|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:44 am
I figured since we are a guild mixed with beginners and more experienced people it might be good to talk about what others view as discrimination and what are people looking for attention.
It happens in a lot of circles and I'm sure we've all seen it, someone who is claiming discrimination when it isn't going on. Like many other scenes, the pagan scene enjoys many many people on this ship, which leads me to a couple of questions in this regard.
1. Do you know anyone in the scene or in another scene who seems to be claiming discrimination when there isn't any?
2. Do you know anyone who has acted ridiculous and then declared anyone who called them on their action discriminatory?
3. Have you ever had a persecution complex?
4. Have you or a friend ever acted out just to act out?
5. Do you feel that a lot of pagans on the scene have some sort of persecution complex?
6. Do you feel that a lot of pagans in the scene tell others that they have a persecution complex when those people have valid points and concerns?
7. Have you ever heard of or referenced the "burning times"?
8. Anything else you can think of on the topic of discrimination and people claiming discrimination when there isn't any.
On to me. In my younger years (14-16) I most definately had a persecution complex. I did think everyone was out to pick on me and my beliefs blah blah blah. I did my best not to single myself out too much for particular attention. And I did see people who were harassed for wearing pentacles. My thoughts now, wearing a necklace or a ring or earings with a pentacle on it as long as it isn't obnoxiously large is fine. Wearing all of those items and a religiously themed shirt and duh you'll be picked on. People also pick on Christians and other main stream faiths when they deck themselves out like that.
I also have, to my shame, mentioned the burning times. But I've been educated since then. And I learned a valuable lesson about sources that I might not have otherwise learned.
General thoughts about persecution complexs: I do see them fairly often. Not just in the pagan scene. I do my best to avoid these kinds of people and when I have to deal with them I confront them politely. Generally I'll start by asking questions to see if they can back up their feelings and claims and to see if my first assumptions about them are actually correct.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 11:43 pm
1. Blacks, Jews, and half the flufftards in these guilds.
2. Blacks, Jews, and half the flufftards in these guilds.
3. Do I look like I'm retarded? If you answer yes, bash your skull in with the nearest blunt object immediately.
4. I'm just that damn awesome.
5. They're not entirely wrong, I'd like to kill a lot of them.
6. No.
7. That's worse than Blacks mentioning slavery or Jews mentioning the Holocaust as far as I'm concerned. Jews might have half a reason to do so, there's still some survivors.
8. I want to see the whole world burn in an unending fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:38 am
1. Do you know anyone in the scene or in another scene who seems to be claiming discrimination when there isn't any?
Personally? No. Read and heard anecdotes? Certainly, but I also am not in the position to ascertain from these tales whether or not the descrimination claim was bogus or not.
2. Do you know anyone who has acted ridiculous and then declared anyone who called them on their action discriminatory?
Personally? No. Read and heard anecdotes? Yup.
3. Have you ever had a persecution complex?
Not particularly. The closest I've had is suspecting someone of treating me differently because s/he knew I was Neopagan. In this specific sittuation, however, there are other pressures leading me to believe this that are unrelated to religion, so I am not giving this impression too much weight.
4. Have you or a friend ever acted out just to act out?
Acted out? Like... acted out what?
5. Do you feel that a lot of pagans on the scene have some sort of persecution complex?
I think that this is a very hard thing to judge in someone else unless you know them and their sittuation well. Someone may appear to have a complex, but in fact, have quite valid reasons for feeling as they do. I do think that as a whole, Neopagans are more sensitive to persecution because we always hear the bad stories of intolerance more than the good stories of acceptance. We cue ourselves to look for descrimination, so we find it... at times finding it where we really shouldn't.
6. Do you feel that a lot of pagans in the scene tell others that they have a persecution complex when those people have valid points and concerns?
Possibly. Like I said, one has to be careful how one calls the shots. It is polite to suggest alternative points of view to the person you believe has a 'persecution complex' but to go accuse them of having one dosen't help them and it doesn't help you. Descrimination does happen against us. That's a fact. Does it happen as often as some people feel? I don't think so, but others might disagree.
7. Have you ever heard of or referenced the "burning times"?
OMFGs the burning tymes!!!!! Yes, I haven't been hiding under a rock since I became Neopagan. whee
It does have its good lessons, though. Although the people persecuted were not modern Witches per say, if you look at the sorts of people accused, it does speak to a time where indvidiual rights were trampled. A woman, for example, could be accused of witchcraft in a puritan society simply by speaking her mind. All in perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:49 pm
The Resurrection 3. Do I look like I'm retarded? If you answer yes, bash your skull in with the nearest blunt object immediately. Meh, I figure it can happen to the best of us. In my opinion as long as you come to recognize that there is not discrimination and you just are making a big deal out of nothing, it's just something that happens. Besides it can be easy for people converting to be overly sensitive about their new found faith. Quote: 5. They're not entirely wrong, I'd like to kill a lot of them. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Quote: 7. That's worse than Blacks mentioning slavery or Jews mentioning the Holocaust as far as I'm concerned. Jews might have half a reason to do so, there's still some survivors. I'm a bit confused by this remark. Are you trying to imply that the burning times actually happened? While there was an Inquisition in Spain, it really wasn't about paganism at all. And while hundreds of women and children died chances are likely that most if not all of them were Christians. I suppose you could use it as a reference of the corruption within the church of the time or as an example of how people have used religion for material gain, but it wasn't so much with the discrimination. I mean slavery (specifically if we're talking colonial America here) was all about the dehumanization of the African people. The Holocuast was largely dedicated to killing off the Jewish people. Point is that not only did these events happen often but they actually did target the group bringing them up. Do I think that sometimes people reference these events when there is no real cause, sure. Do I think these are things that really happened and that we need to make sure don't happen again, of course. I don't really think the burning times is comparable. Quote: 8. I want to see the whole world burn in an unending fire. How is this "on the topic of discrimination and people claiming discrimination"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:11 pm
Starlock Personally? No. Read and heard anecdotes? Certainly, but I also am not in the position to ascertain from these tales whether or not the descrimination claim was bogus or not. Often I don't think I'm entirely in a position to judge when it comes to discrimination going on in the pagan scene because I hear so many of these tales over the internet and the miscommunication rate in this medium is fairly high. I know that there are some women on my campus who have recently taken up the cause of equality for women in sports who I happen to think have a bit of a persecution complex. They feel that the gender segregation in professional sports is sexist and that women "perform poorly" because no one is interesting in watching them play. I'm not going to get into all the reasons this is ridiculous to me here, but I'll say that while there most certainly is discrimination for women worth fighting, it isn't over gender separation of professional sports teams. A friend of mine here at school also felt that using the term "fluffy bunny" to describe someone who insists they are right even when someone has explained to them that they have been misinformed and how is a form of discrimination. She thinks that its all about differing opinions. I'm not certain how much of that I think is a differing opinion and how much of it I think its people who are too prideful to admit that they were duped. Either way though her defense does seem to enforce the idea of "persecution" when all that's really going on is a debate over terminology. Quote: Personally? No. Read and heard anecdotes? Yup. I love and I hate those anecdotes all at once. Part of me wants to shake the person and ask why, and part of me just sort of decides to pretend it's an SNL skit. Quote: Not particularly. The closest I've had is suspecting someone of treating me differently because s/he knew I was Neopagan. In this specific sittuation, however, there are other pressures leading me to believe this that are unrelated to religion, so I am not giving this impression too much weight. Sounds very level headed and reasonable. Quote: Acted out? Like... acted out what? Admittedly this question is geared more towards either people in their teens or people reflecting on their teenage years. For example I knew a girl who insisted that she could read the future. She would grab people's hands to read their future and then fall down on to the floor in fake spasms only to come up and give them gruesome death sentences. She would stay up during loud thunderstorms and wake up her room mate by screaming gibberish and random witching hour/ devil's time nonsense. I have good reason to believe that she did these things and many other things just for the attention (or acting out just to act out). One reason I believe this is any time someone else would start to get the group's attention she would have a "vision" and her stuns would be come more fantastic and violent. This is an extreme case, but I'm basically talking about dressing a certain way, making certain claims (regardless of the truth of them), or doing certain things just for the attention or to sensationalize something. Quote: I think that this is a very hard thing to judge in someone else unless you know them and their sittuation well. Someone may appear to have a complex, but in fact, have quite valid reasons for feeling as they do. I do think that as a whole, Neopagans are more sensitive to persecution because we always hear the bad stories of intolerance more than the good stories of acceptance. We cue ourselves to look for descrimination, so we find it... at times finding it where we really shouldn't. Quote: Really well said here and I agree. Quote: Possibly. Like I said, one has to be careful how one calls the shots. It is polite to suggest alternative points of view to the person you believe has a 'persecution complex' but to go accuse them of having one dosen't help them and it doesn't help you. Descrimination does happen against us. That's a fact. Does it happen as often as some people feel? I don't think so, but others might disagree. Good point. Quote: OMFGs the burning tymes!!!!! Yes, I haven't been hiding under a rock since I became Neopagan. whee It does have its good lessons, though. Although the people persecuted were not modern Witches per say, if you look at the sorts of people accused, it does speak to a time where indvidiual rights were trampled. A woman, for example, could be accused of witchcraft in a puritan society simply by speaking her mind. All in perspective. There are certainly things we can learn, but none of them are about our poor witchy and unfortunately ashy heritage. whee Still, I guess dying for thinking something out loud does help put other kinds of "discrimination" in perspective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:07 pm
blindfaith^_^ The Resurrection 5. They're not entirely wrong, I'd like to kill a lot of them. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. The little fluffkins and Wiccans should all have a the core of their leg bones drilled out and then cauterized with a red hot metal pole. blindfaith^_^ Quote: 7. That's worse than Blacks mentioning slavery or Jews mentioning the Holocaust as far as I'm concerned. Jews might have half a reason to do so, there's still some survivors. I'm a bit confused by this remark. Are you trying to imply that the burning times actually happened? While there was an Inquisition in Spain, it really wasn't about paganism at all. And while hundreds of women and children died chances are likely that most if not all of them were Christians. I suppose you could use it as a reference of the corruption within the church of the time or as an example of how people have used religion for material gain, but it wasn't so much with the discrimination. I mean slavery (specifically if we're talking colonial America here) was all about the dehumanization of the African people. The Holocuast was largely dedicated to killing off the Jewish people. Point is that not only did these events happen often but they actually did target the group bringing them up. Do I think that sometimes people reference these events when there is no real cause, sure. Do I think these are things that really happened and that we need to make sure don't happen again, of course. I don't really think the burning times is comparable. I assumed the burning times referred to any number of Christian massacres of various peoples. At any rate, the events are over and it's ridiculous that people demand reparations or try and mention the event to gain either sympathy to some stupid cause or a blind eye to their own malicious acts. [In reference to Jews and blacks. Not all do this, but far more do than we should ever tolerate.] blindfaith^_^ Quote: 8. I want to see the whole world burn in an unending fire. How is this "on the topic of discrimination and people claiming discrimination"? It's not, I just thought I'd share that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:05 am
blindfaith^_^ A friend of mine here at school also felt that using the term "fluffy bunny" to describe someone who insists they are right even when someone has explained to them that they have been misinformed and how is a form of discrimination. She thinks that its all about differing opinions. I'm not certain how much of that I think is a differing opinion and how much of it I think its people who are too prideful to admit that they were duped. Either way though her defense does seem to enforce the idea of "persecution" when all that's really going on is a debate over terminology. Oh Gods. That term opens up a whole different can of worms for me; I wasn't even considering this term when writing my responses. xd Ironically, the use of the term IS a form of descrimination as more often than not I see it used as a derogative slash or an outright hate word much like a racial pejorative. It depresses me that the word even exists in the Neopagan community. If we preach tolerance, you'd think that at the very least we could be tolerant within our own community and not demean people with labels like that. What I find particularly curious is how the fb-word has been redefined -to the definition you speak of above- by certain groups to suit a particular agenda. Sounds to me like a cry to establish dogma and a one and only Truth. It's one thing to firmly believe in your own Truth or Truths... it's something else to put down another for not seeing things the same way you do. But then, duped or not, what matters most to me is not WHAT people believe, but WHY they believe it and the IMPACT it has in their daily lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:48 am
Starlock Oh Gods. That term opens up a whole different can of worms for me; I wasn't even considering this term when writing my responses. xd Ironically, the use of the term IS a form of descrimination as more often than not I see it used as a derogative slash or an outright hate word much like a racial pejorative. It think there are several uses of the term and some of them are more derogative than others. For example some people use fb to describe someone with a "sunshine and light" path. I don't describe my own path that way, but I think under this definition I probably fit. I think attacking the actual content of a person's faith isn't right. You can probe and ask questions. You can suggest something doesn't seem to make sense to you, but to say that blah is stupid even if it is shouldn't be done. I find it hard for the fb to be derrogatory with the willful ignorance definition becuase you have to talk to the person for a bit before you can make that call. It's insulting but so is calling someone a jerk or self righteous or egotistical or evil or a liar. Quote: It depresses me that the word even exists in the Neopagan community. If we preach tolerance, you'd think that at the very least we could be tolerant within our own community and not demean people with labels like that. I would think it depended higly on the Neopagan what they did or did not preach. The term has very little meaning to me and I've seen is thrown around in such a way that I'm not certain tolerance is implicit in the doctrine. On another note, I'm not sure that tolerance is the same as accepting,encouraging, or supporting. To show tolerance to me seems to say that you allow this person to practice as they will. I have never tried to inhibit a person's practice before. I've question people on practices and definitions. I've voiced my opinion on occasion, but none of this has ever stopped them from practicing or even just walking away from me. I never try to hunt anyone down either. If they announce something freely as fact others, in my opinion are welcome to ask about it. If they don't want the attention then perhaps they shouldn't say anything. Quote: What I find particularly curious is how the fb-word has been redefined -to the definition you speak of above- by certain groups to suit a particular agenda. Sounds to me like a cry to establish dogma and a one and only Truth. To me it sounds like an attempt to talk about historical context and proper word usage. After all there is not real way to establish dogma in a scene where almost no one believes the same ore similar things. It sounds to me like people trying to keep definitions clear and trying to make people newer to the scene think some about where and how they receive information. I don't often see people say "what you believe is wrong" but I do often see "what you are calling your beliefs is incorrect" or "I think there has to be a better label you could use to be more clear". Arguing semantics in this way does a couple of good things. It helps to clarify a person's beliefs. It helps to maintain a clean definition of certain words. It allows others to think some of how they are presenting. It is true there are certain authors who are constantly put down and those who read them are put down as well. To me this is a little harsh. A good portion of what some of those authors say is inaccurate pure definition wise and sometimes I find the books hostile to Christianity for no specific reason, but that doesn't make the rest of the path wrong. To say Silver is crap for learning Wicca is different then to say that Silver is crap for learning witchcraft. I don't like most of what she's got, but if someone wants to follow her path, that's fine as long as they aren't calling it Wicca. Quote: It's one thing to firmly believe in your own Truth or Truths... it's something else to put down another for not seeing things the same way you do. You can disagree from an accademic position. I don't think that has anything to do with the Truth or Truths of someone's religion as they can choose to look at their interpretations as a myth in morality or as all that really people are asking is that you relabel certain words. And certainly the other person is more than welcome to counter one source of another. In most cases when we talk pure history there is another position out there. I've got no problem with debate. Heck I could find out I'm misinformed, it would not be the first time. I like that almost as much as I like winning. Plus at the end of the day that person is more than welcome to believe whatever they want. I don't control that, nor would I want to. Of course I think I'm right in my beliefs, if I didn't I wouldn't follow them, and I'm sure others feel the same way. I might not think positively on what they follow, but I like to think that most of the time I have enough tack not to say it to their face. There is a difference between discussing belief, expressing personal thoughts on a belief, bashing it, or bashing the person. They can be very fine lines but each one is different from the other. Quote: But then, duped or not, what matters most to me is not WHAT people believe, but WHY they believe it and the IMPACT it has in their daily lives. These are all important things. Certainly if the Why is strong enough then no one should care about what a few say in response. I think part of taking up a path is thinking about how others will react and feel about it. We don't live in a bubble and if a person hasn't prepared themself for how greater society feels or they didn't expect that kind of reaction then perhaps one needs to rethink the model or the mode of presentation. And there is always the option to say nothing. If it is personal and none of my business then just don't tell me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2007 12:09 pm
blindfaith^_^ I would think it depended higly on the Neopagan what they did or did not preach. The term has very little meaning to me and I've seen is thrown around in such a way that I'm not certain tolerance is implicit in the doctrine. On another note, I'm not sure that tolerance is the same as accepting,encouraging, or supporting. It would depend. I was speaking from the general perspective seen in the literature; it's common to see 'tolerance' championed as one of the common Neopagan values. It, along with any other common value, isn't usually stated as one every Neopagan absolutely must hold, but it is listed frequently enough that I find it a touch ironic. Tolerance definately isn't precisely the same thing as these other terms you list. The semantics here get real tricky; what exactly does tolerance mean? Live and let live, or something more? Does it mean you don't sling insults at people just for being what they are? How far does that extend? blindfaith^_^ To me it sounds like an attempt to talk about historical context and proper word usage. After all there is not real way to establish dogma in a scene where almost no one believes the same ore similar things. It sounds to me like people trying to keep definitions clear and trying to make people newer to the scene think some about where and how they receive information. There are some cases of this. I don't think that excludes it from being dogmatic. By dogmatic, I could also use the word standardized; it's the same thing only without the sometimes negative connotation that 'dogma' has to many of us. There are great benefits to standardizing terminology and some drawbacks as well. The Neopagan community in part because it as a movement, as you imply, isn't condusive to any sort of 'standard' or dogma. There isn't anybody who can enforce or decide what the standard should be. It's a good thing and a bad thing at the same time; depends more on what you value: tradition or progress. For history? People are not well informed on history in general, be it the history of their nation or that of their religion; badmouthing them for that strikes me as a bit extreme. I don't see people getting nearly as upset about the George Washington cherry tree myth... what's so much more upsetting about thinking nine million witches were killed during the witch hunts? Do people take the witch thing that personally that they get that much more upset by it? Well, your response was quite long so I feel the need for brevity here. There is more I could respond to, but... yeah. Brevity. whee Here's a random question though. How many of us are actually scholars and academics? You know... Ph.Ds in what we're commenting on? If we aren't, who are we to be giving judgements? Who are we to be judging what the truth is? We're not experts. We're not Ph.D's. Who are we to say 'this is how it is' to a bunch of teenagers and go calling them 'willfully ignorant' if they disagree? Where's the qualifications?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 27, 2007 7:53 am
Starlock It would depend. I was speaking from the general perspective seen in the literature; it's common to see 'tolerance' championed as one of the common Neopagan values. It, along with any other common value, isn't usually stated as one every Neopagan absolutely must hold, but it is listed frequently enough that I find it a touch ironic. Fair enough ^.^ Quote: Tolerance definately isn't precisely the same thing as these other terms you list. The semantics here get real tricky; what exactly does tolerance mean? Live and let live, or something more? Does it mean you don't sling insults at people just for being what they are? How far does that extend? It depends on how "accepting" I need to be. If I don't have to agree, submit, or approval then whatever. If you want me to do either of those they we've entered a realm where I have more rights to express my feelings, which certainly can be done without insult. I guess that there are two sides to this is all and in general if you leave me and mine alone I'll probably do the same. starlock There are some cases of this. I don't think that excludes it from being dogmatic. By dogmatic, I could also use the word standardized; it's the same thing only without the sometimes negative connotation that 'dogma' has to many of us. There are great benefits to standardizing terminology and some drawbacks as well. The Neopagan community in part because it as a movement, as you imply, isn't condusive to any sort of 'standard' or dogma. There isn't anybody who can enforce or decide what the standard should be. It's a good thing and a bad thing at the same time; depends more on what you value: tradition or progress. I tend to be more in the standardizing camp because I want words to have meaning. I don't think that using words in ways they aren't meant if progress. If anything it is a step back because it convolutes everything. Coming up with new words for new ideas, that's progress. Quote: For history? People are not well informed on history in general, be it the history of their nation or that of their religion; badmouthing them for that strikes me as a bit extreme. I don't see people getting nearly as upset about the George Washington cherry tree myth... what's so much more upsetting about thinking nine million witches were killed during the witch hunts? Do people take the witch thing that personally that they get that much more upset by it? The difference here isn't really about the bad history. Both are obviously untrue. The difference is that the George Washington story is promoting truth telling and choosing leaders who value truth, even when things might not work out for them. The nine million witches dying promotes an "evil Christian" dogma and the general sentiment of "they are all ready to persecute me". The history by itself isn't such a big deal. Easy mistake, I make it all the time. It is the beliefs that grow out of if that are usually problematic. starlock Here's a random question though. How many of us are actually scholars and academics? You know... Ph.Ds in what we're commenting on? If we aren't, who are we to be giving judgements? Who are we to be judging what the truth is? We're not experts. We're not Ph.D's. Who are we to say 'this is how it is' to a bunch of teenagers and go calling them 'willfully ignorant' if they disagree? Where's the qualifications? You don't have to be a Ph.D to discuss something. And if someone is throwing out an idea or thought, religious or otherwise, I have as much right to comment as anyone else. If my sources are better or if I can prove other sources invalid, then I may be more qualified than another on that topic. Likewise when I throw out unreasonable s**t, I expected to be called out for it. Generally speaking the nature of putting out thoughts is to get critique from others of all qualifications. This is helpful to refining ideology and to gain new information. When people shut down with an "I am right and you are wrong" mentality, they are no longer being productive in the discussion. They can say something like "that isn't my experience" or "I have proof enough for me to the contrary", but to just shut off completely seems to say to me: a.)you weren't ready to have this discussion b.) you really just wanted everyone to validate your thoughts c.) you don't really know what you're talking about. Any or all of those three could be true, and people are where they are with that. Insulting them doesn't help and it is something I try to avoid, but not confronting them at all on their beliefs isn't really helpful either. It's one thing to attack someone out of the blue and it's another once you've placed your beliefs out for comments. But those are just my thoughts, and sorry cause I think this one might be kind of long too. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 10:02 am
There are lots of other potential reasons for a person shutting off... I'm not sure if I'd assume a person's motives for doing so as for all I know, they could have left to go to the bathroom and then forgotten about the thread. xd
It's a bit odd, though. Normally I'm a structualized person myself, coming from a science background. I want people to know what the hell I'm talking about. But when it comes to religious/philosophical topics, I tend to be the opposite. It's hard to explain why. Part of it is because religion/spirituality tends to be very personalized and experiential. When you categorize too much, you limit how you're able to interpret an experience into your framework. There's something to be said for just experiencing things raw... letting them remain somewhat ineffable or some amalgamous construct rather than something more solidy defined. Something of the richness of what a thing is, is lost as soon as you smack a diagnostic label on it. It... it is hard to explain in words. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 12:13 pm
Starlock There are lots of other potential reasons for a person shutting off... I'm not sure if I'd assume a person's motives for doing so as for all I know, they could have left to go to the bathroom and then forgotten about the thread. xd In threads totally. It's easy to be misunderstood or to just forget it. Less so in the real world. Quote: It's a bit odd, though. Normally I'm a structualized person myself, coming from a science background. I want people to know what the hell I'm talking about. But when it comes to religious/philosophical topics, I tend to be the opposite. It's hard to explain why. Part of it is because religion/spirituality tends to be very personalized and experiential. When you categorize too much, you limit how you're able to interpret an experience into your framework. There's something to be said for just experiencing things raw... letting them remain somewhat ineffable or some amalgamous construct rather than something more solidy defined. Something of the richness of what a thing is, is lost as soon as you smack a diagnostic label on it. It... it is hard to explain in words. sweatdrop I can totally understand the difficulty of putting experiences into words. I find that I don't talk too much about my experiences because some of them would be hard or impossible to vocalize appropriately. That's part of why I understand how a mystery could be part experiential. I'm sort of doubtful that one can really recreate an experience for another person but perhaps in mystery religions the mysteries are personalized. I don't know too much, never been for mysteries in my religion so much as just aspects that are hard to explain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 29, 2007 8:34 pm
1. Yes. Sometimes it is, mostly it isn't. Many times the people calling wolf are really only calling it on something less terrifying and more manageable.
2. Oh yes.
3. Not that I know of.
4. Only a few times.. But everyone needs to whore for attention once in an while.
5. Sometimes I think, yes.
6. Yep..
7. Yes. Of course.
8. Eh, don't want to talk about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:28 pm
1. Blacks and some jews
2. Blacks and some jews
3. Yes, and two of my other Wiccan friends at school.
4. No. Do I look stupid?
5. No
6. Yes
7. Yes, people at school say the 3 of us should be hanged and burned.
8. No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Nov 01, 2007 4:33 pm
X George Harrison X, I think that you are potentially being too harsh on people who do act out. It is silly and dramatic sure, but teens and some older people sometimes don't know any better. It can be a good way to vent and force radical ideas (even wrong or stupid ones) in people's faces.
Also I was asking about the burning times (TM) that many people with inaccurate history believe to be a time when thousands of actual witches were tortured and killed. This isn't true. Hundreds of people were killed and most of them were Christian.
Just out of curiosity what do people think qualifies as actual persecution versus the false claims of persecution? I've given a couple of differing examples in my posts but I wonder where others draw lines.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
