Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Do wiccan need to feed off each other ie,drink blood
-
05-01-2006 3:02pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Agreed. I'm not sure that was ever in question...hairyheretic wrote:With the net though you can write anything, fact or fiction, and present it to the world. I think the point is more to be thinking of that fact, and judge the information you get, rather than blindly accepting it.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Pagans may well have been persecuted, but so has damn near everyone else at one time or another.hairyheretic wrote:Mankind has a history full of persecution, whether it be for religious beliefs, skin colour, or any of the other things that someone feels are divisive.
Christianity has never presumed to pretend that it's followers are perfect; it states the very opposite. Nor does it even presume to pretend that christian humans are even any less "nasty" (however you want to begin to define that, if you're not even christian) than any humans who aren't christian.hairyheretic wrote:If christians claim to follow the teachings and example of Christ, yet carry out assorted nasty activities, how then should they be judged?
If I profess to follow any path, ideology or what have you, and act in a bad way, my profession to following / being whatever tars that subject through association.
Humans will never achieve perfection in their natural life; christians and all humans will always have nastiness in them to one degree or another. If anything, in this day and age, a kind of inverted-self-righteousness has developed amongst non-christians, whereby they all think they have the moral high ground because of how 'evil' the church really is.
No-one becomes superhuman just by following christianity; they become more human still. Any argument against religion on the basis that "some christians, especially those in the past, have done nasty things at times" is utterly pointless.
So, in short, they should be judged as humans. Not as devils.
As are the people trying be christians. Not always fair perhaps, but they probably wouldn't be quite human if they were.hairyheretic wrote:it may not be fair, but it is very human0 -
scouser.tommy wrote:Christianity has never presumed to pretend that it's followers are perfect; it states the very opposite. Nor does it even presume to pretend that christian humans are even any less "nasty" (however you want to begin to define that, if you're not even christian) than any humans who aren't christian.
There does seem to be an element within christianity that does feel itself better than non-christians (and indeed other christians of different denominations) though. The whole "We're right, you're wrong and youre going to suffer for eternity no matter how good a person you are" crowd.
That element way well exist within other beliefs, but I don't know those well enough to say that for definate.scouser.tommy wrote:If anything, in this day and age, a kind of inverted-self-righteousness has developed amongst non-christians, whereby they all think they have the moral high ground because of how 'evil' the church really is.
Given the recent (within the past few decades) scandals within the church, and the evidence that it not only knew about, but tried to cover up, those same scandals, is it any surprise?
Again i think thats more indicative of human nature than anything else.scouser.tommy wrote:Any argument against religion on the basis that "some christians, especially those in the past, have done nasty things at times" is utterly pointless.
How far back does accountability stretch? Obviously trying to hold you personally responsible for actions by the church in the 14th century would be a tad silly, but do you feel current church officials should bear up to actions of their recent predecessors?scouser.tommy wrote:So, in short, they should be judged as humans. Not as devils.
But of course. My own belief is that people should be judged on two things .. their words, and their deeds.0 -
Well, I've yet to hear anyone put it that way and I hope no-one would put it that way, but I'm sure there are those religious people who may hold sentiments of that sort...It's unfair to scaremonger like that; but at the same time, people can feel it's their duty and that it may be for what they see as the person's own good. But that's a phrase no-one likes to hear, isn't it? "It's for your own good". When people get to a certain age, usually late teens, they decide they've now got it figured out; they're an adult, and know exactly what's good for them; and can't abide anyone telling them what to do in what comes across as such an authorative manner. Most young people don't have authority figures in their lives that are actually worthy of the authority they hold. Anyway, I'm digressing here. What I'm saying is that while the evangelical types are foolish to preach to non-religious and such in such a matter-of-fact manner; there is usually at the same time a slight element of irrationality about the preached-at person's aversion to being lectured in such a manner. They're both kind of wrong.hairyheretic wrote:There does seem to be an element within christianity that does feel itself better than non-christians (and indeed other christians of different denominations) though. The whole "We're right, you're wrong and youre going to suffer for eternity no matter how good a person you are" crowd.
The church may have, in attempting to cover up the scandal, tryed to pretend to be something it's not. Tried to pretend it was something better than it is, but it did so with good intention, IMO. Many good things and actions begin with pretense. How many times have you pretended to enjoy a the company of someone you didn't know very well nor like very well, and suprisingly quickly found yourself enjoying their company? Improvement of all sorts begins with pretensions to being better. The church needed to represent itself as being not made up of corrupt people, in order for it's influence to be as effective as possible. I realise that borders on "means justify the end" behaviour, so, I can't condone it. But I understand it. It's not so devious not deceptive as it may seem. (Or as others may choose to see it and deride it).hairyheretic wrote:Given the recent (within the past few decades) scandals within the church, and the evidence that it not only knew about, but tried to cover up, those same scandals, is it any surprise?
Very much so; with regard to human nature, I'll say this much. There are few things humans seem to hate more than hypocrisy, and few things they love more than hating and criticising it.hairyheretic wrote:Again i think thats more indicative of human nature than anything else.
Through it's "you're wrong, we're right, you're going to hell" contingent, the church has unwittingly betrayed itself as being immensely proud and/or arrogant. There are few things that provoke disgust and hatred as much as seeing pride in others. The more proud the observer himself is, the more he despises to see selfish pride in others. Again, I think this exposes a certain irrationality in the public's tendency to condemn the church.
Now I myself am no spokesman for the catholic church (though I all too frequently find myself inclined to want to defend it from the angry mobs), so I will say the church was definitely wrong. The head honchos made a horrible mistake in trying to cover up the scandal, IMO. If ever there was a time that representative members of the church needed to come forth, cast off the holier-than-thou image, it was then. The less "good" or holy the church outwardly admits itself to be, I think the more people will be willing to accept it and give it the benefit of the doubt. But, like I said, the emergence of all the scandal represented a gross hypocrisy on their part, and nothing provokes criticism like hypocrisy. Not with the kind of sadistic fervour that many detractors are possessed by.
I believe accountability should only extend as far as one shows ones loyalty/allegiance to lie. In other words, accountability lies only with the immediate perpetrators, but also extending to a degree to the open supporters of the immediate perpetrators. One of the most common examples of people's opinions on accountability is anti-british feeling amongst the Irish. I personally think anyone who would hold our "800 years of oppression" against any living english citizen today, is an idiot. No currently living english person that I know ever harmed me or anyone I know. So why should I hold it against them? Even if they do display the attitude or leanings of those who in the past, 'oppressed' my country. Now if you apply that opinion to the church, then there is no reason for any living person today to drag out the old "the church burned so-called heretics!" condemnation.hairyheretic wrote:How far back does accountability stretch? Obviously trying to hold you personally responsible for actions by the church in the 14th century would be a tad silly, but do you feel current church officials should bear up to actions of their recent predecessors?
The 'paedophile' label is, however, still relevant and applicable to a small contingent within the church. That I won't deny.
Interesting belief there. Words lie far more often than deeds do. I was reading up about the code of Bushido amongst japanese samurai warrior in feudal Japan. One of the things that caught my attention was that the bushido code was entirely unspoken. It was passed down, always evolving, from warrior to warrior, quite mutually, through acts and deeds; more more rarely by word-of-mouth. Thus possessing all the more, "the powerful sanction of veritable deed". It seems, when people do not talk the talk, they are required all the more inclined to walk the walk, as evidence of their chivalry. So, in short, I guess talk is cheap.hairyheretic wrote:But of course. My own belief is that people should be judged on two things .. their words, and their deeds. 0 -
scouser.tommy wrote:Well, I've yet to hear anyone put it that way and I hope no-one would put it that way, but I'm sure there are those religious people who may hold sentiments of that sort...
If you're not familiar with then, google Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. I realise they're a pretty extreme example, but they are, by their own definition, christians.scouser.tommy wrote:When people get to a certain age, usually late teens, they decide they've now got it figured out; they're an adult, and know exactly what's good for them; and can't abide anyone telling them what to do in what comes across as such an authorative manner. Most young people don't have authority figures in their lives that are actually worthy of the authority they hold.
Who decides the worth of an authority figure though? Every person is going to have their own criteria for what makes someone worthy of respect.scouser.tommy wrote:Anyway, I'm digressing here. What I'm saying is that while the evangelical types are foolish to preach to non-religious and such in such a matter-of-fact manner; there is usually at the same time a slight element of irrationality about the preached-at person's aversion to being lectured in such a manner. They're both kind of wrong.
I don't think anyone enjoys being preached at. Having someone praching at you from what they believe to be a position of superiority is only going to make the person they're talking at even less likely to be interested.scouser.tommy wrote:The church may have, in attempting to cover up the scandal, tryed to pretend to be something it's not. Tried to pretend it was something better than it is, but it did so with good intention, IMO.
On that I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you. The church tried to cover up the abuses of its own in order to protect itself, its name, its authority. Thats not a good intention.scouser.tommy wrote:The church needed to represent itself as being not made up of corrupt people, in order for it's influence to be as effective as possible. I realise that borders on "means justify the end" behaviour, so, I can't condone it. But I understand it. It's not so devious not deceptive as it may seem. (Or as others may choose to see it and deride it).
Then it needs to prove it.scouser.tommy wrote:Through it's "you're wrong, we're right, you're going to hell" contingent, the church has unwittingly betrayed itself as being immensely proud and/or arrogant. There are few things that provoke disgust and hatred as much as seeing pride in others. The more proud the observer himself is, the more he despises to see selfish pride in others. Again, I think this exposes a certain irrationality in the public's tendency to condemn the church.
I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Someones pride doesn't really seem all that relevent to me.scouser.tommy wrote:Now I myself am no spokesman for the catholic church (though I all too frequently find myself inclined to want to defend it from the angry mobs), so I will say the church was definitely wrong. The head honchos made a horrible mistake in trying to cover up the scandal, IMO. If ever there was a time that representative members of the church needed to come forth, cast off the holier-than-thou image, it was then. The less "good" or holy the church outwardly admits itself to be, I think the more people will be willing to accept it and give it the benefit of the doubt. But, like I said, the emergence of all the scandal represented a gross hypocrisy on their part, and nothing provokes criticism like hypocrisy. Not with the kind of sadistic fervour that many detractors are possessed by.
If the church had admitted its faults and tried to make ammends, the reaction probably wouldn't have been as bad. They didn't though. They systematically covered up the wrongdoings, and tried to make out they did nothing wrong.
When it all blew up, their hypocrisy came right back onto them.scouser.tommy wrote:I believe accountability should only extend as far as one shows ones loyalty/allegiance to lie. In other words, accountability lies only with the immediate perpetrators, but also extending to a degree to the open supporters of the immediate perpetrators.
Sounds reasonable.scouser.tommy wrote:Interesting belief there. Words lie far more often than deeds do. I was reading up about the code of Bushido amongst japanese samurai warrior in feudal Japan. One of the things that caught my attention was that the bushido code was entirely unspoken. It was passed down, always evolving, from warrior to warrior, quite mutually, through acts and deeds; more more rarely by word-of-mouth. Thus possessing all the more, "the powerful sanction of veritable deed". It seems, when people do not talk the talk, they are required all the more inclined to walk the walk, as evidence of their chivalry. So, in short, I guess talk is cheap.
I'd not come across that before. I have a copy of Hagakure, a book on Bushido written in the 1700s. Perhaps in the centuries previous to that it was more through deeds than words.
Talk can be cheap, but at the same time, your word can be your bond. If it is known that you do not break your word, and you get a reputation for that, then your words will be given much more weight than those of someone who is known to lie.0 -
-
-
bluewolf wrote:Em, I would. It's still a deception, and fairly hypocritical, unless it was clear they just decided to gain some pride.
Okay, come to think of it, I didn't use the best example there. At all, actually...what the hell was even thinking
If pride or arrogance enters into someones hypocrisy at all, it is far more likely to be criticized.
I'm not so sure of what I was saying now, heh, but, bottom line; people love to hate hypocrisy.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
scouser.tommy wrote:At this stage, as a young person in this society you're more likely to take stick from pagans for being a Christian. In my experience, that's how it is. I'm certainly not saying pagans are in the majority, but in my day-to-day dealings at college, on the internet in particular, and with young people in general, I'm as like to come across pagans as anyone else, and more likely to take stick from pagans than anyone else.
The internet isn't a good place to judge from. People will say things online that they wouldn't say to your face, as the internet provides a shield, or distance, anonymity or what have you.
In addition, there does seem to be a period when someone leaves christianity that in order to reinforce that they do lash out at it. Most grow out of it over time.
On the other hand, I'm yet to be accosted on the street by pagans, pamphlets thrust at me, and shouted at through a loudspeaker that I'm doomed for all eternity
0 -
Is there a reason we shouldn't?scouser.tommy wrote:Okay, come to think of it, I didn't use the best example there. At all, actually...what the hell was even thinking
If pride or arrogance enters into someones hypocrisy at all, it is far more likely to be criticized.
I'm not so sure of what I was saying now, heh, but, bottom line; people love to hate hypocrisy.0 -
-
-
Probably not. But very often the hatred comes from a bad place; from the wrong place. A self-centred, prideful place. When christians preach that every man is a sinner, most people seem to unconsciously interpret that as "you're all sinners except for we in the church, who are therefore holier than thou", then when said priests/clergy are exposed as also being sinners, all the 'ordinary, decent folk' are all the more outraged at it, because of the earlier percieved holier-than-thou attitude. But that's what makes a good guide. Take Roy Keane, for example, it's been said time and time again about Roy, that one of the things that made him such an effective and reliable leader for Man Utd was his ability to take charge, get the best out of his team-mates, generally boss everyone about - even when he himself wasn't having the best of individual games. Because it has to be done. You wouldn't call him a hypocrite for griefing the lads out of it over bad play even when he himself was having a nightmare on the pitch.bluewolf wrote:Is there a reason we shouldn't?
At the end of the day, christianity is a team sport, so, eh, treat the church like you would Keano... 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
scouser.tommy wrote:At the end of the day, christianity is a team sport, so, eh, treat the church like you would Keano...
So I should tie the church to a flagpole naked, covered in honey and sit back to watch as the fire ants get busy as punishment for abandoning his country during the world cup?? :rolleyes:0 -
-
-
At this stage, as a young person in this society you're more likely to take stick from pagans for being a Christian. In my experience, that's how it is. I'm certainly not saying pagans are in the majority, but in my day-to-day dealings at college, on the internet in particular, and with young people in general, I'm as like to come across pagans as anyone else, and more likely to take stick from pagans than anyone else.
Wow, I should go to your college!
The most Pagan friendly (and by friendly, I mean we were tolerated) institution I was part of was the Air Force. The Military Pagan Net is very proactive in the U.S. military, but we had to deal with constant prosetylizing (sp?) from the Christian Chaplains.
I think the lashing out at Christianity stage is just another phase of spiritual growth. Like the teenager that lashes out at his or her parents to assert independance, the fledgling Pagan lashes out at the religion they have been raised in.
Nobody's perfect, no matter what religion, race or creed. Pagans have thier bad apples as well; I don't think anyone was trying to say Pagans are holier than them.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement