bane of the Paganism- the Wiccan
War (Witch War is no longer considered the proper term)- to new heights.

I should have known better. I know what is going to happen before I even get
involved in there groups. However, a "friend" was kind enough to invite me
join this particular e-mail list. Also, I felt the familiar, gentle tugging
telling me that there was a reason for me to be there. Any good Witch knows
that one simply does not ignore the quiet little messages that come one's
way.

So I went to Yahoo groups and I found the group called The Pagan Way. On the
home page I found the "we are very tolerant and we will not stand for
bashing anyone else's beliefs" shtick that is as much a warning as a skull
and crossbones. Danger: Intolerant codependent fascist Wiccan group ahead.
Be nice, don't disagree with the dominant clique, and kiss ass or be
lynched! Despite my swearing off such groups, I went ahead and subscribed if
for nothing more than wanting to find out why I was to be there.

The first thing that happens is that I get a deluge of automatically
generated e-mails from the Chancellor of this little cyber regime. He calls
himself- and I swear to the Universe that I am not kidding you- Rev. Sir
Raymond E Nieman D. D., The Amber Adept. For the gods' sake, King James
himself would have been embarrassed to make such an arrogant and
ostentatious claim! Let me tell you, when I got to know this guy, I found
out this didn't tell half the story.

Well I joined this little Internet soirée and, realized that, once I started
posting, my time there would be short. So I lurked for awhile. The list was
exactly what I expected. While over 1500 people are subscribed to it, there
was a much smaller cadre of about 10 people who pretty much dominated the
list. One has to wonder if the other 1490 simply forgot to unsub. At any
rate, I silently watched the parade of whinings about life, error ridden
treatises filled with Silver Ravenwolf level magick, and totally bizarre
things like amber alerts and "help me name my feminist porno web site,"
waiting for whatever it was I was there for.

Finally, amidst the boring drone of the group, the post I was waiting for
came. A young woman posted asking the group to provide some help for a
"friend" (it's always a "friend", isn't it?). This "friend" was being
assailed, she claimed, by an evil spirit. Apparently this spirit had been
harassing her for some time- apparitions, moving objects and making strange
noises- and had even followed her when she moved. This, and some of the
other information she provided as well as my Witch knowledge told me that
she was totally wrong. This was no spirit. The "friend" was doing this
herself.

Several years ago, I was camping with a group of people. It was late into
the evening (early into the morning, actually), much alcohol and other
recreational substances had been consumed, almost everyone had drifted off
to their tents for sex or to pass out, and we had entered the post party
period where emotions were high and shields were down.

I was talking to young woman whom I had just met that evening. She was deep
into the cathartic effect which occurs when one is in the presence of a lot
of magickal energy. She related to me how she had been assailed by an evil
spirit. She assumed it was a woman who had died in the house she had lived
in as a child. Like the "friend's" spirit, this one followed her around. It
moved objects, made strange noises at night, and even caused things like car
keys and jewelry "disappear." She had tried many banishing rituals but not
one had worked. In fact, she felt things had gotten worse.

She also told me other things about herself. She had a bad relationship with
her parents and just about every romantic relationship she had been in had
turned to an angry, painful mess. She was having problems at work and was so
fed up with Paganism she had considered abandoning it all together. She was
at the end of her rope and did not know what to do.

As I listened to her, the pieces of the puzzle began to arrange themselves.
It became clear to me that there was no "evil spirit." The source of the
disturbances was the woman herself. This is not so farfetched when you think
about it. Many magickals have experienced a phenomenon which I call
"accidental magick." Emotion is a strong source of energy and, when that
energy becomes strong enough, it is going to go somewhere. When you couple
that with a constant state of inner chaos, the result is exactly the kind of
disturbances this woman and the "friend" are experiencing.

Being the blunt person I am, I told her, "There is no spirit. You are doing
this." Of course the woman did not take well to that thought. She objected
and was almost offended at the idea. I let her go on about how that could
not possibly be right and, when she ran out of steam, I asked her if the
spirit had bothered her at all during that particular weekend while we
camped. It hadn't. I asked her how she had felt that weekend. Her response
was that she was more relaxed than she had been in quite awhile. I just
looked at her for a few moments as the thought that I might be right crossed
her mind.

She contacted me a few days later. It seems that her "spirit" had not
bothered her for day or two. Then, she had a huge argument with her sister
and, that very night, three plates were "mysteriously" flung from a shelf
and broken on the kitchen floor while she slept.

After a lot of work and time, this woman found her solution in learning to
ground and center and in getting her life under control by staying away from
chaotic people and situations. The "spirit" eventually stopped bothering
her.

So this incident, my dealings with real spirits, and things I have picked up
from the experiences of my colleagues and mentors, made me pretty certain
that the ""friend"" was the source of her own torment. I also learned that
people who continue to assail spirits when there is no spirit involved not
only make things worse not only by ignoring their own problems but by
actually *evoking* spirits through their efforts to banish. Then, it becomes
a real party.

The post about the ""friend"" and her "spirit" hit a chord inside me. This
was why I was brought to the list. I did try to soften things a little. My
first post was a response to one of those stupid survey things. Of course, I
gave funny instead of real answers and, again of course, since Pagans as a
demographic are very humorless people, it was met with a cold response.

All of the Wiccans were buying into the evil spirit theory and contributing
all the knowledge Llewellyn had to offer (yes, that was sarcasm) to the
problem. If I was going to be the lone voice of reason, I would have to take
the blunt approach again. So I simply posted "It is not a spirit, your
'friend' is doing it herself." I seriously felt this person was heading for
big trouble and, since I was only going to get one shot, I took the kamikaze
approach.

The gods' balls, you should have seen the reaction that caused! How DARE I
make such a suggestion? How could I possibly know it was not a spirit (how
could they possibly know it was)? I might as well have suggested that The
Law of Three was a farce or that their mothers were all whores!

Normally, at this point, I would have unleashed my full Talesinic power and
flamed those Wiccans into fine ash. However, this was a serious situation
where someone really could get hurt. So I kept my flamethrower in the closet
and simply tried to reason with these people. They would not have it. They
demanded my credentials, insulted me and called me stupid names, and even
made not so subtle remarks about cutting me up with a variety of sharp
weapons. All of this without a single moderator of this oh so peaceful and
tolerant place objecting.

However, I decided that this time it was going to be different. If they were
going to ride me out of town on a rail, they would not get any comfort from
me. I stayed my ground, for sure, but I did not resort to any kind of
personal attack as they did to me.

Right on cue, when the first wave of abusive frontal assaults did not work,
the second wave of behind the scenes whining to the mods began. "Get him
off the list or I will unsubscribe." A friend of a friend of a friend told
me he is really a Baptist bent on destroying Wicca." "He is a tool of the
devil!"

Well, this put Sir Rev Adept into a bad place. He was obligated to make sure
no miscreants disturbed his little kingdom and yet, he could not simply oust
me and look like the intolerant fascist that he really was. He had to
fabricate a reason. Well, when you can't fight with facts, go with emotion.
I was accused of- get this- "having a rude tone."

So the Reichfuhrer of The Pagan Way (gods, I gag every time I think of that
name) banned me. It was no great loss. The problem with these fascist lists
is that they become dreadfully boring. When things are so tightly controlled
and people are afraid to say what they think, it really does not promote
interesting discussion. I had said my piece, those who were going to listen
to me did and those who weren't would just continue to wallow in the same
ignorance they were in when I joined the list. I hoped the "friend" would
not get hurt too badly by everyone else's ignorance and was happy to go on
my way. But it did not end there.

Apparently there are some people on The Pagan Way who disagreed with the
decision to ban me because I refused to knuckle under to incorrect
perceptions simply to appease a bunch of cyber bullies. Many of them-
including a few moderators (the list must have like 50 moderators)- wrote to
me to tell me they were appalled by what happened. They said they knew I was
only trying to help and that they supported my right to think as I wanted.
As an aside, I also found out that I had been moderated all along. The posts
I was banned for had actually been approved by a moderator *before* they
appeared on the list! It was a setup.

At any rate, my banning caused quite an offline stir (of course, none of
this was allowed to be discussed publicly. Ah, the beauty of censorship).
Members and mods alike were raising hell with over my banning. Things were
not happy in the cyber Third Reich and something had to be done about it.
Out came the favored weapons of the Wiccans- libel and slander.

When they first banned me, the moderator who did so screwed up and only
unsubbed me. I subscribed again before I was actually banned. Now, as you
e-groupers know, it currently takes Yahoo two days to process any change
requests. Thus, there was a time I was subbed to the list but my name did
not appear on the member page. This was perfect for those who had silence
me. "Look," they said, "He is hacking the list!" To further "prove" this,
they banned the next few new people who tried to join their list and claimed
it was me hacking them. These idiots even went as far as doing Internet
searches, finding some old spam dump addresses I never even look at, and
sending "you are banned" notices to everyone they could find!

Get this, Sir Rev Adept D.D. actually sends me an e-mail telling me that The
Pagan Way is *his* house and that, since I did not play his way, I was being
punished. That's right, he actually said, "punished." As further torment for
failing to kiss his arrogant ass, I was also banned from all of the other
groups he owns. Oh, let me shed a bitter tear!

Eons ago, when the Great Programmer wrote the code for the Universe, s/he
included a subroutine for Wiccan Wars that has run unvaried since Sanders
got pissed at Gardner. Someone comes along and refuses to follow the rest of
the sheep and suggests something that is not acceptable to the dominant
cadre. Said cadre immediately attacks said non sheep. The (moderator, elder,
HP/S, teacher) of the group steps in and calls for their (banning,
banishment, hanging, burning). To justify this heinous action, the same old
lies are brought out (s/he's a stalker, hacker, slut, sexual abuser). The
saddest and most sickening part is the way people who see what is going on
and know it is wrong refuse to speak up about it because they are terrified
of being the next person ousted from what ever social circle is involved.

Is it any wonder that actual Witches prefer remaining solitary or to
restrict themselves to family lines? Do we even need to consider why the
"old guard" Pagans have turned their backs, walked away, and refuse to even
acknowledge what they built? Is more than one brain cell required to figure
out why Wicca/neo Paganism has become a joke?

I understand the person who asked for help with the spirit and her "friend"
have consulted a medium and that this medium has "confirmed" it is an evil
spirit. The spirit of her grandfather, in fact. At this point, one can only
hope that, after all of the chaos and pain the "friend" has ahead of her,
she runs into someone who will be able to actually help her before she is
injured beyond recovery.

Had it not been for the fact that, this time, someone could be seriously
hurt by a Wiccan War, I would not have wasted everyone's time writing about
it. After all, these petty Wiccan Wars happen all the time. So often, they
are not even worth thinking about.

Sadly, they have become The Pagan Way.



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Pagan_Way/
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-26 20:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Fantastic!
Yes I have seen this happen more than once....heh.
My anttenae start to go up everytime I hear someone say "a spirit is
attacking me..or a friend" as this seems to be fairly common in newbies
and drama queens/kings. It has the result of people crowding around ..wide
eyed ...slack jawed...and watching your every motion when you proclaim
this. Quite the attention getter. There are some people who really have
this happenning ...or are creating it themselves with poltergeist
energy...but not so many as would have us believe...I figure.

Bren.

--



*****************************************************
Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
dogmas and creeds.
When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
assured that the emancipation of the world is through
the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
Religion of Love.
*****************************************************
Lush
2003-07-27 05:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Of course, you would never engage in attention seeking.

Lush

"Brenda G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> Fantastic!
> Yes I have seen this happen more than once....heh.
> My anttenae start to go up everytime I hear someone say "a spirit is
> attacking me..or a friend" as this seems to be fairly common in newbies
> and drama queens/kings. It has the result of people crowding around ..wide
> eyed ...slack jawed...and watching your every motion when you proclaim
> this. Quite the attention getter. There are some people who really have
> this happenning ...or are creating it themselves with poltergeist
> energy...but not so many as would have us believe...I figure.
>
> Bren.
>
> --
>
>
>
> *****************************************************
> Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> dogmas and creeds.
> When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> Religion of Love.
> *****************************************************
kate
2003-07-27 14:38:25 UTC
Permalink
She knows how to fake it. Wonder what she's like in bed with her
'boyfriend'?
Herbal Essence comes to mind. ;)
kate~


"Lush" <***@nof*ckingspam.com> wrote in message
news:3f2364de$0$23587$***@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> Of course, you would never engage in attention seeking.
>
> Lush
>
> "Brenda G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> news:***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> > Fantastic!
> > Yes I have seen this happen more than once....heh.
> > My anttenae start to go up everytime I hear someone say "a spirit is
> > attacking me..or a friend" as this seems to be fairly common in newbies
> > and drama queens/kings. It has the result of people crowding around
..wide
> > eyed ...slack jawed...and watching your every motion when you proclaim
> > this. Quite the attention getter. There are some people who really have
> > this happenning ...or are creating it themselves with poltergeist
> > energy...but not so many as would have us believe...I figure.
> >
> > Bren.
> >
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> > *****************************************************
> > Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> > dogmas and creeds.
> > When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> > your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> > no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> > assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> > the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> > Religion of Love.
> > *****************************************************
>
>
Ironywaves
2003-07-27 14:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Wonder what she's like in bed with her
> 'boyfriend'?
> Herbal Essence comes to mind. ;)
> kate~

Hmmm. I wonder, myself! Fascinating...
Dockery

http://willdockery0.tripod.com/

> > > *****************************************************
> > > Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> > > dogmas and creeds.
> > > When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> > > your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> > > no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> > > assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> > > the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> > > Religion of Love.
> > > *****************************************************
> >
> >
>
>
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-27 17:35:49 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Ironywaves wrote:

> Wonder what she's like in bed with her
> > 'boyfriend'?
> > Herbal Essence comes to mind. ;)
> > kate~

***Wow! I never imagined kate would be so interested in my private life!
By the way I "hate" that commercial! I have never once made that response
whilst shampooing my hair....hmmmmm maybe I should try it...heh.
>
> Hmmm. I wonder, myself! Fascinating...
> Dockery
>

**** Let's put it this way......I am happy.
Bren.

--



*****************************************************
Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
dogmas and creeds.
When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
assured that the emancipation of the world is through
the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
Religion of Love.
*****************************************************
DeathWish
2003-07-27 20:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Honestly, that's something I'd just rather not think about.

"kate" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bg0o2q$jd2a7$***@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> She knows how to fake it. Wonder what she's like in bed with her
> 'boyfriend'?
> Herbal Essence comes to mind. ;)
> kate~
>
>
> "Lush" <***@nof*ckingspam.com> wrote in message
> news:3f2364de$0$23587$***@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> > Of course, you would never engage in attention seeking.
> >
> > Lush
> >
> > "Brenda G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> > news:***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> > > Fantastic!
> > > Yes I have seen this happen more than once....heh.
> > > My anttenae start to go up everytime I hear someone say "a spirit is
> > > attacking me..or a friend" as this seems to be fairly common in
newbies
> > > and drama queens/kings. It has the result of people crowding around
> ..wide
> > > eyed ...slack jawed...and watching your every motion when you proclaim
> > > this. Quite the attention getter. There are some people who really
have
> > > this happenning ...or are creating it themselves with poltergeist
> > > energy...but not so many as would have us believe...I figure.
> > >
> > > Bren.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *****************************************************
> > > Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> > > dogmas and creeds.
> > > When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> > > your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> > > no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> > > assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> > > the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> > > Religion of Love.
> > > *****************************************************
> >
> >
>
>
Lush
2003-07-28 09:40:55 UTC
Permalink
Hehehe.

Lush

"kate" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bg0o2q$jd2a7$***@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> She knows how to fake it. Wonder what she's like in bed with her
> 'boyfriend'?
> Herbal Essence comes to mind. ;)
> kate~
>
>
> "Lush" <***@nof*ckingspam.com> wrote in message
> news:3f2364de$0$23587$***@freenews.iinet.net.au...
> > Of course, you would never engage in attention seeking.
> >
> > Lush
> >
> > "Brenda G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> > news:***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> > > Fantastic!
> > > Yes I have seen this happen more than once....heh.
> > > My anttenae start to go up everytime I hear someone say "a spirit is
> > > attacking me..or a friend" as this seems to be fairly common in
newbies
> > > and drama queens/kings. It has the result of people crowding around
> ..wide
> > > eyed ...slack jawed...and watching your every motion when you proclaim
> > > this. Quite the attention getter. There are some people who really
have
> > > this happenning ...or are creating it themselves with poltergeist
> > > energy...but not so many as would have us believe...I figure.
> > >
> > > Bren.
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > *****************************************************
> > > Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> > > dogmas and creeds.
> > > When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> > > your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> > > no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> > > assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> > > the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> > > Religion of Love.
> > > *****************************************************
> >
> >
>
>
Parse Tree
2003-07-26 21:35:34 UTC
Permalink
"The Natural Philosopher" <***@b.c> wrote in message
news:***@b.c...
> The Talesinator wrote:
>
> > [Note: As I have never been one to gossip or talk behind someone's
back,
> > copies of this post have been sent to the people involved to give
them a
> > fair shot at responding. It is more than they gave me]
> >
>
>
> What you have failed to understand is that paganism is a refuge for
out
> and out wannabees and losers, and that anyne who knows anythig about
> magick gives them all a wide berth, waitng for the odd one or two to
> grow out of it.
>
> I suggest you take a step backwards, turn round, and walka away and
> leave the petty egos, tribal squabbles and occult bullshit to those
who
> thrive on it.
>
> G'night all.

I always find it funny that some people maintain all the religious
trappings and yet proceed to claim that they're not practicing a
religion.
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-27 00:10:05 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Parse Tree wrote:

> "The Natural Philosopher" <***@b.c> wrote in message
> news:***@b.c...
> > The Talesinator wrote:
> >
> > > [Note: As I have never been one to gossip or talk behind someone's
> back,
> > > copies of this post have been sent to the people involved to give
> them a
> > > fair shot at responding. It is more than they gave me]
> > >
> >
> >
> > What you have failed to understand is that paganism is a refuge for
> out
> > and out wannabees and losers, and that anyne who knows anythig about
> > magick gives them all a wide berth, waitng for the odd one or two to
> > grow out of it.
> >
> > I suggest you take a step backwards, turn round, and walka away and
> > leave the petty egos, tribal squabbles and occult bullshit to those
> who
> > thrive on it.
> >
> > G'night all.
>
> I always find it funny that some people maintain all the religious
> trappings and yet proceed to claim that they're not practicing a
> religion.
>
*****a rose by any other name.....
:)
Bren.

*****************************************************
Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
dogmas and creeds.
When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
assured that the emancipation of the world is through
the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
Religion of Love.
*****************************************************
Lush
2003-07-27 05:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Oh please. As if you're qualified to discuourse on this.

Lush

"Brenda G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> On Sat, 26 Jul 2003, Parse Tree wrote:
>
> > "The Natural Philosopher" <***@b.c> wrote in message
> > news:***@b.c...
> > > The Talesinator wrote:
> > >
> > > > [Note: As I have never been one to gossip or talk behind someone's
> > back,
> > > > copies of this post have been sent to the people involved to give
> > them a
> > > > fair shot at responding. It is more than they gave me]
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > What you have failed to understand is that paganism is a refuge for
> > out
> > > and out wannabees and losers, and that anyne who knows anythig about
> > > magick gives them all a wide berth, waitng for the odd one or two to
> > > grow out of it.
> > >
> > > I suggest you take a step backwards, turn round, and walka away and
> > > leave the petty egos, tribal squabbles and occult bullshit to those
> > who
> > > thrive on it.
> > >
> > > G'night all.
> >
> > I always find it funny that some people maintain all the religious
> > trappings and yet proceed to claim that they're not practicing a
> > religion.
> >
> *****a rose by any other name.....
> :)
> Bren.
>
> *****************************************************
> Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> dogmas and creeds.
> When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> Religion of Love.
> *****************************************************
Ironywaves
2003-07-27 14:45:50 UTC
Permalink
> > > *****a rose by any other name.....
> > > :)
> > > Bren.

Ah, Brenda, the Red Rose & the Briar. @;-}
Dockery

http://willdockery0.tripod.com/
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-27 17:32:33 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Ironywaves wrote:

> > > > *****a rose by any other name.....
> > > > :)
> > > > Bren.
>
> Ah, Brenda, the Red Rose & the Briar. @;-}
> Dockery

**** :D

ahhhhhh we all have our beauty side and our thorny side I figure....
hugs
Bren.


*****************************************************
Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
dogmas and creeds.
When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
assured that the emancipation of the world is through
the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
Religion of Love.
*****************************************************
The Talesinator
2003-07-28 03:53:14 UTC
Permalink
"kate" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bg0o86$jg65u$***@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
: "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with witchcraft,
: for sure.

I happen to know someone who does exactly that


--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)

The following statement is true
The above statement is false

http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft

Get your daily Dragon: http://www.pendragonsloft.blogspot.com/

© 2003 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved
Tuesday Knight
2003-07-28 14:09:16 UTC
Permalink
How do you know?

___
/uesday
/<night

On 7/28/03 1:37 AM, Brenda G. Kent at ***@victoria.tc.ca wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, The Talesinator wrote:
>
>>
>> "kate" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:bg0o86$jg65u$***@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
>> : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with witchcraft,
>> : for sure.
>
> ****Roses don't have religion.
>
>
>
>>
>> I happen to know someone who does exactly that
>>
>>
> *****I know a witch who does that as well.
>
> Bren.
>
>
> *****************************************************
> Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> dogmas and creeds.
> When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> Religion of Love.
> *****************************************************
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-28 17:19:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Parse Tree wrote:

> "The Talesinator" <***@XyahooX.com> wrote in message
> news:K61Va.42014$***@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> >
> > "kate" <***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:bg0o86$jg65u$***@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
> witchcraft,
> > : for sure.
> >
> > I happen to know someone who does exactly that
>
> Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> Christianity with witchcraft?
>

***apparantly just like the many people of one tradition of Christianity
who put down others trad as "not correct" these "pagans" follow along
thinking that all Christians do think alike..or should..and that there is
only one kind of Christianity. Now if every Christian out there was a
literalist they would all not be wearing mixed cloths...forsaking
shellfish and swearing off "four legged fowl" (whatever that is). There
are many many kinds of Christians...from the mystics to the Pentacostals
and they have many differences between them all and different interps on
the Bible...some include or exclude Catholic texts, Nag Hammadi etc. The
"we are the only true Christians" aspect of some Christians share a lot in
common with some pagans.

Bren.


*****************************************************
Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
dogmas and creeds.
When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
assured that the emancipation of the world is through
the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
Religion of Love.
*****************************************************
t_naismith
2003-07-29 00:51:31 UTC
Permalink
"Brenda G. Kult" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> > "The Talesinator" wrote:
> > > "kate" wrote:
> > >
> > > : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
> > witchcraft,
> > > : for sure.
> > >
> > > I happen to know someone who does exactly that
> >
> ["parsetree" wrote]:
>
> > Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> > Christianity with witchcraft?
> >
>
> ***apparantly just like the many people of one tradition of Christianity
> who put down others trad as "not correct" these "pagans" follow along
> thinking that all Christians do think alike..or should..and that there is
> only one kind of Christianity.


_Apparently_ you are incorrect, Blenda. Not only do I, for one,
recognise that there are any number of christian sects abounding, what they
may believe has no relevance for me - unless they try to inflict it upon
others or myself. Do what you like in the dankness of your mind but, when
you spew it out in public, expect to be hosed-down with the cold water of
refutation. Speaking of which, aren't you the same Brenda who continually
espouses the *cack* "unity of all religions" and "seeing the commonalities
in them, rather than the differences"? Doesn't that apply to your xtian
sects or was that another Brenda who promulgates that nonsense?


> ***Now if every Christian out there was a
> literalist they would all not be wearing mixed cloths...forsaking
> shellfish and swearing off "four legged fowl" (whatever that is). There
> are many many kinds of Christians...from the mystics to the Pentacostals
> and they have many differences between them all and different interps on
> the Bible...some include or exclude Catholic texts, Nag Hammadi etc.


Again, pedal the christian sect stuff to your christnet groups if you
wish to debate angels break dancing on pins, Brenda.

> *** The
> "we are the only true Christians" aspect of some Christians share a lot in
> common with some pagans.
>

Who said they were the "one and only true pagans", Blenda? Was it you
and your false claims?

TN (eye of the Falcon)
janet
2003-07-30 15:58:12 UTC
Permalink
t_naismith wrote:
[]
>
> Again, pedal the christian sect stuff to your christnet groups if
> you wish to debate angels break dancing on pins, Brenda.


Um, *we* don't do that stuff! :)

I'm absolutely convinced that was a Lectio question, set to trap the stupid,
unwary and preternaturally silly...

Because the answer is simple - none - angels don't have bodies and anyone
approaching a lectio who *didn't* know that was doomed, doomed, doomed to
fall into a great, gaping hole....

I know. :}

(A lectio - short for lectio coram - a lecture "from the heart" or "from the
core" - was the final examination for admission to the ranks of those who
could legitimately teach. Almost all examinations were oral ones - and it's
amazing how much of your ignorance an experienced examiner can find in 10
minutes, believe me... but a lectio was *45* minutes, and was delivered to
the proff who had taught you the subject in the first place. You are then
open for questions - which is where, I'm reasonably certain, this comes
from - it's the sort of disputatio (disputation, debate) question people
loved - well, masters loved and student sweated through. What larks... and
they changed the system the year AFTER I went through it...). :}
--
"It's a nasty module. There's no way you can pass without doing the
work" Overheard in a lift. janet hhttp://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
email: ***@karlsforums.com
b***@dmcom.net
2003-07-29 21:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Alexandra Ceelie wrote:

>
> How do you get around the "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" thing? I
> was under the impression there was a whole biblical taboo on practicing
> divination or sorcery of any kind, regardless of intent.

She concentrates on certain sections, mostly the New Testiment. She has
indicated in the past that she does not accept the whole of the Bible to
be correct.

>
> Also, what about the concept of the Goddess as an equal to the God? How is
> it resolved with the Christian deity who demands to be first in the lives of
> his followers?

If she uses that law, having a Goddess equal is not having a God above
him. One could also argue Goddesses were not mentioned at all.

>
> In combining the two religions, I would think those two things would be
> major obstacles to a harmonious interlinking of Christianity and Wicca.

However many not just her have develped something that certainly blrnds
the two together in one way or another.

>
> Just curious....
>

Not to speak for her, just indicating how some can blend. It does
require a pick and choose from the Bible from the way I read it.
However I have seen many pick and choose for many path, not just
Christians.



--
news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-29 22:55:07 UTC
Permalink
<***@dmcom.net> wrote in message news:***@dmcom.net...
> Alexandra Ceelie wrote:
>
> >
> > How do you get around the "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
thing? I
> > was under the impression there was a whole biblical taboo on
practicing
> > divination or sorcery of any kind, regardless of intent.
>
> She concentrates on certain sections, mostly the New Testiment. She
has
> indicated in the past that she does not accept the whole of the
Bible to
> be correct.
>
> >
> > Also, what about the concept of the Goddess as an equal to the
God? How is
> > it resolved with the Christian deity who demands to be first in
the lives of
> > his followers?
>
> If she uses that law, having a Goddess equal is not having a God
above
> him. One could also argue Goddesses were not mentioned at all.
>
> >
> > In combining the two religions, I would think those two things
would be
> > major obstacles to a harmonious interlinking of Christianity and
Wicca.
>
> However many not just her have develped something that certainly
blrnds
> the two together in one way or another.
>
> >
> > Just curious....
> >
>
> Not to speak for her, just indicating how some can blend. It does
> require a pick and choose from the Bible from the way I read it.
> However I have seen many pick and choose for many path, not just
> Christians.

Isn't the entire split of Christianity into different denominations
merely a result of cherry-picking?



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
Ironywaves
2003-07-29 23:28:04 UTC
Permalink
"Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <***@dmcom.net> wrote in message news:***@dmcom.net...
> > Alexandra Ceelie wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > How do you get around the "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"
> thing? I
> > > was under the impression there was a whole biblical taboo on
> practicing
> > > divination or sorcery of any kind, regardless of intent.
> >
> > She concentrates on certain sections, mostly the New Testiment. She
> has
> > indicated in the past that she does not accept the whole of the
> Bible to
> > be correct.
> >
> > >
> > > Also, what about the concept of the Goddess as an equal to the
> God? How is
> > > it resolved with the Christian deity who demands to be first in
> the lives of
> > > his followers?
> >
> > If she uses that law, having a Goddess equal is not having a God
> above
> > him. One could also argue Goddesses were not mentioned at all.
> >
> > >
> > > In combining the two religions, I would think those two things
> would be
> > > major obstacles to a harmonious interlinking of Christianity and
> Wicca.
> >
> > However many not just her have develped something that certainly
> blrnds
> > the two together in one way or another.
> >
> > >
> > > Just curious....
> > >
> >
> > Not to speak for her, just indicating how some can blend. It does
> > require a pick and choose from the Bible from the way I read it.
> > However I have seen many pick and choose for many path, not just
> > Christians.
>
> Isn't the entire split of Christianity into different denominations
> merely a result of cherry-picking?

Exactly. And why not pick for ourselves... I don't need *any* middle man to
find my God.
Dockery

http://here.nu/hp/.eea181f
mika
2003-07-30 00:55:11 UTC
Permalink
***@dmcom.net wrote
> Alexandra Ceelie wrote:
>
> > Also, what about the concept of the Goddess as an equal to the God? How is
> > it resolved with the Christian deity who demands to be first in the lives of
> > his followers?
>
> If she uses that law, having a Goddess equal is not having a God above
> him. One could also argue Goddesses were not mentioned at all.

I don't know much about the Christian God, but the original Hebrew God
consists of both masculine and feminine aspects (while at the same
time, is 'beyond gender'). The translation of the name(s) for God
from Hebrew to other languages tranformed genderless or multi-gender
names into masculine names. The name change, among other things, led
to a whole new image of God, and that new image became fully
masculine.

A Wiccan can take the approach that all Wiccan Gods and Goddesses are
aspects of the one God-Goddess/Unity. Thus there is no contradiction
between their Wiccan practices and their faith and reverence towards
the Hebrew (Judeo/Islamic/Christian) God. Note that this is not a
hierarchy, where the Wiccan dieties are somehow 'lower' than the
Judeo/Islamic/Christian diety. It is the approach that they are all
One. We just interact with aspects of the One that sometimes seem to
be separate from eachother.
zayton
2003-07-30 04:22:41 UTC
Permalink
<***@dmcom.net> wrote in message news:***@dmcom.net...
> Alexandra Ceelie wrote:
>
> >
> > How do you get around the "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" thing?
I
> > was under the impression there was a whole biblical taboo on practicing
> > divination or sorcery of any kind, regardless of intent.
>
> She concentrates on certain sections, mostly the New Testiment. She has
> indicated in the past that she does not accept the whole of the Bible to
> be correct.

No one really does; in spite of the fervent claims of some groups and
individuals to do so.
>
> >
> > Also, what about the concept of the Goddess as an equal to the God? How
is
> > it resolved with the Christian deity who demands to be first in the
lives of
> > his followers?
>
> If she uses that law, having a Goddess equal is not having a God above
> him. One could also argue Goddesses were not mentioned at all.
>
> >
> > In combining the two religions, I would think those two things would be
> > major obstacles to a harmonious interlinking of Christianity and Wicca.
>
> However many not just her have develped something that certainly blrnds
> the two together in one way or another.
>
> >
> > Just curious....
> >
>
> Not to speak for her, just indicating how some can blend. It does
> require a pick and choose from the Bible from the way I read it.
> However I have seen many pick and choose for many path, not just
> Christians.
>
>
>
> --
> news:alt.pagan FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/altpag.txt
> news:alt.religion.wicca FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/arwfaq2.txt
> news:news.groups FAQ at http://www.dmcom.net/bard/ngfaq.txt
> Want a new group FAQs http://web.presby.edu/~nnqadmin/nnq/ncreate.html
>
>
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 01:51:53 UTC
Permalink
"Brenda G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...

> Personally I believe that Jesus was born to enlighten people to the
idea
> that paganism....by that I mean pre-Yahweh beliefs...was the
original
> beliefs and good ones at that.

You sound like you were raised as a Catholic.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-30 05:15:33 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Maxie P. Diddly wrote:

>
> "Brenda G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> news:***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
>
> > Personally I believe that Jesus was born to enlighten people to the
> idea
> > that paganism....by that I mean pre-Yahweh beliefs...was the
> original
> > beliefs and good ones at that.
>
> You sound like you were raised as a Catholic.
>
***nope. I was encouraged to go to the United Church...but not forced into
any religion thankfully. My parents allowed me the freedom to find my own
spirituality.

Blessings
Bren.

*****************************************************
Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
dogmas and creeds.
When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
assured that the emancipation of the world is through
the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
Religion of Love.
*****************************************************
t_naismith
2003-07-29 00:39:19 UTC
Permalink
"Parse Tree" wrote:
> "The Talesinator" wrote:
> > "kate" wrote:
> >
> > : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
> witchcraft,
> > : for sure.
> >
> > I happen to know someone who does exactly that
>
> Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> Christianity with witchcraft?
>
Core disparities at the elemental, rather than the superficial level.

HTH-
TN
Parse Tree
2003-07-29 01:14:06 UTC
Permalink
"t_naismith" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg4fmd$l0icv$***@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> "Parse Tree" wrote:
> > "The Talesinator" wrote:
> > > "kate" wrote:
> > >
> > > : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
> > witchcraft,
> > > : for sure.
> > >
> > > I happen to know someone who does exactly that
> >
> > Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> > Christianity with witchcraft?
> >
> Core disparities at the elemental, rather than the superficial
level.
>
> HTH-
> TN

I can see you're neither a Christian nor a Witch.
t_naismith
2003-07-29 05:26:45 UTC
Permalink
> > "Parse Tree" wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> > What's wrong with combining Christianity with witchcraft?
> > > > >
> > > > "t_naismith" wrote:

> > > > Core disparities at the elemental, rather than the
> superficial
> > > level.
> > > >
> > > > HTH-
> > >
> > > I can see you're neither a Christian nor a Witch.
> > >
> > Then you need to check into glasses - you're half-right, I'm no
> > christian. As for the other half; it depends on what you mean by
> "witch",
> > doesn't it?
>
> The point is that it doesn't take much to be a Christian. You only have
> to accept Christ, you don't have to believe in the Bible, even.
>
>
You're right about that too, it doesn't seem to take much for someone
to call themselves "christian" or "theosophist". Sort of devalues the
terms, as far as they've been expressed goes.
janet
2003-07-30 15:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Parse Tree wrote:

> The point is that it doesn't take much to be a Christian. You only
> have to accept Christ, you don't have to believe in the Bible, even.

Ummm..... I have to say I can't think of any group of Christians who would
agree.

There are a lot of people who self define as Christians, yes - but that in
itself is difficult, considering the importance placed on community....

--
"It's a nasty module. There's no way you can pass without doing the
work" Overheard in a lift. janet hhttp://www.karlsforums.com/forums/
email: ***@karlsforums.com
hY
2003-07-29 04:48:01 UTC
Permalink
t_naismith wrote:
> "Parse Tree" wrote:
>
>>"The Talesinator" wrote:
>
> > > "kate" wrote:
>
>>>: "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
>>
>>witchcraft,
>>
>>>: for sure.
>>>
>>>I happen to know someone who does exactly that
>>
>>Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
>>Christianity with witchcraft?
>>
>
> Core disparities at the elemental, rather than the superficial level.

I think it's the other way around. When you go to church, they tell
you this stuff is evil. But as you look around and ask questions, you
find out its not so bad after all, and some actually support you.
t_naismith
2003-07-29 05:38:03 UTC
Permalink
"hY" wrote:
> t_naismith wrote:
> > "Parse Tree" wrote:
> >>"The Talesinator" wrote:
> >
> > > > "kate" wrote:
> >
> >>>: "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
> >>
> >>witchcraft,
> >>
> >>>: for sure.
> >>>
> >>>I happen to know someone who does exactly that
> >>
> >>Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> >>Christianity with witchcraft?
> >>
> >
> > Core disparities at the elemental, rather than the superficial
level.
>
> I think it's the other way around. When you go to church, they tell
> you this stuff is evil. But as you look around and ask questions, you
> find out its not so bad after all, and some actually support you.
>

Hmm ... your segue does nothing to support your hypothesis that "it's
the other way around". Namely, that you are essentially stating that the
disparities are superficial and implying _core_ or elemental similarities
between christianity and witchcraft. This premise is not supported. Would
you care to elaborate?

TN
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-29 06:15:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, hY wrote:

> t_naismith wrote:
> > "Parse Tree" wrote:
> >
> >>"The Talesinator" wrote:
> >
> > > > "kate" wrote:
> >
> >>>: "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
> >>
> >>witchcraft,
> >>
> >>>: for sure.
> >>>
> >>>I happen to know someone who does exactly that
> >>
> >>Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> >>Christianity with witchcraft?
> >>
> >
> > Core disparities at the elemental, rather than the superficial level.
>
> I think it's the other way around. When you go to church, they tell
> you this stuff is evil. But as you look around and ask questions, you
> find out its not so bad after all, and some actually support you.
>
*****in agreement. If you read mysticism of all the Book faiths..you will
see a close connection. These mysticisms are said by some to be the inner
way or Core beginnings of the book faiths.

IN my opinion.
Bren.

*****************************************************
Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
dogmas and creeds.
When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
assured that the emancipation of the world is through
the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
Religion of Love.
*****************************************************
Ironywaves
2003-07-30 00:49:56 UTC
Permalink
> > Jesus Christ wasn't even a "Christian". All that came later... he's
> a
> > Shaman Kickboxer and does Magick often. I think it is time for a new
> > label
> > for those who like Jesus but don't care for the trappings of
> hundreds
> > of
> > years of "Christianity".
>
> It's not hundreds. It's thousands. The roots of Christianity and its
> beliefs are thousands of years old, and are composed of various pagan
> belief systems.

As I wrote before, I refer to "Christianity", named "Christianity" which did
not exist during the time of Jesus... roots, but not the organised religion
known as "Christianity". Jesus wasn't a "Christian", nor were the Isis,
Mithras, or even Balduur [if there even was one] cults. Christianity is less
than 2000 years old, by name.
Dockery

http://willdockery0.tripod.com
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 01:04:40 UTC
Permalink
"Ironywaves" <***@knology.net> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Jesus Christ wasn't even a "Christian". All that came later...
he's
> > a
> > > Shaman Kickboxer and does Magick often. I think it is time for a
new
> > > label
> > > for those who like Jesus but don't care for the trappings of
> > hundreds
> > > of
> > > years of "Christianity".
> >
> > It's not hundreds. It's thousands. The roots of Christianity and
its
> > beliefs are thousands of years old, and are composed of various
pagan
> > belief systems.
>
> As I wrote before, I refer to "Christianity", named "Christianity"
which did
> not exist during the time of Jesus... roots, but not the organised
religion
> known as "Christianity". Jesus wasn't a "Christian", nor were the
Isis,
> Mithras, or even Balduur [if there even was one] cults. Christianity
is less
> than 2000 years old, by name.

Huh? You just said you referred to Christianity before it was named
Christianity. And I corrected you, saying that such beliefs were not
hundreds but thousands of years old.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
Ironywaves
2003-07-30 01:21:03 UTC
Permalink
> Huh? You just said you referred to Christianity before it was named
> Christianity. And I corrected you, saying that such beliefs were not
> hundreds but thousands of years old.

Here's what I wrote, and your correction is wrong. Actual, established
Christianity is less than 2000 years old, by name:

Jesus Christ wasn't even a "Christian". All that came later... he's a
Shaman Kickboxer and does Magick often. I think it is time for a new label
for those who like Jesus but don't care for the trappings of hundreds of
years of "Christianity". Brenda [and many others] are onto something good.
Pagans were "country folk", where all the best ideas come from.
Dockery

Of course Jesus wasn't a Christian it was Paul who started the Christian
religion. We could call it Paulianity I guess. It is Paul's words that
people listen to today. As far as the other people who wrote the other books
of the bible do we ever really look at what they wrote and turn it to the
metaphysical? Jesus taught metaphysics. He also spoke in parables. He felt
that anything gotten too easily would not be appreciated. Jesus was born a
Jew and died a Jew in the Hebrew religion. It was those who came after who
started this new religion.
-Cassonya
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 01:40:48 UTC
Permalink
"Ironywaves" <***@knology.net> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...

> Here's what I wrote, and your correction is wrong. Actual,
established
> Christianity is less than 2000 years old

Actual, established Christianity? And that is defined by what
exactly? You still don't get it, eh? The names of the groups
embracing these beliefs have changed, but the beliefs have remained
the same, more or less, for thousands of years. You can call water by
dozens of different names, but it's still water, nevertheless.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
Ironywaves
2003-07-30 01:44:16 UTC
Permalink
"Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ironywaves" <***@knology.net> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > Here's what I wrote, and your correction is wrong. Actual,
> established
> > Christianity is less than 2000 years old
>
> Actual, established Christianity? And that is defined by what
> exactly? You still don't get it, eh?

Nope, I get it. It just wasn't what I was writing about.

The names of the groups
> embracing these beliefs have changed, but the beliefs have remained
> the same, more or less, for thousands of years. You can call water by
> dozens of different names, but it's still water, nevertheless.

That's fine, there's quite a few posts in the Google archives where I posted
similar things. But, that's not what I'm writing about here. I'm writing
about something called Christianity... not the *roots* of Christianity.
Dockery
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 05:11:38 UTC
Permalink
"zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:zLHVa.1919$***@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Ironywaves" <***@knology.net> wrote in message
> > news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > Here's what I wrote, and your correction is wrong. Actual,
> > established
> > > Christianity is less than 2000 years old
> >
> > Actual, established Christianity? And that is defined by what
> > exactly? You still don't get it, eh? The names of the groups
> > embracing these beliefs have changed, but the beliefs have
remained
> > the same, more or less, for thousands of years.
>
> Nonsense.

Only to those who defend the Christian faith as unique above all
others.


> Correspondences are so much to the "less" side that you have to
> generalize to the point of claiming that virtually all religious
systems are
> pretty much the same in order to support such a claim.

Nonsense. Christianity, and it's collective set of beliefs did not
originate with the alleged birth of Christ. The entire concept of a
messiah, for example, is not even Christian. The virgin birth,
performing of miracles, and ressurection is not Christian.


> You can call water by
> > dozens of different names, but it's still water, nevertheless.
>
> Sure. And the sidewalk in front of my house is made of water.

But it's not water. Christianity did not originate "hundreds" of
years ago, but thousands. That's a fact.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
Ironywaves
2003-07-30 06:55:12 UTC
Permalink
And the sidewalk in front of my house is made of water.
>
> But it's not water. Christianity did not originate "hundreds" of
> years ago, but thousands. That's a fact.

Actual Christianity originated a number of years after the "death" of Jesus
Christ. That's a fact.
Dockery
Ironywaves
2003-07-30 07:06:23 UTC
Permalink
> Nonsense. Correspondences are so much to the "less" side that you have to
> generalize to the point of claiming that virtually all religious systems
are
> pretty much the same in order to support such a claim.

Absolute nonsense. All I wrote was that organized Christianity came AFTER
the Crucixion of Jesus Christ... not that there are similarities between
Jesus, Osisris, mithras and the others.
Dockery
William Tucker
2003-07-29 03:43:58 UTC
Permalink
actually only if you were a catholic christian

as all the others are false christianities


or youcould just say that taking what jesus said as the long and the short
of being what a christian was and then pagans would be christian ss too




only the deluded use definitions to determine if their head is on fire


arguing beliefs and names is for children


what jesus said many have said in other languages

as he was talking about reality in general....not about what he owned


like pointing at a cloud and saying cloud...not my cloud just cloud


get it
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-29 05:28:58 UTC
Permalink
"William Tucker" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:24mVa.25995$***@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> actually only if you were a catholic christian
>
> as all the others are false christianities

Er, no. Catholicism is just as false as any other version, if not
more so.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
t_naismith
2003-07-29 06:39:04 UTC
Permalink
"Brenda G. Kult" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> "The Talesinator" wrote:
> > "Parse Tree" <***@domain.extension> wrote:
> > : "The Talesinator" <***@XyahooX.com> wrote:
> > : >
> > : > "kate" <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > : > : "A rose by any other name' wouldn't combine Christianity with
> > : witchcraft,
> > : > : for sure.
> > : >
> > : > I happen to know someone who does exactly that
> > :
> > : Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> > : Christianity with witchcraft?
> >
> > If you are a true xian, you would have to kill yourself
>
> ***what is a "true xian"?

He posted that a true xian is a dead one. Do you only pay attention
when he supports your half-baked nonsense?

> ***do all Christians agree with your view?

Obviously, they cannot agree or disagree - being dead and all.

> ***which
> Christian tradition is the "real" one.
>

The one with the deceased adherents. You are quite slow on the uptake,
Blenda.

TN

> Blen.
hY
2003-07-27 20:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Parse Tree wrote:

> I always find it funny that some people maintain all the religious
> trappings and yet proceed to claim that they're not practicing a
> religion.

You echo my own thoughts.

I have only just realized why I never felt comfortable with calling
myself a Wiccan. As much as I respect the God and Goddess, I do not
feel comfortable with the religious part of Wicca. How absurd, knowing
that I honour Gaia in every magikal act that is sacred to me.

Indeed, more and more I am finding that those who are against
religion, have their own religion, even if it is an anti-religious stance.

I also understand why we create religion and dogma. In trying to
explore and understand what is happening around us, we try to create a
system or rules explain these occurrences. Religion is born through
this act of systematizing.
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-27 21:21:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, hY wrote:

> Parse Tree wrote:
>
> > I always find it funny that some people maintain all the religious
> > trappings and yet proceed to claim that they're not practicing a
> > religion.
>
> You echo my own thoughts.
>
> I have only just realized why I never felt comfortable with calling
> myself a Wiccan. As much as I respect the God and Goddess, I do not
> feel comfortable with the religious part of Wicca. How absurd, knowing
> that I honour Gaia in every magikal act that is sacred to me.
>

****and I love and honour Jesus and yet I don't feel comfortable with the
outer circle of Christianity! It happens. If I was a Wiccan still...I
would have no problem with saying so....just because others don't do
things you approve of..does not mean you should be worried about how you
will be seen by others. I always feel that this is a cowardly thing. Let
them have their prejudices and assumptions...they soon enough learn..if
they have two brain cells to rub together.


> Indeed, more and more I am finding that those who are against
> religion, have their own religion, even if it is an anti-religious stance.
>

***I agree.

> I also understand why we create religion and dogma. In trying to
> explore and understand what is happening around us, we try to create a
> system or rules explain these occurrences. Religion is born through
> this act of systematizing.
>
****and a good thing to break out of that box every now and then.
Bren.


*****************************************************
Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
dogmas and creeds.
When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
assured that the emancipation of the world is through
the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
Religion of Love.
*****************************************************
hY
2003-07-28 02:30:06 UTC
Permalink
Brenda G. Kent wrote:

> ****and I love and honour Jesus and yet I don't feel comfortable with the
> outer circle of Christianity! It happens. If I was a Wiccan still...I
> would have no problem with saying so....just because others don't do
> things you approve of..does not mean you should be worried about how you
> will be seen by others. I always feel that this is a cowardly thing. Let
> them have their prejudices and assumptions...they soon enough learn..if
> they have two brain cells to rub together.

What are you Brenda? What sort of magik do you study?

>
> *****************************************************
> Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> dogmas and creeds.
> When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> Religion of Love.

ick.. this has beauty as well as war seeping through its words.
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-28 05:35:22 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, hY wrote:

> Brenda G. Kent wrote:
>
> > ****and I love and honour Jesus and yet I don't feel comfortable with the
> > outer circle of Christianity! It happens. If I was a Wiccan still...I
> > would have no problem with saying so....just because others don't do
> > things you approve of..does not mean you should be worried about how you
> > will be seen by others. I always feel that this is a cowardly thing. Let
> > them have their prejudices and assumptions...they soon enough learn..if
> > they have two brain cells to rub together.
>
> What are you Brenda? What sort of magik do you study?

***I'm a woman....witch and christian and theosophist. What sort of
"majik" do I study? I study and practise a lot of different kinds why?

>
> >
> > *****************************************************
> > Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> > dogmas and creeds.
> > When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> > your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> > no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> > assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> > the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> > Religion of Love.
>
> ick.. this has beauty as well as war seeping through its words.
>
**** you see war in it? I don't...you love and you can set a soul
free...perhaps a warrior of a different kind.
:)
Bren.
t_naismith
2003-07-28 12:18:31 UTC
Permalink
"Brenda G. Kent" wrote:
> "hY" wrote:
>
> > Blenda G. Kult wrote:
> >
> > > ****and I love and honour Jesus and yet I don't feel comfortable with
the
> > > outer circle of Christianity! It happens. If I was a Wiccan still...I
> > > would have no problem with saying so....just because others don't do
> > > things you approve of..does not mean you should be worried about how
you
> > > will be seen by others. I always feel that this is a cowardly thing.
Let
> > > them have their prejudices and assumptions...they soon enough
learn..if
> > > they have two brain cells to rub together.
> >
> > What are you Brenda? What sort of magik do you study?
>
> ***I'm a woman....

... a known habitual liar and ...

> ***witch

Unsupported assertion ... insufficient evidence of validity.

>***and christian

... only in the vaguest sense; according to your own posts.

>***and theosophist.


You forgot Quaker, pseudo-shaman and cult-ural thief and promoter of
_all-is-one one-wayism_, Blenda. Who knows what load of nonsense you'll
claim next week!

>***What sort of "majik" do I study?

No discernably working sort at all. You are without that knack.

>***I study and practise a lot of different kinds why?
>

What kinds do you study? What types to do claim to practice?

> > > *****************************************************
> > > Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> > > dogmas and creeds.
> > > When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> > > your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> > > no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> > > assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> > > the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> > > Religion of Love.
> >
> > ick.. this has beauty as well as war seeping through its words.
> >
> **** you see war in it? I don't...you love and you can set a soul
> free...perhaps a warrior of a different kind.
>

Your thin veneer of _love and light_ does little to obscure the
falsehood of what you preach tries to hide, Blenda. Even hY sees right
through it.

TN

> Blen.one.wayist
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-29 00:41:57 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, hY wrote:

> t_naismith wrote:
>
> >
> > You forgot Quaker, pseudo-shaman and cult-ural thief and promoter of
> > _all-is-one one-wayism_, Blenda. Who knows what load of nonsense you'll
> > claim next week!
>
>
> She is finding herself.


***actually if people read my responses they will see that I talk about my
ancestors who some of which are Quakers ...shamanism? since I am talking
about Core Shamanics that has nothing to do with cultural theft if you
understand Core Shamanics...so I do hope you learn. I have no one-way_ism
and never had. I am always talking about each persons right to their won
belief system and respect going to each person.
Finding myself? hmmmmm goodness..I hope eventually to lose mySELF! :D

>
> She may be going about it in a much different way then you found your
> proper system, but maybe you got lucky and found what was right for
> you right away.
>
> Or, perhaps she is meant to take the long broad approach, and not dive
> too deeply into any certain form, at least not for now.
>
>

***or perhaps I am just doing something in a different way that you cannot
understand? I personally see the source as the soil and we all have our
roots in it..no matter what kind of flower we are. This is me..I don't ask
that others think as me...but only to allow us all to form our own
beliefs.

Bren


*****************************************************
Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
dogmas and creeds.
When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
assured that the emancipation of the world is through
the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
Religion of Love.
*****************************************************
t_naismith
2003-07-29 03:00:03 UTC
Permalink
"Blenda G. Kent" wrote:
> "hY" wrote:
> > "t_naismith" wrote:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> > > You forgot Quaker, pseudo-shaman and cult-ural thief and promoter
of
> > > _all-is-one one-wayism_, Blenda. Who knows what load of nonsense
you'll
> > > claim next week!
> >
> > She is finding herself.
>
> ***actually if people read my responses they will see that I talk about my
> ancestors who some of which are Quakers ...

That is slightly disengenious, Brenda. You've said you were/are a
participant in Quaker friendship 'religious' meetings. This is only
relevant in regards to your other false claims, however.

> ***...shamanism? since I am talking
> about Core Shamanics that has nothing to do with cultural theft if you
> understand Core Shamanics...

There is no "ravening", even in your pseudo-"Core Shamanics". The
cult-ural theft spoken of is in reference to your taking superficial aspects
of other culturals and claiming to practice some pseudo-variant of them.

> ***...so I do hope you learn.

Here's some of that condescension you've claimed not to engage in - in
this very thread! Wow!!

> ***I have no one-way_ism and never had.


Oh? Just because you don't characterize the whole superficial _unity_
spiel of yours as one-wayist does not make it so. Perhaps your _ism_ would
be better described as some sort of _all-ways-are-one wayism_ then.

> ***I am always talking about each persons right to their won
> belief system and respect going to each person.

I've posted to hY that you can believe any sort of wacked out nonsense that
you like, just stop inflicting them on others and expecting no rebuttal.

> *** Finding myself? hmmmmm goodness..I hope eventually to lose mySELF! :D
>
Yes, that is the essential contention here. You apparently desire to use
some admixture of practices and beliefs to achieve dissolution of yourSelf.
That is and was not the purpose of such alchemies. Even further, your
attempts to use them in this manner are doomed to failure.

> > She may be going about it in a much different way then you found your
> > proper system, but maybe you got lucky and found what was right for
> > you right away.
> >
> > Or, perhaps she is meant to take the long broad approach, and not dive
> > too deeply into any certain form, at least not for now.
> >
>
> ***or perhaps I am just doing something in a different way that you cannot
> understand?

Your pseudo-superficialities are not that difficult to grasp, Blenda.
What seems to tick you off is that they *are* easily understood and
disagreed with. That gnaws on you, doesn't it?

> *** I personally see the source as the soil and we all have our
> roots in it..no matter what kind of flower we are. This is me..I don't ask
> that others think as me...but only to allow us all to form our own
> beliefs.
>

There is a world of difference between separate-yet-connected and
all-is-one. You are lost between those worlds.

TN (eye of Falcon)

> Blen
t_naismith
2003-07-29 03:29:10 UTC
Permalink
"Lilly" wrote:
> "t_naismith" wrote:
>
> <schnippen excellent response, as usual><er, the response part...>
>
Thanks, DiamondLil. :->

> > There is a world of difference between separate-yet-connected and
> >all-is-one. You are lost between those worlds.
>
> Very well put. Doubt she'll appreciate it, though.
>

It wasn't for her ... she's off "finding herself so she can lose
herSelf". ;p

> ~L
>
> "Why should Death lurk in the shadows? Why should
> Death wait at the gate? There is no bedchamber, no
> ballroom that I cannot enter. Death in the glow of the
> hearth, Death on tiptoe in the corridor, that is what I
> am. Speak to me of the Dark Gifts - I use them."

Helluva sig, Lil. :-}

T~
Lilly
2003-07-30 04:39:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 20:29:10 -0700, "t_naismith"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:


>> <schnippen excellent response, as usual><er, the response part...>
>>
> Thanks, DiamondLil. :->

Swellcome TMeister... iss true Lucy.
>
>> > There is a world of difference between separate-yet-connected and
>> >all-is-one. You are lost between those worlds.
>>
>> Very well put. Doubt she'll appreciate it, though.
>>
>
> It wasn't for her ... she's off "finding herself so she can lose
>herSelf". ;p

Were I her, I'd be busy losing myself too. >:D


>> "Why should Death lurk in the shadows? Why should
>> Death wait at the gate? There is no bedchamber, no
>> ballroom that I cannot enter. Death in the glow of the
>> hearth, Death on tiptoe in the corridor, that is what I
>> am. Speak to me of the Dark Gifts - I use them."
>
>Helluva sig, Lil. :-}

Ta, although I must confess, I didn't write it. Course, the " "
should indicate that, but ya never know. I'm so bummed that she's
abandoning the vamps and witches altogether... <sniffle>. One more
(Blood Canticle, I believe, this fall)(a splendid time to release a
book, methinks) and then blatto, nada, zippo. Fuckitty Fucken Fuck.
~L


"Why should Death lurk in the shadows? Why should
Death wait at the gate? There is no bedchamber, no
ballroom that I cannot enter. Death in the glow of the
hearth, Death on tiptoe in the corridor, that is what I
am. Speak to me of the Dark Gifts - I use them."
t_naismith
2003-07-29 01:40:10 UTC
Permalink
"hY" wrote:
> t_naismith wrote:
>
> >
> > You forgot Quaker, pseudo-shaman and cult-ural thief and promoter of
> > _all-is-one one-wayism_, Blenda. Who knows what load of nonsense you'll
> > claim next week!
>
>
> She is finding herself.
>

She has a long journey if she's lost herself.

> She may be going about it in a much different way then you found your
> proper system, but maybe you got lucky and found what was right for
> you right away.
>

The major difference here, hY, is that I didn't hold the pretenses which
Brenda does, along the way. Even now, I have none of her pretenses and
merely do what I do. Part of what I am doing here is to oppose her dabbling
nonsense. Certainly anyone can explore at will; it is those who delude
themselves and then attempt to delude others who will find opposition.


> Or, perhaps she is meant to take the long broad approach, and not dive
> too deeply into any certain form, at least not for now.
>

It really doesn't matter. From what she's posted over six or so years,
her _seeking_ is in vain due to her lack of a vital aspect of the seeker.

TN
Gavyn
2003-07-27 00:36:08 UTC
Permalink
"The Talesinator" <***@XyahooX.com> wrote in message
news:G5AUa.53414$***@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
: [Note: As I have never been one to gossip or talk behind someone's back,
: copies of this post have been sent to the people involved to give them a
: fair shot at responding. It is more than they gave me]
:
:
:
: The Internet has been a very useful tool for the Pagan community. It has
: allowed the local communities to stay up to date and in touch with what is
: going on and it has become the thread tying Pagans from around the world
: together allowing them to share the commonalities of and the differences
in
: their experiences. It has also taken that bane of the Paganism- the
Wiccan
: War (Witch War is no longer considered the proper term)- to new heights.
:
: I should have known better. I know what is going to happen before I even
get
: involved in there groups. However, a "friend" was kind enough to invite me
: join this particular e-mail list. Also, I felt the familiar, gentle
tugging
: telling me that there was a reason for me to be there. Any good Witch
knows
: that one simply does not ignore the quiet little messages that come one's
: way.
:
: So I went to Yahoo groups and I found the group called The Pagan Way. On
the
: home page I found the "we are very tolerant and we will not stand for
: bashing anyone else's beliefs" shtick that is as much a warning as a skull
: and crossbones. Danger: Intolerant codependent fascist Wiccan group ahead.
: Be nice, don't disagree with the dominant clique, and kiss ass or be
: lynched! Despite my swearing off such groups, I went ahead and subscribed
if
: for nothing more than wanting to find out why I was to be there.
:
: The first thing that happens is that I get a deluge of automatically
: generated e-mails from the Chancellor of this little cyber regime. He
calls
: himself- and I swear to the Universe that I am not kidding you- Rev. Sir
: Raymond E Nieman D. D., The Amber Adept. For the gods' sake, King James
: himself would have been embarrassed to make such an arrogant and
: ostentatious claim! Let me tell you, when I got to know this guy, I found
: out this didn't tell half the story.
:
: Well I joined this little Internet soirée and, realized that, once I
started
: posting, my time there would be short. So I lurked for awhile. The list
was
: exactly what I expected. While over 1500 people are subscribed to it,
there
: was a much smaller cadre of about 10 people who pretty much dominated the
: list. One has to wonder if the other 1490 simply forgot to unsub. At any
: rate, I silently watched the parade of whinings about life, error ridden
: treatises filled with Silver Ravenwolf level magick, and totally bizarre
: things like amber alerts and "help me name my feminist porno web site,"
: waiting for whatever it was I was there for.
:
: Finally, amidst the boring drone of the group, the post I was waiting for
: came. A young woman posted asking the group to provide some help for a
: "friend" (it's always a "friend", isn't it?). This "friend" was being
: assailed, she claimed, by an evil spirit. Apparently this spirit had been
: harassing her for some time- apparitions, moving objects and making
strange
: noises- and had even followed her when she moved. This, and some of the
: other information she provided as well as my Witch knowledge told me that
: she was totally wrong. This was no spirit. The "friend" was doing this
: herself.
:
: Several years ago, I was camping with a group of people. It was late into
: the evening (early into the morning, actually), much alcohol and other
: recreational substances had been consumed, almost everyone had drifted off
: to their tents for sex or to pass out, and we had entered the post party
: period where emotions were high and shields were down.
:
: I was talking to young woman whom I had just met that evening. She was
deep
: into the cathartic effect which occurs when one is in the presence of a
lot
: of magickal energy. She related to me how she had been assailed by an evil
: spirit. She assumed it was a woman who had died in the house she had lived
: in as a child. Like the "friend's" spirit, this one followed her around.
It
: moved objects, made strange noises at night, and even caused things like
car
: keys and jewelry "disappear." She had tried many banishing rituals but not
: one had worked. In fact, she felt things had gotten worse.
:
: She also told me other things about herself. She had a bad relationship
with
: her parents and just about every romantic relationship she had been in had
: turned to an angry, painful mess. She was having problems at work and was
so
: fed up with Paganism she had considered abandoning it all together. She
was
: at the end of her rope and did not know what to do.
:
: As I listened to her, the pieces of the puzzle began to arrange
themselves.
: It became clear to me that there was no "evil spirit." The source of the
: disturbances was the woman herself. This is not so farfetched when you
think
: about it. Many magickals have experienced a phenomenon which I call
: "accidental magick." Emotion is a strong source of energy and, when that
: energy becomes strong enough, it is going to go somewhere. When you couple
: that with a constant state of inner chaos, the result is exactly the kind
of
: disturbances this woman and the "friend" are experiencing.
:
: Being the blunt person I am, I told her, "There is no spirit. You are
doing
: this." Of course the woman did not take well to that thought. She objected
: and was almost offended at the idea. I let her go on about how that could
: not possibly be right and, when she ran out of steam, I asked her if the
: spirit had bothered her at all during that particular weekend while we
: camped. It hadn't. I asked her how she had felt that weekend. Her response
: was that she was more relaxed than she had been in quite awhile. I just
: looked at her for a few moments as the thought that I might be right
crossed
: her mind.
:
: She contacted me a few days later. It seems that her "spirit" had not
: bothered her for day or two. Then, she had a huge argument with her sister
: and, that very night, three plates were "mysteriously" flung from a shelf
: and broken on the kitchen floor while she slept.
:
: After a lot of work and time, this woman found her solution in learning to
: ground and center and in getting her life under control by staying away
from
: chaotic people and situations. The "spirit" eventually stopped bothering
: her.
:
: So this incident, my dealings with real spirits, and things I have picked
up
: from the experiences of my colleagues and mentors, made me pretty certain
: that the ""friend"" was the source of her own torment. I also learned that
: people who continue to assail spirits when there is no spirit involved not
: only make things worse not only by ignoring their own problems but by
: actually *evoking* spirits through their efforts to banish. Then, it
becomes
: a real party.
:
: The post about the ""friend"" and her "spirit" hit a chord inside me. This
: was why I was brought to the list. I did try to soften things a little. My
: first post was a response to one of those stupid survey things. Of course,
I
: gave funny instead of real answers and, again of course, since Pagans as a
: demographic are very humorless people, it was met with a cold response.
:
: All of the Wiccans were buying into the evil spirit theory and
contributing
: all the knowledge Llewellyn had to offer (yes, that was sarcasm) to the
: problem. If I was going to be the lone voice of reason, I would have to
take
: the blunt approach again. So I simply posted "It is not a spirit, your
: 'friend' is doing it herself." I seriously felt this person was heading
for
: big trouble and, since I was only going to get one shot, I took the
kamikaze
: approach.
:
: The gods' balls, you should have seen the reaction that caused! How DARE I
: make such a suggestion? How could I possibly know it was not a spirit (how
: could they possibly know it was)? I might as well have suggested that The
: Law of Three was a farce or that their mothers were all whores!
:
: Normally, at this point, I would have unleashed my full Talesinic power
and
: flamed those Wiccans into fine ash. However, this was a serious situation
: where someone really could get hurt. So I kept my flamethrower in the
closet
: and simply tried to reason with these people. They would not have it. They
: demanded my credentials, insulted me and called me stupid names, and even
: made not so subtle remarks about cutting me up with a variety of sharp
: weapons. All of this without a single moderator of this oh so peaceful and
: tolerant place objecting.
:
: However, I decided that this time it was going to be different. If they
were
: going to ride me out of town on a rail, they would not get any comfort
from
: me. I stayed my ground, for sure, but I did not resort to any kind of
: personal attack as they did to me.
:
: Right on cue, when the first wave of abusive frontal assaults did not
work,
: the second wave of behind the scenes whining to the mods began. "Get him
: off the list or I will unsubscribe." A friend of a friend of a friend told
: me he is really a Baptist bent on destroying Wicca." "He is a tool of the
: devil!"
:
: Well, this put Sir Rev Adept into a bad place. He was obligated to make
sure
: no miscreants disturbed his little kingdom and yet, he could not simply
oust
: me and look like the intolerant fascist that he really was. He had to
: fabricate a reason. Well, when you can't fight with facts, go with
emotion.
: I was accused of- get this- "having a rude tone."
:
: So the Reichfuhrer of The Pagan Way (gods, I gag every time I think of
that
: name) banned me. It was no great loss. The problem with these fascist
lists
: is that they become dreadfully boring. When things are so tightly
controlled
: and people are afraid to say what they think, it really does not promote
: interesting discussion. I had said my piece, those who were going to
listen
: to me did and those who weren't would just continue to wallow in the same
: ignorance they were in when I joined the list. I hoped the "friend" would
: not get hurt too badly by everyone else's ignorance and was happy to go on
: my way. But it did not end there.
:
: Apparently there are some people on The Pagan Way who disagreed with the
: decision to ban me because I refused to knuckle under to incorrect
: perceptions simply to appease a bunch of cyber bullies. Many of them-
: including a few moderators (the list must have like 50 moderators)- wrote
to
: me to tell me they were appalled by what happened. They said they knew I
was
: only trying to help and that they supported my right to think as I wanted.
: As an aside, I also found out that I had been moderated all along. The
posts
: I was banned for had actually been approved by a moderator *before* they
: appeared on the list! It was a setup.
:
: At any rate, my banning caused quite an offline stir (of course, none of
: this was allowed to be discussed publicly. Ah, the beauty of censorship).
: Members and mods alike were raising hell with over my banning. Things were
: not happy in the cyber Third Reich and something had to be done about it.
: Out came the favored weapons of the Wiccans- libel and slander.
:
: When they first banned me, the moderator who did so screwed up and only
: unsubbed me. I subscribed again before I was actually banned. Now, as you
: e-groupers know, it currently takes Yahoo two days to process any change
: requests. Thus, there was a time I was subbed to the list but my name did
: not appear on the member page. This was perfect for those who had silence
: me. "Look," they said, "He is hacking the list!" To further "prove" this,
: they banned the next few new people who tried to join their list and
claimed
: it was me hacking them. These idiots even went as far as doing Internet
: searches, finding some old spam dump addresses I never even look at, and
: sending "you are banned" notices to everyone they could find!
:
: Get this, Sir Rev Adept D.D. actually sends me an e-mail telling me that
The
: Pagan Way is *his* house and that, since I did not play his way, I was
being
: punished. That's right, he actually said, "punished." As further torment
for
: failing to kiss his arrogant ass, I was also banned from all of the other
: groups he owns. Oh, let me shed a bitter tear!
:
: Eons ago, when the Great Programmer wrote the code for the Universe, s/he
: included a subroutine for Wiccan Wars that has run unvaried since Sanders
: got pissed at Gardner. Someone comes along and refuses to follow the rest
of
: the sheep and suggests something that is not acceptable to the dominant
: cadre. Said cadre immediately attacks said non sheep. The (moderator,
elder,
: HP/S, teacher) of the group steps in and calls for their (banning,
: banishment, hanging, burning). To justify this heinous action, the same
old
: lies are brought out (s/he's a stalker, hacker, slut, sexual abuser). The
: saddest and most sickening part is the way people who see what is going on
: and know it is wrong refuse to speak up about it because they are
terrified
: of being the next person ousted from what ever social circle is involved.
:
: Is it any wonder that actual Witches prefer remaining solitary or to
: restrict themselves to family lines? Do we even need to consider why the
: "old guard" Pagans have turned their backs, walked away, and refuse to
even
: acknowledge what they built? Is more than one brain cell required to
figure
: out why Wicca/neo Paganism has become a joke?
:
: I understand the person who asked for help with the spirit and her
"friend"
: have consulted a medium and that this medium has "confirmed" it is an evil
: spirit. The spirit of her grandfather, in fact. At this point, one can
only
: hope that, after all of the chaos and pain the "friend" has ahead of her,
: she runs into someone who will be able to actually help her before she is
: injured beyond recovery.
:
: Had it not been for the fact that, this time, someone could be seriously
: hurt by a Wiccan War, I would not have wasted everyone's time writing
about
: it. After all, these petty Wiccan Wars happen all the time. So often, they
: are not even worth thinking about.
:
: Sadly, they have become The Pagan Way.
:
:
:
: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Pagan_Way/
:

Fantastic post! I have never heard it put so succinctly and so honestly!

~G~
The Talesinator
2003-07-28 03:53:15 UTC
Permalink
"Gavyn" <***@outbc.com> wrote in message
news:Y7FUa.360$***@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
: "The Talesinator" <***@XyahooX.com> wrote in message
: news:G5AUa.53414$***@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
: : [Note: As I have never been one to gossip or talk behind someone's back,
: : copies of this post have been sent to the people involved to give them a
: : fair shot at responding. It is more than they gave me]

:
: Fantastic post! I have never heard it put so succinctly and so honestly!

I do what I can


--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)

The following statement is true
The above statement is false

http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft

Get your daily Dragon: http://www.pendragonsloft.blogspot.com/

© 2003 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved
Joseph
2003-07-27 04:44:43 UTC
Permalink
The Talesinator wrote:

An interesting post, i mention this only for the similarity in prose of
the first half that is very reminiscent of the "Rolling Thunder"
description of a similar incident.

Joseph.



> [Note: As I have never been one to gossip or talk behind someone's
> back,
> copies of this post have been sent to the people involved to give them
> a
> fair shot at responding. It is more than they gave me]
>
> The Internet has been a very useful tool for the Pagan community. It
> has
> allowed the local communities to stay up to date and in touch with
> what is
> going on and it has become the thread tying Pagans from around the
> world
> together allowing them to share the commonalities of and the
> differences in
> their experiences. It has also taken that bane of the Paganism- the
> Wiccan
> War (Witch War is no longer considered the proper term)- to new
> heights.
>
> I should have known better. I know what is going to happen before I
> even get
> involved in there groups. However, a "friend" was kind enough to
> invite me
> join this particular e-mail list. Also, I felt the familiar, gentle
> tugging
> telling me that there was a reason for me to be there. Any good Witch
> knows
> that one simply does not ignore the quiet little messages that come
> one's
> way.
>
> So I went to Yahoo groups and I found the group called The Pagan Way.
> On the
> home page I found the "we are very tolerant and we will not stand for
> bashing anyone else's beliefs" shtick that is as much a warning as a
> skull
> and crossbones. Danger: Intolerant codependent fascist Wiccan group
> ahead.
> Be nice, don't disagree with the dominant clique, and kiss ass or be
> lynched! Despite my swearing off such groups, I went ahead and
> subscribed if
> for nothing more than wanting to find out why I was to be there.
>
> The first thing that happens is that I get a deluge of automatically
> generated e-mails from the Chancellor of this little cyber regime. He
> calls
> himself- and I swear to the Universe that I am not kidding you- Rev.
> Sir
> Raymond E Nieman D. D., The Amber Adept. For the gods' sake, King
> James
> himself would have been embarrassed to make such an arrogant and
> ostentatious claim! Let me tell you, when I got to know this guy, I
> found
> out this didn't tell half the story.
>
> Well I joined this little Internet soirée and, realized that, once I
> started
> posting, my time there would be short. So I lurked for awhile. The
> list was
> exactly what I expected. While over 1500 people are subscribed to it,
> there
> was a much smaller cadre of about 10 people who pretty much dominated
> the
> list. One has to wonder if the other 1490 simply forgot to unsub. At
> any
> rate, I silently watched the parade of whinings about life, error
> ridden
> treatises filled with Silver Ravenwolf level magick, and totally
> bizarre
> things like amber alerts and "help me name my feminist porno web
> site,"
> waiting for whatever it was I was there for.
>
> Finally, amidst the boring drone of the group, the post I was waiting
> for
> came. A young woman posted asking the group to provide some help for a
>
> "friend" (it's always a "friend", isn't it?). This "friend" was being
> assailed, she claimed, by an evil spirit. Apparently this spirit had
> been
> harassing her for some time- apparitions, moving objects and making
> strange
> noises- and had even followed her when she moved. This, and some of
> the
> other information she provided as well as my Witch knowledge told me
> that
> she was totally wrong. This was no spirit. The "friend" was doing this
>
> herself.
>
> Several years ago, I was camping with a group of people. It was late
> into
> the evening (early into the morning, actually), much alcohol and other
>
> recreational substances had been consumed, almost everyone had drifted
> off
> to their tents for sex or to pass out, and we had entered the post
> party
> period where emotions were high and shields were down.
>
> I was talking to young woman whom I had just met that evening. She
> was deep
> into the cathartic effect which occurs when one is in the presence of
> a lot
> of magickal energy. She related to me how she had been assailed by an
> evil
> spirit. She assumed it was a woman who had died in the house she had
> lived
> in as a child. Like the "friend's" spirit, this one followed her
> around. It
> moved objects, made strange noises at night, and even caused things
> like car
> keys and jewelry "disappear." She had tried many banishing rituals but
> not
> one had worked. In fact, she felt things had gotten worse.
>
> She also told me other things about herself. She had a bad
> relationship with
> her parents and just about every romantic relationship she had been in
> had
> turned to an angry, painful mess. She was having problems at work and
> was so
> fed up with Paganism she had considered abandoning it all together.
> She was
> at the end of her rope and did not know what to do.
>
> As I listened to her, the pieces of the puzzle began to arrange
> themselves.
> It became clear to me that there was no "evil spirit." The source of
> the
> disturbances was the woman herself. This is not so farfetched when you
> think
> about it. Many magickals have experienced a phenomenon which I call
> "accidental magick." Emotion is a strong source of energy and, when
> that
> energy becomes strong enough, it is going to go somewhere. When you
> couple
> that with a constant state of inner chaos, the result is exactly the
> kind of
> disturbances this woman and the "friend" are experiencing.
>
> Being the blunt person I am, I told her, "There is no spirit. You are
> doing
> this." Of course the woman did not take well to that thought. She
> objected
> and was almost offended at the idea. I let her go on about how that
> could
> not possibly be right and, when she ran out of steam, I asked her if
> the
> spirit had bothered her at all during that particular weekend while we
>
> camped. It hadn't. I asked her how she had felt that weekend. Her
> response
> was that she was more relaxed than she had been in quite awhile. I
> just
> looked at her for a few moments as the thought that I might be right
> crossed
> her mind.
>
> She contacted me a few days later. It seems that her "spirit" had not
> bothered her for day or two. Then, she had a huge argument with her
> sister
> and, that very night, three plates were "mysteriously" flung from a
> shelf
> and broken on the kitchen floor while she slept.
>
> After a lot of work and time, this woman found her solution in
> learning to
> ground and center and in getting her life under control by staying
> away from
> chaotic people and situations. The "spirit" eventually stopped
> bothering
> her.
>
> So this incident, my dealings with real spirits, and things I have
> picked up
> from the experiences of my colleagues and mentors, made me pretty
> certain
> that the ""friend"" was the source of her own torment. I also learned
> that
> people who continue to assail spirits when there is no spirit involved
> not
> only make things worse not only by ignoring their own problems but by
> actually *evoking* spirits through their efforts to banish. Then, it
> becomes
> a real party.
>
> The post about the ""friend"" and her "spirit" hit a chord inside me.
> This
> was why I was brought to the list. I did try to soften things a
> little. My
> first post was a response to one of those stupid survey things. Of
> course, I
> gave funny instead of real answers and, again of course, since Pagans
> as a
> demographic are very humorless people, it was met with a cold
> response.
>
> All of the Wiccans were buying into the evil spirit theory and
> contributing
> all the knowledge Llewellyn had to offer (yes, that was sarcasm) to
> the
> problem. If I was going to be the lone voice of reason, I would have
> to take
> the blunt approach again. So I simply posted "It is not a spirit, your
>
> 'friend' is doing it herself." I seriously felt this person was
> heading for
> big trouble and, since I was only going to get one shot, I took the
> kamikaze
> approach.
>
> The gods' balls, you should have seen the reaction that caused! How
> DARE I
> make such a suggestion? How could I possibly know it was not a spirit
> (how
> could they possibly know it was)? I might as well have suggested that
> The
> Law of Three was a farce or that their mothers were all whores!
>
> Normally, at this point, I would have unleashed my full Talesinic
> power and
> flamed those Wiccans into fine ash. However, this was a serious
> situation
> where someone really could get hurt. So I kept my flamethrower in the
> closet
> and simply tried to reason with these people. They would not have it.
> They
> demanded my credentials, insulted me and called me stupid names, and
> even
> made not so subtle remarks about cutting me up with a variety of sharp
>
> weapons. All of this without a single moderator of this oh so peaceful
> and
> tolerant place objecting.
>
> However, I decided that this time it was going to be different. If
> they were
> going to ride me out of town on a rail, they would not get any comfort
> from
> me. I stayed my ground, for sure, but I did not resort to any kind of
> personal attack as they did to me.
>
> Right on cue, when the first wave of abusive frontal assaults did not
> work,
> the second wave of behind the scenes whining to the mods began. "Get
> him
> off the list or I will unsubscribe." A friend of a friend of a friend
> told
> me he is really a Baptist bent on destroying Wicca." "He is a tool of
> the
> devil!"
>
> Well, this put Sir Rev Adept into a bad place. He was obligated to
> make sure
> no miscreants disturbed his little kingdom and yet, he could not
> simply oust
> me and look like the intolerant fascist that he really was. He had to
> fabricate a reason. Well, when you can't fight with facts, go with
> emotion.
> I was accused of- get this- "having a rude tone."
>
> So the Reichfuhrer of The Pagan Way (gods, I gag every time I think of
> that
> name) banned me. It was no great loss. The problem with these fascist
> lists
> is that they become dreadfully boring. When things are so tightly
> controlled
> and people are afraid to say what they think, it really does not
> promote
> interesting discussion. I had said my piece, those who were going to
> listen
> to me did and those who weren't would just continue to wallow in the
> same
> ignorance they were in when I joined the list. I hoped the "friend"
> would
> not get hurt too badly by everyone else's ignorance and was happy to
> go on
> my way. But it did not end there.
>
> Apparently there are some people on The Pagan Way who disagreed with
> the
> decision to ban me because I refused to knuckle under to incorrect
> perceptions simply to appease a bunch of cyber bullies. Many of them-
> including a few moderators (the list must have like 50 moderators)-
> wrote to
> me to tell me they were appalled by what happened. They said they knew
> I was
> only trying to help and that they supported my right to think as I
> wanted.
> As an aside, I also found out that I had been moderated all along. The
> posts
> I was banned for had actually been approved by a moderator *before*
> they
> appeared on the list! It was a setup.
>
> At any rate, my banning caused quite an offline stir (of course, none
> of
> this was allowed to be discussed publicly. Ah, the beauty of
> censorship).
> Members and mods alike were raising hell with over my banning. Things
> were
> not happy in the cyber Third Reich and something had to be done about
> it.
> Out came the favored weapons of the Wiccans- libel and slander.
>
> When they first banned me, the moderator who did so screwed up and
> only
> unsubbed me. I subscribed again before I was actually banned. Now, as
> you
> e-groupers know, it currently takes Yahoo two days to process any
> change
> requests. Thus, there was a time I was subbed to the list but my name
> did
> not appear on the member page. This was perfect for those who had
> silence
> me. "Look," they said, "He is hacking the list!" To further "prove"
> this,
> they banned the next few new people who tried to join their list and
> claimed
> it was me hacking them. These idiots even went as far as doing
> Internet
> searches, finding some old spam dump addresses I never even look at,
> and
> sending "you are banned" notices to everyone they could find!
>
> Get this, Sir Rev Adept D.D. actually sends me an e-mail telling me
> that The
> Pagan Way is *his* house and that, since I did not play his way, I was
> being
> punished. That's right, he actually said, "punished." As further
> torment for
> failing to kiss his arrogant ass, I was also banned from all of the
> other
> groups he owns. Oh, let me shed a bitter tear!
>
> Eons ago, when the Great Programmer wrote the code for the Universe,
> s/he
> included a subroutine for Wiccan Wars that has run unvaried since
> Sanders
> got pissed at Gardner. Someone comes along and refuses to follow the
> rest of
> the sheep and suggests something that is not acceptable to the
> dominant
> cadre. Said cadre immediately attacks said non sheep. The (moderator,
> elder,
> HP/S, teacher) of the group steps in and calls for their (banning,
> banishment, hanging, burning). To justify this heinous action, the
> same old
> lies are brought out (s/he's a stalker, hacker, slut, sexual abuser).
> The
> saddest and most sickening part is the way people who see what is
> going on
> and know it is wrong refuse to speak up about it because they are
> terrified
> of being the next person ousted from what ever social circle is
> involved.
>
> Is it any wonder that actual Witches prefer remaining solitary or to
> restrict themselves to family lines? Do we even need to consider why
> the
> "old guard" Pagans have turned their backs, walked away, and refuse to
> even
> acknowledge what they built? Is more than one brain cell required to
> figure
> out why Wicca/neo Paganism has become a joke?
>
> I understand the person who asked for help with the spirit and her
> "friend"
> have consulted a medium and that this medium has "confirmed" it is an
> evil
> spirit. The spirit of her grandfather, in fact. At this point, one can
> only
> hope that, after all of the chaos and pain the "friend" has ahead of
> her,
> she runs into someone who will be able to actually help her before she
> is
> injured beyond recovery.
>
> Had it not been for the fact that, this time, someone could be
> seriously
> hurt by a Wiccan War, I would not have wasted everyone's time writing
> about
> it. After all, these petty Wiccan Wars happen all the time. So often,
> they
> are not even worth thinking about.
>
> Sadly, they have become The Pagan Way.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Pagan_Way/
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-27 04:46:24 UTC
Permalink
"The Talesinator" <***@XyahooX.com> wrote in message
news:G5AUa.53414$***@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...

> To justify this heinous action, the same old
> lies are brought out (s/he's a stalker, hacker, slut, sexual abuser)

How does it feel to admit that you're a liar?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
The Natural Philosopher
2003-07-28 15:04:18 UTC
Permalink
Maxie P. Diddly wrote:

> "The Talesinator" <***@XyahooX.com> wrote in message
> news:G5AUa.53414$***@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
>
>
>>To justify this heinous action, the same old
>>lies are brought out (s/he's a stalker, hacker, slut, sexual abuser)
>>
>
> How does it feel to admit that you're a liar?
>


Depends on how much emotional energy you have invested in your facade of
honsety :-)


>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
>
>
>
Lush
2003-07-27 05:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Wiccan groups are pretty funny. Of course it is unlikely that you posted to
that egroup any less abusively than you post here.

Lush

"The Talesinator" <***@XyahooX.com> wrote in message
news:G5AUa.53414$***@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> [Note: As I have never been one to gossip or talk behind someone's back,
> copies of this post have been sent to the people involved to give them a
> fair shot at responding. It is more than they gave me]
>
>
>
> The Internet has been a very useful tool for the Pagan community. It has
> allowed the local communities to stay up to date and in touch with what is
> going on and it has become the thread tying Pagans from around the world
> together allowing them to share the commonalities of and the differences
in
> their experiences. It has also taken that bane of the Paganism- the
Wiccan
> War (Witch War is no longer considered the proper term)- to new heights.
>
> I should have known better. I know what is going to happen before I even
get
> involved in there groups. However, a "friend" was kind enough to invite me
> join this particular e-mail list. Also, I felt the familiar, gentle
tugging
> telling me that there was a reason for me to be there. Any good Witch
knows
> that one simply does not ignore the quiet little messages that come one's
> way.
>
> So I went to Yahoo groups and I found the group called The Pagan Way. On
the
> home page I found the "we are very tolerant and we will not stand for
> bashing anyone else's beliefs" shtick that is as much a warning as a skull
> and crossbones. Danger: Intolerant codependent fascist Wiccan group ahead.
> Be nice, don't disagree with the dominant clique, and kiss ass or be
> lynched! Despite my swearing off such groups, I went ahead and subscribed
if
> for nothing more than wanting to find out why I was to be there.
>
> The first thing that happens is that I get a deluge of automatically
> generated e-mails from the Chancellor of this little cyber regime. He
calls
> himself- and I swear to the Universe that I am not kidding you- Rev. Sir
> Raymond E Nieman D. D., The Amber Adept. For the gods' sake, King James
> himself would have been embarrassed to make such an arrogant and
> ostentatious claim! Let me tell you, when I got to know this guy, I found
> out this didn't tell half the story.
>
> Well I joined this little Internet soirée and, realized that, once I
started
> posting, my time there would be short. So I lurked for awhile. The list
was
> exactly what I expected. While over 1500 people are subscribed to it,
there
> was a much smaller cadre of about 10 people who pretty much dominated the
> list. One has to wonder if the other 1490 simply forgot to unsub. At any
> rate, I silently watched the parade of whinings about life, error ridden
> treatises filled with Silver Ravenwolf level magick, and totally bizarre
> things like amber alerts and "help me name my feminist porno web site,"
> waiting for whatever it was I was there for.
>
> Finally, amidst the boring drone of the group, the post I was waiting for
> came. A young woman posted asking the group to provide some help for a
> "friend" (it's always a "friend", isn't it?). This "friend" was being
> assailed, she claimed, by an evil spirit. Apparently this spirit had been
> harassing her for some time- apparitions, moving objects and making
strange
> noises- and had even followed her when she moved. This, and some of the
> other information she provided as well as my Witch knowledge told me that
> she was totally wrong. This was no spirit. The "friend" was doing this
> herself.
>
> Several years ago, I was camping with a group of people. It was late into
> the evening (early into the morning, actually), much alcohol and other
> recreational substances had been consumed, almost everyone had drifted off
> to their tents for sex or to pass out, and we had entered the post party
> period where emotions were high and shields were down.
>
> I was talking to young woman whom I had just met that evening. She was
deep
> into the cathartic effect which occurs when one is in the presence of a
lot
> of magickal energy. She related to me how she had been assailed by an evil
> spirit. She assumed it was a woman who had died in the house she had lived
> in as a child. Like the "friend's" spirit, this one followed her around.
It
> moved objects, made strange noises at night, and even caused things like
car
> keys and jewelry "disappear." She had tried many banishing rituals but not
> one had worked. In fact, she felt things had gotten worse.
>
> She also told me other things about herself. She had a bad relationship
with
> her parents and just about every romantic relationship she had been in had
> turned to an angry, painful mess. She was having problems at work and was
so
> fed up with Paganism she had considered abandoning it all together. She
was
> at the end of her rope and did not know what to do.
>
> As I listened to her, the pieces of the puzzle began to arrange
themselves.
> It became clear to me that there was no "evil spirit." The source of the
> disturbances was the woman herself. This is not so farfetched when you
think
> about it. Many magickals have experienced a phenomenon which I call
> "accidental magick." Emotion is a strong source of energy and, when that
> energy becomes strong enough, it is going to go somewhere. When you couple
> that with a constant state of inner chaos, the result is exactly the kind
of
> disturbances this woman and the "friend" are experiencing.
>
> Being the blunt person I am, I told her, "There is no spirit. You are
doing
> this." Of course the woman did not take well to that thought. She objected
> and was almost offended at the idea. I let her go on about how that could
> not possibly be right and, when she ran out of steam, I asked her if the
> spirit had bothered her at all during that particular weekend while we
> camped. It hadn't. I asked her how she had felt that weekend. Her response
> was that she was more relaxed than she had been in quite awhile. I just
> looked at her for a few moments as the thought that I might be right
crossed
> her mind.
>
> She contacted me a few days later. It seems that her "spirit" had not
> bothered her for day or two. Then, she had a huge argument with her sister
> and, that very night, three plates were "mysteriously" flung from a shelf
> and broken on the kitchen floor while she slept.
>
> After a lot of work and time, this woman found her solution in learning to
> ground and center and in getting her life under control by staying away
from
> chaotic people and situations. The "spirit" eventually stopped bothering
> her.
>
> So this incident, my dealings with real spirits, and things I have picked
up
> from the experiences of my colleagues and mentors, made me pretty certain
> that the ""friend"" was the source of her own torment. I also learned that
> people who continue to assail spirits when there is no spirit involved not
> only make things worse not only by ignoring their own problems but by
> actually *evoking* spirits through their efforts to banish. Then, it
becomes
> a real party.
>
> The post about the ""friend"" and her "spirit" hit a chord inside me. This
> was why I was brought to the list. I did try to soften things a little. My
> first post was a response to one of those stupid survey things. Of course,
I
> gave funny instead of real answers and, again of course, since Pagans as a
> demographic are very humorless people, it was met with a cold response.
>
> All of the Wiccans were buying into the evil spirit theory and
contributing
> all the knowledge Llewellyn had to offer (yes, that was sarcasm) to the
> problem. If I was going to be the lone voice of reason, I would have to
take
> the blunt approach again. So I simply posted "It is not a spirit, your
> 'friend' is doing it herself." I seriously felt this person was heading
for
> big trouble and, since I was only going to get one shot, I took the
kamikaze
> approach.
>
> The gods' balls, you should have seen the reaction that caused! How DARE I
> make such a suggestion? How could I possibly know it was not a spirit (how
> could they possibly know it was)? I might as well have suggested that The
> Law of Three was a farce or that their mothers were all whores!
>
> Normally, at this point, I would have unleashed my full Talesinic power
and
> flamed those Wiccans into fine ash. However, this was a serious situation
> where someone really could get hurt. So I kept my flamethrower in the
closet
> and simply tried to reason with these people. They would not have it. They
> demanded my credentials, insulted me and called me stupid names, and even
> made not so subtle remarks about cutting me up with a variety of sharp
> weapons. All of this without a single moderator of this oh so peaceful and
> tolerant place objecting.
>
> However, I decided that this time it was going to be different. If they
were
> going to ride me out of town on a rail, they would not get any comfort
from
> me. I stayed my ground, for sure, but I did not resort to any kind of
> personal attack as they did to me.
>
> Right on cue, when the first wave of abusive frontal assaults did not
work,
> the second wave of behind the scenes whining to the mods began. "Get him
> off the list or I will unsubscribe." A friend of a friend of a friend told
> me he is really a Baptist bent on destroying Wicca." "He is a tool of the
> devil!"
>
> Well, this put Sir Rev Adept into a bad place. He was obligated to make
sure
> no miscreants disturbed his little kingdom and yet, he could not simply
oust
> me and look like the intolerant fascist that he really was. He had to
> fabricate a reason. Well, when you can't fight with facts, go with
emotion.
> I was accused of- get this- "having a rude tone."
>
> So the Reichfuhrer of The Pagan Way (gods, I gag every time I think of
that
> name) banned me. It was no great loss. The problem with these fascist
lists
> is that they become dreadfully boring. When things are so tightly
controlled
> and people are afraid to say what they think, it really does not promote
> interesting discussion. I had said my piece, those who were going to
listen
> to me did and those who weren't would just continue to wallow in the same
> ignorance they were in when I joined the list. I hoped the "friend" would
> not get hurt too badly by everyone else's ignorance and was happy to go on
> my way. But it did not end there.
>
> Apparently there are some people on The Pagan Way who disagreed with the
> decision to ban me because I refused to knuckle under to incorrect
> perceptions simply to appease a bunch of cyber bullies. Many of them-
> including a few moderators (the list must have like 50 moderators)- wrote
to
> me to tell me they were appalled by what happened. They said they knew I
was
> only trying to help and that they supported my right to think as I wanted.
> As an aside, I also found out that I had been moderated all along. The
posts
> I was banned for had actually been approved by a moderator *before* they
> appeared on the list! It was a setup.
>
> At any rate, my banning caused quite an offline stir (of course, none of
> this was allowed to be discussed publicly. Ah, the beauty of censorship).
> Members and mods alike were raising hell with over my banning. Things were
> not happy in the cyber Third Reich and something had to be done about it.
> Out came the favored weapons of the Wiccans- libel and slander.
>
> When they first banned me, the moderator who did so screwed up and only
> unsubbed me. I subscribed again before I was actually banned. Now, as you
> e-groupers know, it currently takes Yahoo two days to process any change
> requests. Thus, there was a time I was subbed to the list but my name did
> not appear on the member page. This was perfect for those who had silence
> me. "Look," they said, "He is hacking the list!" To further "prove" this,
> they banned the next few new people who tried to join their list and
claimed
> it was me hacking them. These idiots even went as far as doing Internet
> searches, finding some old spam dump addresses I never even look at, and
> sending "you are banned" notices to everyone they could find!
>
> Get this, Sir Rev Adept D.D. actually sends me an e-mail telling me that
The
> Pagan Way is *his* house and that, since I did not play his way, I was
being
> punished. That's right, he actually said, "punished." As further torment
for
> failing to kiss his arrogant ass, I was also banned from all of the other
> groups he owns. Oh, let me shed a bitter tear!
>
> Eons ago, when the Great Programmer wrote the code for the Universe, s/he
> included a subroutine for Wiccan Wars that has run unvaried since Sanders
> got pissed at Gardner. Someone comes along and refuses to follow the rest
of
> the sheep and suggests something that is not acceptable to the dominant
> cadre. Said cadre immediately attacks said non sheep. The (moderator,
elder,
> HP/S, teacher) of the group steps in and calls for their (banning,
> banishment, hanging, burning). To justify this heinous action, the same
old
> lies are brought out (s/he's a stalker, hacker, slut, sexual abuser). The
> saddest and most sickening part is the way people who see what is going on
> and know it is wrong refuse to speak up about it because they are
terrified
> of being the next person ousted from what ever social circle is involved.
>
> Is it any wonder that actual Witches prefer remaining solitary or to
> restrict themselves to family lines? Do we even need to consider why the
> "old guard" Pagans have turned their backs, walked away, and refuse to
even
> acknowledge what they built? Is more than one brain cell required to
figure
> out why Wicca/neo Paganism has become a joke?
>
> I understand the person who asked for help with the spirit and her
"friend"
> have consulted a medium and that this medium has "confirmed" it is an evil
> spirit. The spirit of her grandfather, in fact. At this point, one can
only
> hope that, after all of the chaos and pain the "friend" has ahead of her,
> she runs into someone who will be able to actually help her before she is
> injured beyond recovery.
>
> Had it not been for the fact that, this time, someone could be seriously
> hurt by a Wiccan War, I would not have wasted everyone's time writing
about
> it. After all, these petty Wiccan Wars happen all the time. So often, they
> are not even worth thinking about.
>
> Sadly, they have become The Pagan Way.
>
>
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/The_Pagan_Way/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
hY
2003-07-27 20:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Hi Talesin, I tried to post a response to you yesterday, but I guess I
wasn't ready to arise from the ashes, until today. :)

When I was reading your story, I remembered TC and Mak's similar
occurrence with the hag.

You and I have some similarities, Talesin. Compared to many mainstream
individuals, we have many dissident views.

I realize yesterday, that this difference in perspective means that we
are almost always opposing someone else. We fight or we are dead.
These differing opinions allow us the chance to fight and stay alive.
The more diversity in opinions we have, the more fighting we can
engage in, and the more alive we feel in our march of death.

It's good to see you again, Talesin.
I have a love hate relationship with you. I hate fighting with you,
but you show me that I am alive.

Love to see you doing battle.
Hy
The Talesinator
2003-07-28 03:53:15 UTC
Permalink
"hY" <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:***@shaw.ca...
: Hi Talesin, I tried to post a response to you yesterday, but I guess I
: wasn't ready to arise from the ashes, until today. :)
:
: When I was reading your story, I remembered TC and Mak's similar
: occurrence with the hag.
:
: You and I have some similarities, Talesin. Compared to many mainstream
: individuals, we have many dissident views.
:
: I realize yesterday, that this difference in perspective means that we
: are almost always opposing someone else. We fight or we are dead.
: These differing opinions allow us the chance to fight and stay alive.
: The more diversity in opinions we have, the more fighting we can
: engage in, and the more alive we feel in our march of death.
:
: It's good to see you again, Talesin.
: I have a love hate relationship with you. I hate fighting with you,
: but you show me that I am alive.
:
: Love to see you doing battle.

We do what we can. you know? This thing has really flared up and it has made
a lot of people stop and think.
I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of people like
Brenda or Ballard. They, like me, are stating what they stand for and are
willing to take the heat for it. Not walking in lockstep with what everyone
else believes or how they think is not a crime, despite what Pagans do to
prevent it.

--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)

The following statement is true
The above statement is false

http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft

Get your daily Dragon: http://www.pendragonsloft.blogspot.com/

© 2003 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved
hY
2003-07-28 09:51:24 UTC
Permalink
The Talesinator wrote:
> "hY" <***@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:***@shaw.ca...
> : Hi Talesin, I tried to post a response to you yesterday, but I guess I
> : wasn't ready to arise from the ashes, until today. :)
> :
> : When I was reading your story, I remembered TC and Mak's similar
> : occurrence with the hag.
> :
> : You and I have some similarities, Talesin. Compared to many mainstream
> : individuals, we have many dissident views.
> :
> : I realize yesterday, that this difference in perspective means that we
> : are almost always opposing someone else. We fight or we are dead.
> : These differing opinions allow us the chance to fight and stay alive.
> : The more diversity in opinions we have, the more fighting we can
> : engage in, and the more alive we feel in our march of death.
> :
> : It's good to see you again, Talesin.
> : I have a love hate relationship with you. I hate fighting with you,
> : but you show me that I am alive.
> :
> : Love to see you doing battle.
>
> We do what we can. you know? This thing has really flared up and it has made
> a lot of people stop and think.
> I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of people like
> Brenda or Ballard. They, like me, are stating what they stand for and are
> willing to take the heat for it. Not walking in lockstep with what everyone
> else believes or how they think is not a crime, despite what Pagans do to
> prevent it.

I try to liberate individuals from oppression. Unfortunately, that
also means that the focus directed back at me is oppressive in nature.

People like you, Brenda, and Ballard definately have their own
oppressive forces to contend with. However, you all appear to be doing
a good job at liberating yourselves from these forces.
t_naismith
2003-07-29 00:08:18 UTC
Permalink
"hY" wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> I try to liberate individuals from oppression.


That's laudable and all but, what if they are the ones _oppressing_
themselves, (as in Brenda's case, for instance)? Will you _liberate_ her or
enable her self-delusions?


> Unfortunately, that
> also means that the focus directed back at me is oppressive in nature.
>

Come off it, hY. If you jump into the fray, are you really expecting
*no* contention in the matter?


> People like you, Brenda, and Ballard definately have their own
> oppressive forces to contend with. However, you all appear to be doing
> a good job at liberating yourselves from these forces.
>

What if those _oppressive forces_ are not outside those people you refer
to but, lie within them?

TN
t_naismith
2003-07-28 11:15:43 UTC
Permalink
"The Talesinator" wrote:
>
> I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of people like
> Brenda or Ballard.


Instead, you'd rather bash just about everyone besides those two
nutbags - so you can appear to be "not following a _herd_", eh? How's that
delusion working out for you, Tales-end?


> They, like me, are stating what they stand for and are
> willing to take the heat for it.


Wait ... are you implying that they actually state what they stand for
here? Bwahahahahaha.


> Not walking in lockstep with what everyone
> else believes or how they think is not a crime, despite what Pagans do to
> prevent it.
>

Which _lockstep_ stricture was that again, tales-end? It isn't related
distantly to the one where you proclaim some utterly baseless nonsense and
then whine when it gets taken apart, is it? Because that would be too close
to Blenda's schtick and not very original of you.

> --
> a Tales-end
Gavyn
2003-07-28 11:48:45 UTC
Permalink
"t_naismith" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bg30ji$k4jd1$***@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
: "The Talesinator" wrote:
: >
: > I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of people
like
: > Brenda or Ballard.
:
:
: Instead, you'd rather bash just about everyone besides those two
: nutbags - so you can appear to be "not following a _herd_", eh? How's
that
: delusion working out for you, Tales-end?
:

Well, the argument could also be made that you join those who *do* bash them
to *avoid* the appearance of not following the herd. One delusion is no
better than the other.

:
: > They, like me, are stating what they stand for and are
: > willing to take the heat for it.
:
:
: Wait ... are you implying that they actually state what they stand for
: here? Bwahahahahaha.
:

Do you have any evidence that that are not? I have an extraordinarily
difficult time conceiving of someone practicing withcraft, Christianity and
theosophy as well. However, who am I, you or anyone else to say that they
are not or cannot? Are we now the purveyors of all that is well and good
and within acceptable bounds of practice and belief? Where does
judgementalism like this come from?

:
: > Not walking in lockstep with what everyone
: > else believes or how they think is not a crime, despite what Pagans do
to
: > prevent it.
: >
:
: Which _lockstep_ stricture was that again, tales-end? It isn't
related
: distantly to the one where you proclaim some utterly baseless nonsense and
: then whine when it gets taken apart, is it? Because that would be too
close
: to Blenda's schtick and not very original of you.
:
: > --
: > a Tales-end
:
:

I'm not defending or supporting anyone here. But it seems that a lot of
judgement is taking place. The "my system is better than yours" fight is
tired, but it abounds on Usenet to be sure. I'm new, and it's hard to find
productive discussion occuring anywhere. Maybe that's because I refuse to
participate in ad hominem attacks and immediately put on ignore those who
start it (better to nip headaches in the bud than to let them grow).

~G~
kate
2003-07-28 12:52:30 UTC
Permalink
"Gavyn" <***@outbc.com> wrote in message
news:x48Va.1199$***@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...
> "t_naismith" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:bg30ji$k4jd1$***@ID-140581.news.uni-berlin.de...
> : "The Talesinator" wrote:
> : >
> : > I guess that's why I am so hesitant to buy into the bashing of people
> like
> : > Brenda or Ballard.
> :
> :
> : Instead, you'd rather bash just about everyone besides those two
> : nutbags - so you can appear to be "not following a _herd_", eh? How's
> that
> : delusion working out for you, Tales-end?
> :
>
> Well, the argument could also be made that you join those who *do* bash
them
> to *avoid* the appearance of not following the herd. One delusion is no
> better than the other.
>
> :
> : > They, like me, are stating what they stand for and are
> : > willing to take the heat for it.
> :
> :
> : Wait ... are you implying that they actually state what they stand
for
> : here? Bwahahahahaha.
> :
>
> Do you have any evidence that that are not? I have an extraordinarily
> difficult time conceiving of someone practicing withcraft, Christianity
and
> theosophy as well. However, who am I, you or anyone else to say that they
> are not or cannot? Are we now the purveyors of all that is well and good
> and within acceptable bounds of practice and belief? Where does
> judgementalism like this come from?
>
> :
> : > Not walking in lockstep with what everyone
> : > else believes or how they think is not a crime, despite what Pagans do
> to
> : > prevent it.
> : >
> :
> : Which _lockstep_ stricture was that again, tales-end? It isn't
> related
> : distantly to the one where you proclaim some utterly baseless nonsense
and
> : then whine when it gets taken apart, is it? Because that would be too
> close
> : to Blenda's schtick and not very original of you.
> :
> : > --
> : > a Tales-end
> :
> :
>
> I'm not defending or supporting anyone here. But it seems that a lot of
> judgement is taking place. The "my system is better than yours" fight is
> tired, but it abounds on Usenet to be sure. I'm new, and it's hard to
find
> productive discussion occuring anywhere. Maybe that's because I refuse to
> participate in ad hominem attacks and immediately put on ignore those who
> start it (better to nip headaches in the bud than to let them grow).
>
> ~G~

Gavyn, I can really only speak for myself.
The problem with Brenda is mostly her lying, changing stories, trying to
force her will on all of us, her pretenses, her condescension and her
backpeddling.
It's all in google and not only in this group.
Like you say, better to nip headaches in the bud than to let them grow.
She's more than just a headache, she's a sham pagan.
You needn't take my word for it, you can prove it to yourself by
researching.
She cares for no one and nothing but herself underneath the phoney
expressions of 'love and light', and espouses a different view of her
beliefs Very often.
Alright, I've had my say.
Good luck to you if you decide to enter into any type of 'relationship' with
her or her supporters.

In good faith,
kate~

BTW, welcome to the group, I haven't met you before ;)
>
>
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-29 00:48:43 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, hY wrote:

> kate wrote:
>
> > Gavyn, I can really only speak for myself.
> > The problem with Brenda is mostly her lying, changing stories, trying to
> > force her will on all of us, her pretenses, her condescension and her
> > backpeddling.
>

***there is no lying...there is no changing stories..and there is no
force..infact it is up to you to decide to read my posts. My pretenses?
..my condescension? what would you call putting someone down all the time?
is this any better? backpeddling? if trying to explain something so that
others will understand it better is seen as backpeddling then so be it.


> While your assessment is honest in its own right, you have to remember
> that it is very difficult for some people to be forced into a rigid
> straight path.
>
***every one finds God...or whatever in their own way.


> She may seem to be changing stories to someone who has a rigid thought
> pattern and belief system. But her system is very honest to those that
> are not rigid in belief patterns.
>

****it also comes down to approaching me from a certain standpoint so that
you don't even TRY to listen or understand what I have to say...just
having fun bonding with others in fitting oneself into the like her..don't
like her camps.

> i.e., she doesn't have a rigid bound system that fits your definition.
> Yet, it is obviously a system in that she can hold on to it, and it
> doesn't fall apart when challenged.
>

***thankyou!

> > She cares for no one and nothing but herself underneath the phoney
> > expressions of 'love and light', and espouses a different view of her
> > beliefs Very often.
>
****No I love everyone. You can understand it....I understand that...but I
do. If it is phoney to you..then so be it. You give a flower to someone
with a closed fist and the flower falls to the ground..however the intent
is still there.


> Maybe her expressions are not phony to her, and only seem phony to
> people that don't think the way she does?
>
> Could she really continue going on the way she is, with all of you
> fighting against her, if this wasn't an intrinsic and genuine part of her?
>
****and sadly I see so little of this now...that it is totally in their
world...I am going on..loving people and getting to know them and
listening to others ideas and such. I have never been one to do what the
crowd does as I am not fond of that mentality...so I do what everyone can
do....skip those posts.

Bren.


*****************************************************
Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
dogmas and creeds.
When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
assured that the emancipation of the world is through
the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
Religion of Love.
*****************************************************
t_naismith
2003-07-29 02:11:47 UTC
Permalink
"Blenda G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote:
> "hY" wrote:
> > "kate" wrote:
> >
> > > Gavyn, I can really only speak for myself.
> > > The problem with Brenda is mostly her lying, changing stories, trying
to
> > > force her will on all of us, her pretenses, her condescension and her
> > > backpeddling.
> >
>
> ***there is no lying...

Google archives of your own posts indicate that you are lying about
lying, Brenda.

> ***there is no changing stories...

Shall we review the "Cornish Famtrad" debacle which you instigated under
the false auspices of some pseudo-shamanistic "ravenings" to substantiate
the fact that you do, indeed, change stories?

> ***...and there is no
> force..infact it is up to you to decide to read my posts.

No, there is only your attempts to _force_ disparate paradigms together
under a superficial "unity" of one-wayism.

> *** My pretenses?

Yes, you know - the ones where you pretend to be capable of _teaching_
occult arts. There are others but, that will do for now.

>.*** ..my condescension? what would you call putting someone down all the
time?

Look Brenda, you have an obvious problem with the sequence of events.
What happened before, in the order in which it occurred, was this: You
popped off with some wild assertions and claims, next thing you know folks
are refuting those as empty and false, and *then* you got condescending with
them. See? Once you have it in proper sequence, it all falls into place,
(for any save, you).

> is this any better? backpeddling? if trying to explain something so that
> others will understand it better is seen as backpeddling then so be it.
>
Your own posts cast you as a backpeddling dabbler who asserts false
claims, Blenda. Your subsequent lies do nothing to change your previous "o
p i n i o n s".


> > While your assessment is honest in its own right, you have to remember
> > that it is very difficult for some people to be forced into a rigid
> > straight path.
> >
> ***every one finds God...or whatever in their own way.
>
There was no "rigid straight path" mentioned, except by hY. As to
"finding god", who says that is the objective? You, Brenda? How
presumptious of you!

> > She may seem to be changing stories to someone who has a rigid thought
> > pattern and belief system. But her system is very honest to those that
> > are not rigid in belief patterns.
> >
>
> ****it also comes down to approaching me from a certain standpoint so that
> you don't even TRY to listen or understand what I have to say...just
> having fun bonding with others in fitting oneself into the like her..don't
> like her camps.
>

Here you show a complete lack of understanding arw dynamics, Blenda.
You appear to think that others cannot _understand_ you when, in fact, they
do. That's what causes you to always remain the dabbler who cannot see
beyond the superficial. This is also how you avoid looking at these aspects
of yourself and cling, with a deathgrip, to your delusions. You are welcome
to them, just stop inflicting them on others. Much to your seeming dismay,
there are no "camps" who oppose your miasma; there are only separate
individuals who do so.

> > i.e., she doesn't have a rigid bound system that fits your definition.
> > Yet, it is obviously a system in that she can hold on to it, and it
> > doesn't fall apart when challenged.
>

Blenda has said she does not read or reply to posts from specific
posters which challenge her beliefs. They go unchallenged, at least in her
own little world. Upon the merest challenge given, they are shown to
collapse like stands of straw in the breeze. What she clings to is an
illusion.

> ***thankyou!
>
> > > She cares for no one and nothing but herself underneath the phoney
> > > expressions of 'love and light', and espouses a different view of her
> > > beliefs Very often.
> >
> ****No I love everyone. You can understand it....I understand that...but I
> do. If it is phoney to you..then so be it. You give a flower to someone
> with a closed fist and the flower falls to the ground..however the intent
> is still there.
>

Your own posts show that this "love and light" act is as falicious and
superficial as your other assertions and claims. Rejecting anything
"phoney" coming from you is a pleasure, not a loss.

> > Maybe her expressions are not phony to her, and only seem phony to
> > people that don't think the way she does?
> >

Blenda is entitled to lying to herself, there are no problems with that.
The ruckus begins when she tries to lie to others.

> > Could she really continue going on the way she is, with all of you
> > fighting against her, if this wasn't an intrinsic and genuine part of
her?
> >

Blenda *must* hold onto her self-delusions as tightly as she does. Were
she to actually see them as the superficialities that they are, she'd go
right over that edge she is teetering so precariously on.


> ****and sadly I see so little of this now...that it is totally in their
> world...I am going on..loving people and getting to know them and
> listening to others ideas and such. I have never been one to do what the
> crowd does as I am not fond of that mentality...so I do what everyone can
> do....skip those posts.
>

What a load of specious crap, "Bren"! You skip that which you cannot
refute because those posts challenge your nonsense.

> Bren.cowering in fear & dabbling on

TN (eye of Falcon)
Phoenix
2003-07-30 16:00:55 UTC
Permalink
"Brenda G. Kent" <***@victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:***@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, hY wrote:
>
> > kate wrote:
> >
> > > Gavyn, I can really only speak for myself.
> > > The problem with Brenda is mostly her lying, changing stories,
trying to
> > > force her will on all of us, her pretenses, her condescension
and her
> > > backpeddling.
> >
>
> ***there is no lying...there is no changing stories..and there is no
> force..infact it is up to you to decide to read my posts. My
pretenses?
> ..my condescension? what would you call putting someone down all the
time?
> is this any better? backpeddling? if trying to explain something so
that
> others will understand it better is seen as backpeddling then so be
it.

But there *has* been lying, Brenda. Surely you haven't forgotten
saying you belonged to a Cornish fam trad when you didn't?

> > While your assessment is honest in its own right, you have to
remember
> > that it is very difficult for some people to be forced into a
rigid
> > straight path.
> >
> ***every one finds God...or whatever in their own way.

True.. I don't care what path you follow, Brenda

> > She may seem to be changing stories to someone who has a rigid
thought
> > pattern and belief system. But her system is very honest to those
that
> > are not rigid in belief patterns.
> >
>
> ****it also comes down to approaching me from a certain standpoint
so that
> you don't even TRY to listen or understand what I have to say...just
> having fun bonding with others in fitting oneself into the like
her..don't
> like her camps.

I suspect the dislike of you, stems mostly from the lies you have
told.


> > i.e., she doesn't have a rigid bound system that fits your
definition.
> > Yet, it is obviously a system in that she can hold on to it, and
it
> > doesn't fall apart when challenged.
> >
>
> ***thankyou!
>
> > > She cares for no one and nothing but herself underneath the
phoney
> > > expressions of 'love and light', and espouses a different view
of her
> > > beliefs Very often.
> >
> ****No I love everyone. You can understand it....I understand
that...but I
> do. If it is phoney to you..then so be it. You give a flower to
someone
> with a closed fist and the flower falls to the ground..however the
intent
> is still there.

But it wasn't a flower, Brenda. It was a lie so blatant that it sank
like a stone. All that nonsense about ravening only helped it to sink
deeper.
P

<snip>
Lilly
2003-07-30 04:32:46 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:20:34 GMT, hY <***@shaw.ca> wrote:

>kate wrote:
>
>> Gavyn, I can really only speak for myself.
>> The problem with Brenda is mostly her lying, changing stories, trying to
>> force her will on all of us, her pretenses, her condescension and her
>> backpeddling.
>
>While your assessment is honest in its own right,

What a generous pronouncement.


>you have to remember
>that it is very difficult for some people to be forced into a rigid
>straight path.

She *HAS* to, huh? Funny, I didn't see her mention anything about
rigid or straight.

>She may seem to be changing stories to someone who has a rigid thought
>pattern and belief system. But her system is very honest to those that
>are not rigid in belief patterns.

I think she seems to change her "stories" to most all of us who've
really listened, depending on whatever pissing contest she's involved
in at any given moment. Just because she types it for us to read,
doesn't mean she believes it, as her "ravening" stint proved.

>i.e., she doesn't have a rigid bound system that fits your definition.
>Yet, it is obviously a system in that she can hold on to it, and it
>doesn't fall apart when challenged.

So... how many rigids is that by now? By the way, it falls way... WAY
apart.

>> She cares for no one and nothing but herself underneath the phoney
>> expressions of 'love and light', and espouses a different view of her
>> beliefs Very often.
>
>Maybe her expressions are not phony to her, and only seem phony to
>people that don't think the way she does?

Who knows what they "seem" to her as she's just so busy condescending
to us just the rest of us what we need to learn. Gosh I guess she's
just the person to "teach" us too.

>Could she really continue going on the way she is, with all of you
>fighting against her, if this wasn't an intrinsic and genuine part of her?

No one's fighting against her personal beliefs, rather it's her manner
that is insulting and offensive. At least for me.

~Lilly

"Why should Death lurk in the shadows? Why should
Death wait at the gate? There is no bedchamber, no
ballroom that I cannot enter. Death in the glow of the
hearth, Death on tiptoe in the corridor, that is what I
am. Speak to me of the Dark Gifts - I use them."
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-30 05:31:23 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Lilly wrote:

> On Mon, 28 Jul 2003 21:20:34 GMT, hY <***@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> >kate wrote:
> >
> >> Gavyn, I can really only speak for myself.
> >> The problem with Brenda is mostly her lying, changing stories, trying to
> >> force her will on all of us, her pretenses, her condescension and her
> >> backpeddling.
> >
> >While your assessment is honest in its own right,
>
> What a generous pronouncement.
>
>
> >you have to remember
> >that it is very difficult for some people to be forced into a rigid
> >straight path.
>
> She *HAS* to, huh? Funny, I didn't see her mention anything about
> rigid or straight.
>
> >She may seem to be changing stories to someone who has a rigid thought
> >pattern and belief system. But her system is very honest to those that
> >are not rigid in belief patterns.
>
> I think she seems to change her "stories" to most all of us who've
> really listened, depending on whatever pissing contest she's involved
> in at any given moment. Just because she types it for us to read,
> doesn't mean she believes it, as her "ravening" stint proved.
>

***one ravening..a looooooong time ago to get someone to question their
own "facts"....and it still is not understood by so many...sigh.


> >i.e., she doesn't have a rigid bound system that fits your definition.
> >Yet, it is obviously a system in that she can hold on to it, and it
> >doesn't fall apart when challenged.
>
> So... how many rigids is that by now? By the way, it falls way... WAY
> apart.
>

***it do? I'm still the same person with the same beliefs Lilly.

> >> She cares for no one and nothing but herself underneath the phoney
> >> expressions of 'love and light', and espouses a different view of her
> >> beliefs Very often.
> >
> >Maybe her expressions are not phony to her, and only seem phony to
> >people that don't think the way she does?
>
> Who knows what they "seem" to her as she's just so busy condescending
> to us just the rest of us what we need to learn. Gosh I guess she's
> just the person to "teach" us too.
>
***You never did get the concept of teachers did you? even when I said
that everything teaches...our experiences...the dogs..a child....etc. You
still think I am talking in a condescending way....amazing.


> >Could she really continue going on the way she is, with all of you
> >fighting against her, if this wasn't an intrinsic and genuine part of her?
>
> No one's fighting against her personal beliefs, rather it's her manner
> that is insulting and offensive. At least for me.

*****anything can be thought of as insulting when you have your own
baggage to deal with and transfer it onto others. I speak and YOU see
insults...that is your inference and it does not mean that I have
insulted.
Do you hold such standards to Cuddles?

>
> ~Lilly
>

Bren.
ps. and here I thought you wanted to be civil....sigh.

Silly me.


****************************************************
Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
dogmas and creeds.
When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
assured that the emancipation of the world is through
the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
Religion of Love.
*****************************************************
hY
2003-07-28 21:07:36 UTC
Permalink
Gavyn wrote:

> Do you have any evidence that that are not? I have an extraordinarily
> difficult time conceiving of someone practicing withcraft, Christianity and
> theosophy as well. However, who am I, you or anyone else to say that they
> are not or cannot? Are we now the purveyors of all that is well and good
> and within acceptable bounds of practice and belief? Where does
> judgementalism like this come from?

Nice post, Gavyn.

I used to practice a mixed bag of religions, and I think that my
system did me perfectly fine for who I was at that time. And I am sure
that many over in alt.magick practice some sort of mix of Christianity
and Withcraft (they just use different terminologies).

I see nothing wrong with Brenda working these different systems. We
have to fulfill ourselves with what we need and with what works for us.
t_naismith
2003-07-29 01:35:27 UTC
Permalink
"hY" wrote:

> I used to practice a mixed bag of religions, and I think that my
> system did me perfectly fine for who I was at that time. And I am sure
> that many over in alt.magick practice some sort of mix of Christianity
> and Withcraft (they just use different terminologies).
>

It isn't a _terminology_ contention. It is one of elemental, core
differences - not superficialities.


> I see nothing wrong with Brenda working these different systems. We
> have to fulfill ourselves with what we need and with what works for us.
>

Sure, she pretend to use any sort of thing she wishes to dabble in.
It's when she tries to palm off her dabblings as some kind of _insight_ or
sufficient understanding to claim that she can _teach_ these arts that she's
going to get refuted. Is there a problem with that or should lies be let
lie?

TN
Phoenix
2003-07-30 15:46:22 UTC
Permalink
"Gavyn" <***@outbc.com> wrote in message
news:x48Va.1199$***@newssvr24.news.prodigy.com...

> I'm not defending or supporting anyone here. But it seems that a
lot of
> judgement is taking place. The "my system is better than yours"
fight is
> tired, but it abounds on Usenet to be sure. I'm new, and it's hard
to find
> productive discussion occuring anywhere. Maybe that's because I
refuse to
> participate in ad hominem attacks and immediately put on ignore
those who
> start it (better to nip headaches in the bud than to let them grow).
>
> ~G~

hmmmm.. it's my opinion, Gavyn, that "my system is better than yours"
has very little to do with attacks on Talesin, Richard, or Brenda.
Talesin is attacked, as a sort of balancing act, due to his tendency
to post aggressive and degrading material, that is directed at other
posters who seem to be mainly female in gender. This has been going on
for years and provides a source of amusement for some.
Richard is attacked because he is a Christian posting advice for
Wiccans which contains errors, probably due to his lack of experience
in the matters on which he pontificates. He has recently been putting
himself forward as an authority, on the subject of ceremonial magick,
but admits he has no valid experience in this area.
Brenda is attacked mainly because she was caught out telling silly
lies and tried to cover her ass with even more silly lies.
Such attacks, particularly in the case of Richard and Brenda, serve as
a warning to inexperienced lurkers, that what these two say should be
viewed with caution.
Be aware, Gavyn, that persistent attacks are normally made for good
reasons.. should you wish to see more information on this, you have
only to Google. I daresay someone will point out the relevant threads
if you care to ask. :-)
P
Ironywaves
2003-07-30 00:43:12 UTC
Permalink
> You wrote, "...it was actually a hundred or so years, something like
> that, after the Crucifixion that anything like Christianity" was
> begun."
>
> I disagree. The concept of Christianity is far older than it's latest
> incarnation. Christianity itself is composed of a set of beliefs
> taken from many religions, including the cult of Mithras which was
> practiced more than 4000 years ago. There are also elements of
> Zorastrianism, which is over 2500 years old. Last but not least, many
> scholars point to the roots of Christianity in the Egyptian fertility
> cult of Osiris, which is around 3500 years old.
>
> To revise your point, "anything like Christianity" is indeed, many
> thousands of years old, not hundreds.

Okay, I see what you mean now... the concept of *like* Christianity, where I
was writing about the actual "Christianity". Isis and Osiris statues were
renamed Jesus and Mary, Roman Gods were turned into Saints. There are roots
in the past, but I was writing about actual "Christianity", which came long
[somewhere around a hundred years or so] after Christ's day.
Dockery

http://willdockery0.tripod.com
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 01:06:49 UTC
Permalink
"Ironywaves" <***@knology.net> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> > You wrote, "...it was actually a hundred or so years, something
like
> > that, after the Crucifixion that anything like Christianity" was
> > begun."
> >
> > I disagree. The concept of Christianity is far older than it's
latest
> > incarnation. Christianity itself is composed of a set of beliefs
> > taken from many religions, including the cult of Mithras which was
> > practiced more than 4000 years ago. There are also elements of
> > Zorastrianism, which is over 2500 years old. Last but not least,
many
> > scholars point to the roots of Christianity in the Egyptian
fertility
> > cult of Osiris, which is around 3500 years old.
> >
> > To revise your point, "anything like Christianity" is indeed, many
> > thousands of years old, not hundreds.
>
> Okay, I see what you mean now... the concept of *like* Christianity,
where I
> was writing about the actual "Christianity".

No, you clearly said, "...it was actually a hundred or so years,
something like that, after the Crucifixion that anything like
"Christianity" was begun."

That's is not true. The essential, core beliefs of Christianity have
been around in various forms for thousands of years.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
Ironywaves
2003-07-30 01:16:44 UTC
Permalink
> No, you clearly said, "...it was actually a hundred or so years,
> something like that, after the Crucifixion that anything like
> "Christianity" was begun."
>
> That's is not true. The essential, core beliefs of Christianity have
> been around in various forms for thousands of years.

Okay, you got me on that then... I was writing about about those who
actually were members of a sect called "Christianity". I'm aware that these
others, particularly Mithras, have many similarities to what is called
Christianity. I was writing about actual "Christians", which by name is
less than 2000 years old.
Dockery

http://willdockery0.tripod.com
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 01:37:55 UTC
Permalink
"Ironywaves" <***@knology.net> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...

> Okay, you got me on that then... I was writing about about those
who
> actually were members of a sect called "Christianity".

That would be difficult, considering the fact that you won't find
those members in the history books. The ones who survived did manage
to bury a number of scrolls before they were wiped out by the
fanatical, modern Christians.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
Ironywaves
2003-07-30 01:45:45 UTC
Permalink
members of a sect called "Christianity".
>
> That would be difficult, considering the fact that you won't find
> those members in the history books. The ones who survived did manage
> to bury a number of scrolls before they were wiped out by the
> fanatical, modern Christians.

Okay, so you begin to understand what I mean, then.
Dockery
t_naismith
2003-07-30 10:23:17 UTC
Permalink
"Maxie P. Diddly" wrote:
> "Ironywaves" <Dockery> wrote:
>
> > > You wrote, "...it was actually a hundred or so years, something
> like
> > > that, after the Crucifixion that anything like Christianity" was
> > > begun."
> > >
> > > I disagree. The concept of Christianity is far older than it's
> latest
> > > incarnation. Christianity itself is composed of a set of beliefs
> > > taken from many religions, including the cult of Mithras which was
> > > practiced more than 4000 years ago. There are also elements of
> > > Zorastrianism, which is over 2500 years old. Last but not least,
> many
> > > scholars point to the roots of Christianity in the Egyptian
> fertility
> > > cult of Osiris, which is around 3500 years old.
> > >
> > > To revise your point, "anything like Christianity" is indeed, many
> > > thousands of years old, not hundreds.
> >
> > Okay, I see what you mean now... the concept of *like* Christianity,
> where I
> > was writing about the actual "Christianity".
>
> No, you clearly said, "...it was actually a hundred or so years,
> something like that, after the Crucifixion that anything like
> "Christianity" was begun."
>
> That's is not true. The essential, core beliefs of Christianity have
> been around in various forms for thousands of years.
>
>
Exactly. This means that the essential, core beliefs of what is now
loosely termed as _christianity_ were actually the essential cores of
*other* belief systems which predated christianity. It is this drawing of
components from various previous cultures by which vague parallels between
them can seen by some, (whose 'religious' predecessors took the aspects most
likely to appeal to a pre-existing pagan population and assembled these old
components into something not-so-new after all). Christianity resolves as a
pseudo-accretion of prior belief systems. Although this sort of cultural
theft may be considered disrespectful by some, the original adherents of
these cultures aren't around today to protest. Much.

Trevor (older isn't better than newer and the reverse) N.
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 01:07:17 UTC
Permalink
"Ironywaves" <***@knology.net> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> > You wrote, "...it was actually a hundred or so years, something
like
> > that, after the Crucifixion that anything like Christianity" was
> > begun."
> >
> > I disagree. The concept of Christianity is far older than it's
latest
> > incarnation. Christianity itself is composed of a set of beliefs
> > taken from many religions, including the cult of Mithras which was
> > practiced more than 4000 years ago. There are also elements of
> > Zorastrianism, which is over 2500 years old. Last but not least,
many
> > scholars point to the roots of Christianity in the Egyptian
fertility
> > cult of Osiris, which is around 3500 years old.
> >
> > To revise your point, "anything like Christianity" is indeed, many
> > thousands of years old, not hundreds.
>
> Okay, I see what you mean now... the concept of *like* Christianity,
where I
> was writing about the actual "Christianity". Isis and Osiris statues
were
> renamed Jesus and Mary, Roman Gods were turned into Saints. There
are roots
> in the past, but I was writing about actual "Christianity", which
came long
> [somewhere around a hundred years or so] after Christ's day.

No, it didn't. It was around for thousands of years before that.




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
Ironywaves
2003-07-30 01:11:06 UTC
Permalink
There
> are roots
> > in the past, but I was writing about actual "Christianity", which
> came long
> > [somewhere around a hundred years or so] after Christ's day.
>
> No, it didn't. It was around for thousands of years before that.

The actual *word* Christianity was around thousands of years before Jesus
Christ himself??? Wow! Smile on Mighty Jesus! "Prove to me that you're the
Lord, show me a sign!"
Dockery

http://willdockery0.tripod.com
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 01:36:38 UTC
Permalink
"Ironywaves" <***@knology.net> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...

> The actual *word* Christianity was around thousands of years before
Jesus
> Christ himself??? Wow! Smile on Mighty Jesus! "Prove to me that
you're
> the Lord, show me a sign!"

It's easy being ignorant, isn't it?

The Greek word "Christos" is merely an "Annointed" one, described in
the Torah as the messiah, or meshiach, the annointed King of Israel.
The practice of annointing, and it's original usage is found in
Egyptian history. Egyptian Kings were annointed with the fat of the
nile crocodile, while the Kings of Israel were annointed with what
appears to be a highly potent form of psychoactive Cannabis oil. I
don't remember what the Romans used to annoint their leaders, but I'm
sure it was an herbal essence of some kind.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
zayton
2003-07-30 03:17:34 UTC
Permalink
"Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Ironywaves" <***@knology.net> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > The actual *word* Christianity was around thousands of years before
> Jesus
> > Christ himself??? Wow! Smile on Mighty Jesus! "Prove to me that
> you're
> > the Lord, show me a sign!"
>
> It's easy being ignorant, isn't it?
>
> The Greek word "Christos" is merely an "Annointed" one, described in
> the Torah as the messiah, or meshiach, the annointed King of Israel.
> The practice of annointing, and it's original usage is found in
> Egyptian history. Egyptian Kings were annointed with the fat of the
> nile crocodile, while the Kings of Israel were annointed with what
> appears to be a highly potent form of psychoactive Cannabis oil. I
> don't remember what the Romans used to annoint their leaders, but I'm
> sure it was an herbal essence of some kind.
>
>
A cult built around a belief that the promised messiah had arrived in the
person of Jesus, and called Christianity cannot be said to exist before
20-30AD at the earliest; and not in any established form for 100-200 years
after that. Thus it is less that 2000 years old by any calculation, and
hundreds is the correct term.

Joe
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 03:31:49 UTC
Permalink
"zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:vEGVa.1228$***@fe03.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Ironywaves" <***@knology.net> wrote in message
> > news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > > The actual *word* Christianity was around thousands of years
before
> > Jesus
> > > Christ himself??? Wow! Smile on Mighty Jesus! "Prove to me that
> > you're
> > > the Lord, show me a sign!"
> >
> > It's easy being ignorant, isn't it?
> >
> > The Greek word "Christos" is merely an "Annointed" one, described
in
> > the Torah as the messiah, or meshiach, the annointed King of
Israel.
> > The practice of annointing, and it's original usage is found in
> > Egyptian history. Egyptian Kings were annointed with the fat of
the
> > nile crocodile, while the Kings of Israel were annointed with what
> > appears to be a highly potent form of psychoactive Cannabis oil.
I
> > don't remember what the Romans used to annoint their leaders, but
I'm
> > sure it was an herbal essence of some kind.
> >
> >
> A cult built around a belief that the promised messiah had arrived
in the
> person of Jesus, and called Christianity cannot be said to exist
before
> 20-30AD at the earliest;

In point of fact, such cults existed for thousands of years prior to
this latest incarnation.

> and not in any established form for 100-200 years
> after that.

That's wrong.

> Thus it is less that 2000 years old by any calculation, and
> hundreds is the correct term.

Actually, the Egyptian cults of Osiris, Mithras, and a number of other
cults predate it by many years. It must be difficult for you to
accept that cult Christianity is merely a Cover Song played by
current, dominant cultural House Band, but that happens to be the
case.

There is nothing original, unique, or amazing about the cult of
Christianity, other than the fact that it incorporating the beliefs of
older cultures, like every dominant religion in the world today.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
zayton
2003-07-30 05:01:20 UTC
Permalink
"Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > >
> > A cult built around a belief that the promised messiah had arrived
> in the
> > person of Jesus, and called Christianity cannot be said to exist
> before
> > 20-30AD at the earliest;
>
> In point of fact, such cults existed for thousands of years prior to
> this latest incarnation.

For thousands of years? I think not. Can you provide a reference? There were
two, roughly contemporaneous with the advent of the Jesus cult. one of which
hailed Simon Bar Koba as the messiah the other, I can't remember. Neither
bore any resemblance to the Jesus Cult.

>
> > and not in any established form for 100-200 years
> > after that.
>
> That's wrong.

How so?
>
> > Thus it is less that 2000 years old by any calculation, and
> > hundreds is the correct term.
>
> Actually, the Egyptian cults of Osiris, Mithras, and a number of other
> cults predate it by many years. It must be difficult for you to
> accept that cult Christianity is merely a Cover Song played by
> current, dominant cultural House Band, but that happens to be the
> case.

The Cults of Osiris and Mithras contain some parallels, but are by no means
equivalent. Their similarities are exaggerated by the fact that our firm
knowledge of both is fragmentary, and aspects of each have been extrapolated
from what is known about other belief systems.

>
> There is nothing original, unique, or amazing about the cult of
> Christianity, other than the fact that it incorporating the beliefs of
> older cultures, like every dominant religion in the world today.

Every religion from the dawn of time has been original and unique in its
particular synthesis and application of influences current in the cultural
mileu at the time of it's inception.
>
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 05:29:54 UTC
Permalink
"zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:G7IVa.1465$***@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...

> Every religion from the dawn of time has been original and unique in
its
> particular synthesis and application of influences current in the
cultural
> mileu at the time of it's inception.

That has got to be the most ignorant statement I have ever read on the
Usenet. In fact, the complete opposite is true. Every religion, from
the dawn of time, has been based on an older religion. There is
nothing original or unique about any religion.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
Ironywaves
2003-07-30 06:45:54 UTC
Permalink
> > Every religion from the dawn of time has been original and unique in
> its
> > particular synthesis and application of influences current in the
> cultural
> > mileu at the time of it's inception.
>
> That has got to be the most ignorant statement I have ever read on the
> Usenet. In fact, the complete opposite is true. Every religion, from
> the dawn of time, has been based on an older religion. There is
> nothing original or unique about any religion.

The MOST ignorant??? You haven't read around much, then, have you, my
friend?
Dockery
zayton
2003-07-30 16:16:39 UTC
Permalink
"Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:G7IVa.1465$***@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> > Every religion from the dawn of time has been original and unique in
> its
> > particular synthesis and application of influences current in the
> cultural
> > mileu at the time of it's inception.
>
> That has got to be the most ignorant statement I have ever read on the
> Usenet. In fact, the complete opposite is true. Every religion, from
> the dawn of time, has been based on an older religion. There is
> nothing original or unique about any religion.

And a mud hut is identical to a modern luxury apartment or office complex.

>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
>
>
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 05:32:23 UTC
Permalink
"zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:G7IVa.1465$***@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > A cult built around a belief that the promised messiah had
arrived
> > in the
> > > person of Jesus, and called Christianity cannot be said to exist
> > before
> > > 20-30AD at the earliest;
> >
> > In point of fact, such cults existed for thousands of years prior
to
> > this latest incarnation.
>
> For thousands of years? I think not. Can you provide a reference?

I can provide plenty. I think that the cult of Osiris was popular
around 1500 BCE.

Unfortunatly, I am going to see the new Laura Croft movie right now,
so I can no longer reply tonight. I shall reply tomorrow, however.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
Brenda G. Kent
2003-07-30 05:48:15 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 29 Jul 2003, Maxie P. Diddly wrote:

>
> "zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:G7IVa.1465$***@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > "Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > A cult built around a belief that the promised messiah had
> arrived
> > > in the
> > > > person of Jesus, and called Christianity cannot be said to exist
> > > before
> > > > 20-30AD at the earliest;
> > >
> > > In point of fact, such cults existed for thousands of years prior
> to
> > > this latest incarnation.
> >
> > For thousands of years? I think not. Can you provide a reference?
>
> I can provide plenty. I think that the cult of Osiris was popular
> around 1500 BCE.
>
> Unfortunatly, I am going to see the new Laura Croft movie right now,
> so I can no longer reply tonight. I shall reply tomorrow, however.
>

****ooooooooh Angelina....... sigh.....
I'll be going this saturday with boyfriend.
Hope you enjoy!

Bren.


*****************************************************
Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
dogmas and creeds.
When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
assured that the emancipation of the world is through
the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
Religion of Love.
*****************************************************
Ironywaves
2003-07-30 06:40:53 UTC
Permalink
A cult built around a belief that the promised messiah had
> > arrived
> > > > in the
> > > > > person of Jesus, and called Christianity cannot be said to exist
> > > > before
> > > > > 20-30AD at the earliest;
> > > >
> > > > In point of fact, such cults existed for thousands of years prior
> > to
> > > > this latest incarnation.
> > >
> > > For thousands of years? I think not. Can you provide a reference?
> >
> > I can provide plenty. I think that the cult of Osiris was popular
> > around 1500 BCE.

Osiris is not Jesus. close... but not Christianity. That came later.
Dockery


> *****************************************************
> Religion is Love and Fellowship and not theological
> dogmas and creeds.
> When you have Love and Sympathy in your heart for
> your fellowmen, you have the highest type of religion
> no matter by what name you may call yourself. Rest
> assured that the emancipation of the world is through
> the Nameless God of Love, and in the Nameless
> Religion of Love.
> *****************************************************
zayton
2003-07-30 16:23:31 UTC
Permalink
"Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:G7IVa.1465$***@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > "Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
> > news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > A cult built around a belief that the promised messiah had
> arrived
> > > in the
> > > > person of Jesus, and called Christianity cannot be said to exist
> > > before
> > > > 20-30AD at the earliest;
> > >
> > > In point of fact, such cults existed for thousands of years prior
> to
> > > this latest incarnation.
> >
> > For thousands of years? I think not. Can you provide a reference?
>
> I can provide plenty. I think that the cult of Osiris was popular
> around 1500 BCE.

Really, I don't recall Osiris having beeen anticipated by Jews as "the
anointed one", much liss his being called "he will save".

>
> Unfortunatly, I am going to see the new Laura Croft movie right now,
> so I can no longer reply tonight. I shall reply tomorrow, however.
>
>

Don't bother, it's really the same identical movie as the first one, since
they both involve archaeology and conflict....
>
zayton
2003-07-30 03:11:21 UTC
Permalink
"Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
news:***@corp.supernews.com...
>
> >
> > Okay, I see what you mean now... the concept of *like* Christianity,
> where I
> > was writing about the actual "Christianity". Isis and Osiris statues
> were
> > renamed Jesus and Mary, Roman Gods were turned into Saints. There
> are roots
> > in the past, but I was writing about actual "Christianity", which
> came long
> > [somewhere around a hundred years or so] after Christ's day.
>
> No, it didn't. It was around for thousands of years before that.
>
>
Sure, and Michaelango's statue of David has been around for millions of
years, because the stone is that old.
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 03:27:19 UTC
Permalink
"zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:zwGVa.933$***@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > >
> > > Okay, I see what you mean now... the concept of *like*
Christianity,
> > where I
> > > was writing about the actual "Christianity". Isis and Osiris
statues
> > were
> > > renamed Jesus and Mary, Roman Gods were turned into Saints.
There
> > are roots
> > > in the past, but I was writing about actual "Christianity",
which
> > came long
> > > [somewhere around a hundred years or so] after Christ's day.
> >
> > No, it didn't. It was around for thousands of years before that.
> >
> >
> Sure, and Michaelango's statue of David has been around for millions
of
> years, because the stone is that old.

Nope, you are comparing apples and oranges. The Christian belief
system has been around for thousands of years. It's very name
demonstrates its connection to past history (annointing of Kings,
mythology of the Egyptians) although this often goes unnoticed in
plain sight.

Michelangelo's statue of David is based on a Greek representational
/style/ that is thousands of years old now, but during the time of
Michelangelo, was perhaps only a thousand years old or more.

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the relationship between art and
religion follows a similar path from one culture to the next.

Every culture tries to make-believe that their culture is the newest,
the latest, and the greatest, but upon closer examination, historians,
archeologists, and scholars have found that these claims are merely
the sedimentary deposits of vanquished cultures, each one separate and
distinct, but providing the necessary foundation for the dominant
culture of the time.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-30 05:28:02 UTC
Permalink
"zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cXHVa.1395$***@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> "Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
> news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:zwGVa.933$***@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
> > >
> > > "Maxie P. Diddly" <***@do.not.spam.me.com> wrote in message
> > > news:***@corp.supernews.com...
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Okay, I see what you mean now... the concept of *like*
> > Christianity,
> > > > where I
> > > > > was writing about the actual "Christianity". Isis and Osiris
> > statues
> > > > were
> > > > > renamed Jesus and Mary, Roman Gods were turned into Saints.
> > There
> > > > are roots
> > > > > in the past, but I was writing about actual "Christianity",
> > which
> > > > came long
> > > > > [somewhere around a hundred years or so] after Christ's day.
> > > >
> > > > No, it didn't. It was around for thousands of years before
that.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Sure, and Michaelango's statue of David has been around for
millions
> > of
> > > years, because the stone is that old.
> >
> > Nope, you are comparing apples and oranges.
>
> Not at all.

Actually, yes, you are. Religious beliefs, and the age of stone are
two sepearate entities. Apples and oranges.

> As you expand the analogy, below, you strengthen my arguement.

No, I have corrected it. Of course, I'm not surprised you can't tell
the difference.


> The Christian belief
> > system has been around for thousands of years.
>
> No.

Yes. The "Christ", or "Annointed" or even the "Messiah", is a concept
that far predates any kind of organized "Christianity". It's very
name gives it away.


> Its components were around, but not in any similar enough synthesis
to
> support your analysis.

Wrong. And it wasn't only similar, it was identical. The mythology
of the virgin birth, the travails of the hero, a painful death, and
ressurection from the dead, are vital elements of a collective
mythology that predates organized Christianity by more than a thousand
years.



> It's very name
> > demonstrates its connection to past history (annointing of Kings,
> > mythology of the Egyptians) although this often goes unnoticed in
> > plain sight.
>
> A connection to, but not an identity with.

In fact, it's a perfect, 1 to 1 match. All the elements of the
current mythos simply replaced the older mythos.



> > Michelangelo's statue of David is based on a Greek
representational
> > /style/ that is thousands of years old now, but during the time of
> > Michelangelo, was perhaps only a thousand years old or more.
>
> Based on, but not identical with.

I corrected your argument. It's no longer stone, but style.


> The style of the work is perhaps not
> strikingly different from its antecedents, but is a significantly
fresh
> application ot the style. T

I guess you don't know much about Michelangelo. Perhaps you should
research him before showing your ignorance? It was not
"significantly fresh" by any sense of the word. The "David" was
indicative of the revival of learning and culture that had been
surprsessed by Christianity for a thousand years. This revivial was
marked by getting in touch with the past. Thanks for proving my
point, again.

> But the Statue, itself. a synthesus of vision, form and technique,
is a new
> thing.


Nothing about it was new at all, but a homage to the past. You really
need to open up a history book, because you haven't a clue what you're
talking about.


> > Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the relationship between art
and
> > religion follows a similar path from one culture to the next.
> >
> > Every culture tries to make-believe that their culture is the
newest,
> > the latest, and the greatest, but upon closer examination,
historians,
> > archeologists, and scholars have found that these claims are
merely
> > the sedimentary deposits of vanquished cultures, each one separate
and
> > distinct, but providing the necessary foundation for the dominant
> > culture of the time.
>
> Right. and the Trump Tower is a mud hut.

I'm not surprised by your ignorance in this matter.

History demonstrates that every religion builds upon the foundation of
the conquered culture by absorbing the older beliefs. Christianity
was no different, but in fact, revived many of the older, pagan
beliefs to appeal to a wide audience. That is why it was so
successful around the globe. It was merely a primitive fertility cult
at its basest level, and as such it's appeal was incredible, since
local cultures were able to accept its teachings as its own, and not
at all different from what they believed. This was not a fluke. It
was the first attempt at directly marketing a product, and it has been
very successful to this day.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
Ironywaves
2003-07-30 07:02:27 UTC
Permalink
> > Every culture tries to make-believe that their culture is the newest,
> > the latest, and the greatest, but upon closer examination, historians,
> > archeologists, and scholars have found that these claims are merely
> > the sedimentary deposits of vanquished cultures, each one separate and
> > distinct, but providing the necessary foundation for the dominant
> > culture of the time.
>
> Right. and the Trump Tower is a mud hut.

It is?
Maxie P. Diddly
2003-07-28 02:39:22 UTC
Permalink
"j11" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BB49866E.A55D%***@earthlink.net...
> in article G5AUa.53414$***@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com, The
Talesinator at
> ***@XyahooX.com wrote on 07/26/2003 2:54 PM:
>
> > [Note: As I have never been one to gossip or talk behind someone's
back,
> > copies of this post have been sent to the people involved to give
them a
> > fair shot at responding. It is more than they gave me]
>
> Well written and interesting.

Yes, he does well when he sticks to FICTION.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.504 / Virus Database: 302 - Release Date: 7/24/2003
The Talesinator
2003-07-28 03:53:15 UTC
Permalink
"j11" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:BB49866E.A55D%***@earthlink.net...
: in article G5AUa.53414$***@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com, The Talesinator
at
: ***@XyahooX.com wrote on 07/26/2003 2:54 PM:
:
: > [Note: As I have never been one to gossip or talk behind someone's back,
: > copies of this post have been sent to the people involved to give them a
: > fair shot at responding. It is more than they gave me]
:
: Well written and interesting.
: It would be more interesting if we had the Yahoo group's take on it.

I posted the link to the group. But they are keeping it under wraps and have
demanded discussion of this post be taken off list


--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)

The following statement is true
The above statement is false

http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft

Get your daily Dragon: http://www.pendragonsloft.blogspot.com/

© 2003 by Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft. All rights reserved
zayton
2003-07-30 04:11:10 UTC
Permalink
"zayton" <***@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:...
>
> "Alexandra Ceelie" <***@netzero.net> wrote in message
> news:BB4C597A.458C6%***@netzero.net...
> > >>> I happen to know someone who does exactly that
> > >>
> > >> Wait, I didn't see this before. What's wrong with combining
> > >> Christianity with witchcraft?
> > >>
> > >
> > > ***apparantly just like the many people of one tradition of
Christianity
> > > who put down others trad as "not correct" these "pagans" follow along
> > > thinking that all Christians do think alike..or should..and that there
> is
> > > only one kind of Christianity. Now if every Christian out there was a
> > > literalist they would all not be wearing mixed cloths...forsaking
> > > shellfish and swearing off "four legged fowl" (whatever that is).
There
> > > are many many kinds of Christians...from the mystics to the
Pentacostals
> > > and they have many differences between them all and different interps
on
> > > the Bible...some include or exclude Catholic texts, Nag Hammadi etc.
The
> > > "we are the only true Christians" aspect of some Christians share a
lot
> in
> > > common with some pagans.
> > >
> > > Bren.
> >
> > How do you get around the "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" thing?
I
> > was under the impression there was a whole biblical taboo on practicing
> > divination or sorcery of any kind, regardless of intent.
>
> No "Christian" group or person accepts or follows all of scripture. This
is
> especially true of the literalists who most fervantly claim to do so.
People
> who get all bent out of shape over the prohibitions against witchcraft and
> homosexuality are rarely aware of passages forbidding such things as
wearing
> mixed clothing, made of more than one fabric. Yet that is also condemned.
>
> >
> > Also, what about the concept of the Goddess as an equal to the God? How
is
> > it resolved with the Christian deity who demands to be first in the
lives
> of
> > his followers?
>
> That is more difficult. There is a prevailing exclusivist point of view
both
> in the old and new testaments; but there are minor points of view which
> allow some "wiggle room" in interpretation. For example, Genesis speaks of
> "God" creating "man" in his own image, _male and female_. Obviously the
term
> "man", here, means "humn being", and includes both sexes. If both male and
> female are in God's image, then God must contain both the male and female
> principle. In this particular passage, neither Man nor God is a gender
> specific term. It may be purely a matter of grammatical usage that "God"
and
> "he" are used of the Judeo Christian Diety, rather than "Goddess" and
"she".
> (OK, probably not; but the real reasons are cultural rather than
> theological). The base question is, are "other gods" really other gods, or
> different ways of experiencing the same sacredness mythologized in
> scripture? Perhaps it helps if you are convienced that sacredness cannot
be
> experienced as an objective reality; that in experiencing it, we
subjectify
> it, and to some degree distort it. That which is imperfectly experienced
is
> then less perfectly conceptualized, still less perfectly expressed in
trying
> to express it to others. Add to that imperfect communication over the
> centuries, and it isn't hard for me to justify a good deal of flexibility
in
> the interpretation of the result. That pisses off a lot of Church folk,
and
> I probably enjoy that a lot more than I should; But anyway, God, Goddess,
> God and Goddess as equals, one Deity incorporating both the male and
female
> principle; What's the big deal? I doube that there are many folks around
> today who call themselves "Witches" whose understanding of what it means
to
> be a witch is much like that of the ancient Jews who believed that one
> should not be permitted (or perhaps enabled) to live.
>
> >
> > In combining the two religions, I would think those two things would be
> > major obstacles to a harmonious interlinking of Christianity and Wicca.
>
> Obsticles, but not all that major. I suspect that I would personally have
a
> lot of theological obsticles to work through in order to practice
"Christian
> Wicca" and feel that I was being honest to the essentials of both
> traditions. I'm not nearly knowledgable enough about Wicca as a religious
> system to evaluate the level of difficulty in doing so.
>
> Joe
> >
> > Just curious....
> >
> > =^..^=
> > The NetKitten
> > Alexandra Ceelie
> > denrealm.palacehosting.net
> > ICQ: 1291198
> >
>
>
Loading...