Messages In This Digest (12 Messages)
- 1.1.
- Re: Tradition From: carteblanche13
- 1.2.
- Re: Tradition From: tiddlywinksoldbean
- 1.3.
- Re: Tradition From: carteblanche13
- 1.4.
- Tradition From: devilsdoovers
- 1.5.
- Re: Tradition From: carteblanche13
- 1.6.
- Re: Tradition From: carteblanche13
- 1.7.
- Re: Tradition From: barbtrad
- 1.8.
- Re: Tradition From: tiddlywinksoldbean
- 1.9.
- Re: Tradition From: carteblanche13
- 1.10.
- Re: Tradition From: carteblanche13
- 2.
- MYSTERY CIRCLE Discussion group in Wollongong From: Leigh
- 3.
- Psychic Development Circle - Wollongong, 11/17/2010, 7:00 pm From: WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups.com
Messages
- 1.1.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "carteblanche13" carteblanche13@yahoo.com.au carteblanche13
Thu Nov 11, 2010 5:50 am (PST)
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "cottytosmaid" <cottytosmaid@com ...> wrote:
>
> Greetings CB.
>
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com > wrote:
> ..I'll leave you with this thought..Ghengis Khan boasted that a young virgin could walk from one end of his realm to another carrying a bag of gold in perfect safety.. today under your much vaunted system an old age pensioner risks life and limb at the hands of miscreants for a few lousy dollars in their purse. merely by venturing out their door.
> >
> > What were you saying about lies and propaganda, Bill? Is it also one of your traditional beliefs that those who resort to violence in order to achieve their ends never use lies and propaganda in addition? History shows that the two go hand in hand - so either way, we're stuck with the latter - but the former is, in fact, optional. And I reject it.
> >
> > Under Ghengis Khan's rule, it is likely that any gold-laden virgin who put this ridiculous propagandistic claim to the test and fell foul of THE REALITY would have been put to death as undermining his advertising.
> >
> > That's where it gets you. You really haven't thought this through at all, have you.
> >
> > ' The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it!' - do you have a bumper sticker with this on it, except with "the Bible" crossed out and the word "tradition" stuck in its place?
> >
> > C.B.
>
> I really think you are missing the point. Law and order is based on violence, without violence there is no law and order. Admittedly, there has to be a common sense balance or kids are going to be blown away with shotguns for pinching apples from neighbour's tree.
> Whether you socialist, idealist types are prepared to pull your heads out of the sand and see the reality is up to you.
Dear Cotty,
This is really quite funny. I am not a socialist, nor am I an idealist, but I am a pragmatist.
Pragmatically speaking, I would rather vote on an issue (such as who leads the nation) than obtain a result by violence because it leaves fewer orphans, widows and widowers. That's pretty much it. Call me idealistic if you like, but my reason for feeling this way is not ideologically-driven (such as if it were part of a "belief system", or a "tradition") . It is based on the evidence of my senses.
It strikes me as the very definition of irony that you simultaneously lump "all you" (? who?! ) together, and yet you cling to beliefs which you call "tradition" which, if they are along the lines which Bill has suggested, have no discernible basis in fact or sense (going by what this discussion has shown) whilst telling "us" (who?!) that "our" heads are in the sand!
Hilarious!
>But if you think the system we have is violence and killing free then you are indeed deluded.( read the papers and watch the news for goodness sake!!) Most accept that if you resist you die. It is actually that simple. You break a law, police will try to apprehend you, you resist they will use whatever level of violence/force needed to subdue you; lethal force if necessary.
No, accidents do occur and mistakes are made, but if you resist you are generally simply extracted, not killed. They might tase you or spray you with mace but, well, if you resist the police then you should expect it really.
You have missed the entire reason we have police and a military - and it is not to BE violent, but to prevent it, by force if necessary. Laws are (in countries which are free from dominant ideology) generally shaped to allow freedom whilst maintaining the boundaries which facilitate it - to stop people from bothering eachother. The police are necessary for this.
I have not said anywhere that I think the "system" (lol - I wouldn't call it that!) we have is violence free. Of course it isn't. But you have missed the whole reason the subject of violence came up in this discussion and I would entreat you to read a bit further back to get the context correct first.
The police and army are ostensibly there not to BE violent, but to enforce the law which serves the community the best. We all have our gripes but I'd like to see a better country than this in terms of how laid back and permissive it all is. It certainly gets worse, let me tell you. For those who in the real world (i.e. what's available here, now) and not in some medievalist fantasy land, this is as good as it gets.
>You steal an item worth 50 cents, the police try to arrest you, you resist by pulling out a weapon. You WILL be shot, most likely lethally.
What country do you live in? Saudi Arabia?
Now this bit REALLY doesn't make sense:
> If you ever have a home invasion by drug crazed maniacs and, as unlikely as it is due to their work load, the police arrive in time to save your butt. I really doubt your going to be too upset if the criminals get shot dead. Our Pagan ancestors knew all about violence and its place in the security of themselves their loved ones and kin.
Thing was in those times they didn't have the luxury of a police force to call, it was down to them to protect their own. ( and the advantage of that being that they didn't have to wait for their salvation to arrive in time).
> I for one am very grateful we do now have police to step into harms way to save me and mine. But please get off this "lets solve all society's problems at the ballot box" So far it hasn't worked too well has it? No one, including Bill would advocate a Saddam Hussein type leadership, but face the fact that we are still, ultimately, ruled at the point of the gun.
I haven't said "lets solve all humanity's problems at the ballot box". I actually haven't suggested any solution to all humanity's problems at all.
I simply disagree with the notion that shooting your opponent is "more honest" and therefore "is better" simply because, being direct, it doesn't require thinking or speaking, that's all.
> Ever been to war CB?
Not in the literal sense, no.
>Ever experienced situations where its literally kill or be killed?
No, but I may have been pretty close one or two times. Have you?
Have you ever tried to deal with what politicians have to deal with?
Have you thought for five seconds what it means to do what they do?
Have you ever done an interview, only to read the version in the papers the next day which contains nothing that you actually said, and many, many things you would never ever say, and did not say, which completely misrepresent what your angle is and will communicate the opposite of what you actually mean - all because of the way it has been written up by the journalist, and edited? Imagine doing this for decades - the whole time maintaining your belief that your message and intention will actually get through.
> Our ancestors faced that, almost on a daily basis, and Bill has been on the front line in a dirty war, (created by way, by your precious politicians who you hold such stock by).
Yes, politicians are so very often TOTALLY wrong, aren't they. I suppose it is then a very good thing that we can vote them out of office, isn't it.
Bill's involvement in war has nothing to do with this discussion.
>You seem to be ridiculing and hurling silly accusations because he, ( and like it or lump it, many others with traditional Pagan beliefs, myself included have the same beliefs)We are realists
But that isn't what it looks like at all. You look like idealists, not realists. All this yearning for fiefdoms of a bygone age - how real is that?
>and believes that it just can't be fixed by humans alone. That's why we "traditionalists" hold such stock by the wisdom of the ancients and our deities, to give us guidance and a map to find our way through the wilderness and insanity of the world that is. Ever heard the terms, "World that is", and "The world that could be"? - Didn't think so!
Cotty, "the world that could be" is precisely the one I want to talk about, - not "the world that we imagine it must have been like thousands of years ago in Dacia".
> Being "Pagan" does NOT always mean adhering to this modern Paganism,
There is NO paganism today that is not MODERN paganism, Cotty.
If it is here today, then by definition it is modern, whatever its distant roots and influences might be. How relevant its expression is to the modern world, and to our unique modern situation (particularly in this country) depends upon those practising it.
One might say that there is only RELEVANT paganism, and IRRELEVANT paganism. It is ALL modern, if it is practised by the living.
It's the difference between idealism and pragmatism. We could perhaps say that a healthy balance might be in order - but reality-checks indicate that we live in Australia in the sixty-fifth year after the second World War, not in Dacia in 200 B.C.
>and it quasi atheism
Well that depends. There is a lot of opinion about this, but atheism is certainly a good way to let the Gods speak for themselves.
>and "No violence please we are Pagans", and an obsession with an ecology that is doomed anyway
I never said "no violence" - it's just not my first port of call.
>and a mindset that there aren't any rules, and even if there are, they don't apply to me mindset.
But I thought you and Bill were railing against the rules which are actually in effect in this country, and wanted a fiefdom so you could make your own, involving shooting politicians who make mistakes.
Or is this a vague reference to the discussion we had about the fact you got the dates wrong for Southern Hemisphere Beltane/Samhain and so forth a few weeks ago? Are the Northern Hemisphere conventions regarding seasonal observations the "rules" you are talking about here? Rules have an origin in necessity, Cotty. Doing something which is unnecessary and irrelevant, and then calling it a Rule, is hardly "best practise" in, well, anything, I should think.
> Look we do not have a problem in you guys holding the beliefs you do.
But I (there is no "we" - I have nothing to do with Tim's group) don't have ANY beliefs, Cotty. I've said it three times now. I follow reality and adapt my action accordingly. That reality includes recognising the time and place wherein my being manifests, which is here, and now. My magical, occult, spiritual, whatever activity is entirely concerned with that. The past bears no greater influence upon my actions and thought than does the future, because both are equally gone - and both only have meaning and expression in the present, which provides the field upon which they play. That field is my living moment. None of this requires any belief whatsoever, because it's just how it is.
>Wont catch us trying to convert you by any means
Thank the gods for that! My ancestors gave short shrift to evangelicals. Not that that matters, as they're dead, and even if they weren't, I'd probably make a point of experimenting to see whether there was a better way. It's the advantage the living have, you know.
>let alone the, as I read it, Aggressive, sometimes vindictive sort of argumentative diatribe you have presented.
I have merely been energetic and complete in my engagement. I had hoped for a conversation which resembled less those which one has with Mormons and Baptists and Bishops and militant materialists and other types of dogmatic non-thinker, but alas.
I'd like to state that despite my bold manner and absolute ridicule of things which, to me, did not make sense, I have no intention of insulting anybody as individuals. I merely wish to challenge beliefs which have no basis in reality beyond mere dogma. That is the only way forward, regardless of the field under discussion. And forward, not backward, is the direction we face.
>Fact is matey, we wouldn't want you. Neither would our ancients and deities have a bar of you while you have those mindsets.
Which mindsets? The open, non-dogmatic one, perhaps?
My very best regards
C.B.
>
> Cotty ( Yes another Hereditary Barbarian)
> >
>
- 1.2.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "tiddlywinksoldbean" tiddlywinksoldbean@yahoo.com.au tiddlywinksoldbean
Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:42 am (PST)
I think you are drawing an awfully long bow in your argument CB. Most of what you are putting up as argument makes no sense to me. But then I'm a deistic Pagan/Satanist and you would most likely ridicule my beliefs too. What about a bit of tolerance and respect instead of the disrespect and belittling others beliefs because they don't fit your view of things?
No, I don't think either Bill or Cotty are speaking nonsense. Yes they are espousing beliefs not universally held, but as valid as any other IMO. Just as valid as yours in fact . I don't know that I would be in full agreement with every view they hold either, but a lot what they are saying does make a lot of sense.
You duck and weave and deny you are this or that, but CB, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. All ruling hierarchies rule ultimately by force. You can waffle on about armies and police being there to prevent violence. What you should say is unsanctioned violence, and the use of sanctioned violence as a remedy. In this they are dead right. And you are trying to sidestep the point.
To the point, they are explaining how their brand of Paganism (which is on topic), perceives the world around them, whereas you seem to be using mainly political ( off topic) argument to belittle their world view. This is after all a list called "Witches" workshop. Not athiests or anti religious, anti tradition workshop.
I can see the point where rulers who act directly to enforce their rule at the point of a gun are at least more honest ( not more right or more of a shining example) than those who ultimately use the same point of a gun, but do it behind the pretext of due process. IMO neither is right. Both are stinkers. I support neither.
Sean
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com ...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "cottytosmaid" <cottytosmaid@com > wrote:
> >
> > Greetings CB.
> >
- 1.3.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "carteblanche13" carteblanche13@yahoo.com.au carteblanche13
Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:51 am (PST)
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com ...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "cottytosmaid" <cottytosmaid@com > wrote:
> >
> > Greetings CB.
>
> > Being "Pagan" does NOT always mean adhering to this modern Paganism,
>
> There is NO paganism today that is not MODERN paganism, Cotty.
>
> If it is here today, then by definition it is modern, whatever its distant roots and influences might be. How relevant its expression is to the modern world, and to our unique modern situation (particularly in this country) depends upon those practising it.
>
> One might say that there is only RELEVANT paganism, and IRRELEVANT paganism. It is ALL modern, if it is practised by the living.
>
> It's the difference between idealism and pragmatism. We could perhaps say that a healthy balance might be in order - but reality-checks indicate that we live in Australia in the sixty-fifth year after the second World War, not in Dacia in 200 B.C.
I'd like to add that if past, present and future are all one (as Bill believes), then it doesn't matter whether or not something is modern or ancient - and therefore, whether it is traditional or new.
- 1.4.
-
Tradition
Posted by: "devilsdoovers" pagancon@caliph.net.au devilsdoovers
Thu Nov 11, 2010 6:59 am (PST)
Hello CB.
I have to say I'm quite disappointed in the way you have conducted yourself during this debate. Without stating which side (if any) I concur with, regardless, I see no value in your arrogant and insulting posts. Isn't this list noted for its civil and respectful demeanor? I don't think you have been either. It's not the points you make I have a problem with, but the way you make them. Disrespectful and intolerant to the max IMO. Can't you keep it civil at least and not belittling of other views that don't fit your into yours?
Dave
- 1.5.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "carteblanche13" carteblanche13@yahoo.com.au carteblanche13
Thu Nov 11, 2010 7:53 am (PST)
Hello tiddlywinks,
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "tiddlywinksoldbeancom " <tiddlywinksoldbean @...> wrote:
>
> I think you are drawing an awfully long bow in your argument CB.
Hi there tiddlywinks,
In what way?
>Most of what you are putting up as argument makes no sense to me.
>But then I'm a deistic Pagan/Satanist and you would most likely ridicule my beliefs too.
IF I found them ridiculous, yes, yes I most certainly would and I would not apologise for it. I have to say I'm very surprised to hear a Satanist suggesting they would be offended at someone being frank about saying they thought something was ridiculous!
LOL!
What kind of Satanism is that?!
>What about a bit of tolerance and respect instead of the disrespect and belittling others beliefs because they don't fit your view of things?
Where have I done this? I have simply pointed out the problems in what has been presented as an argument. That's all.
> No, I don't think either Bill or Cotty are speaking nonsense. Yes they are espousing beliefs not universally held, but as valid as any other IMO.
This is the difference: You think that all beliefs are equally valid. This is itself just a belief, and not a fact, not a truth. I think that all beliefs are equally INVALID. Reality, in my experience, speaks for itself, requires no belief - which usually gets in the way of it.
But that DOESN'T mean I object to other people believing things, just that I see no reason to take their beliefs as seriously as they do, and if those beliefs get in the way of sense or reason, I don't see why I shouldn't feel free to point this out.
I do not place ANY VALUE AT ALL on ANY BELIEF WHATSOEVER - whether it's yours, my mum's, my own, Archbishop Pell's, Aleister Crowley's, Anton La Vey's, the Meat Mufti's, Starhawk's, Doreen Virtue Ph.D.'s, or Tom Cruise's.
In fact, I try not to place value on anything at all unless it is already there! Keeps it real, you know.
BTW - My first use of the word "nonsense" in this discussion as applied IN ONE VERY PARTICULAR INSTANCE to Bill's remark about Saddam Hussein was introduced very politely, and in a very particular context, and you should be mindful of this context when referring to my use of this word.
>Just as valid as yours in fact .
Have you read anything in this discussion at all?
I've said it four times now:
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV
>>>>>>>> I DO NOT HAVE ANY BELIEFS.<<<<<<<<<<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
> I don't know that I would be in full agreement with every view they hold either, but a lot what they are saying does make a lot of sense.
Again I say, have you read this discussion at all?
I think you've all probably read the same books and swallowed the same dogmas (beliefs), but that's not the same as things making sense.
I get this sort of thing talking with groups of Christians all the time. One parrots a dogma they have decided to believe for whatever reason, the others back it up and say that it makes sense BECAUSE they believe it. That doesn't make it actually make sense, it just means they believe it makes sense.
> You duck and weave and deny you are this or that, but CB, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. All ruling hierarchies rule ultimately by force. You can waffle on about armies and police being there to prevent violence.
I could, but instead I made a concise and very clear point about the fact that this is their raison d'etre.
> What you should say is unsanctioned violence, and the use of sanctioned violence as a remedy. In this they are dead right. And you are trying to sidestep the point.
No. You are trying to sidestep the point that what you call "sanctioned violence" (i.e. the police and army) are a COMPROMISE which the non-violent have to resort to, in order to be protected from becoming victims of REAL violence.
To simply say "oh well they all have guns, that means they are no different from criminials" is incredibly naive, if not embarassingly stupid. It is also an insult to those who have taken up arms reluctantly to prevent certain societies from collapsing into violence-filled pits of despair, loss, and agony.
> To the point, they are explaining how their brand of Paganism (which is on topic), perceives the world around them, whereas you seem to be using mainly political ( off topic) argument to belittle their world view. This is after all a list called "Witches" workshop. Not athiests or anti religious, anti tradition workshop.
Well if it is so off topic, why is it so interesting? It actually is PERFECTLY on-topic, I think : the question of our motivations in our spiritual practise, our relationships both to "tradition" and to reality, are all vitally important aspects of witchcraft, magic, and to paganism.
I have no intention of belittling anyone's worldview beyond its natural size.
> I can see the point where rulers who act directly to enforce their rule at the point of a gun are at least more honest ( not more right or more of a shining example)
No, they are not more honest, just more violent.
I fail to see the honesty connection! Just because you want someone's job or think you could do it better doesn't mean you want them to die, leaving their family bereft of a mother/father/sister/brother/ husband/wife/ daughter/ son/uncle/ aunt/neice/ nephew/grandpare nt/grandchild/ friend/breadwinn er/partner/ companion/ lover/teammate/ lodge member.
Human beings have the capacity to think, and to feel, as well as to act you know.
>than those who ultimately use the same point of a gun, but do it behind the pretext of due process.
But they don't "use the same point of a gun"!
If you observe due process, it is to ensure that something which needs to happen happens with a minimum of undesired, and unrelated, destructive effects which cost the community beyond the localised target!
How hard is this to realise ?!?!?!
Jesus christ!!!
> IMO neither is right. Both are stinkers. I support neither.
WTF ?!?!??!
Sean doesn't support you, whether you use due process or whether you don't?
No wonder you thought Bill's argument made sense!
Best wishes,
C.B.
>
> Sean
>
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "cottytosmaid" <cottytosmaid@com > wrote:
> > >
> > > Greetings CB.
> > >
>
- 1.6.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "carteblanche13" carteblanche13@yahoo.com.au carteblanche13
Thu Nov 11, 2010 8:00 am (PST)
Dave,
Clearly you do have a side (I don't, I'm just pointing out problems in what has been said) if you re-read my posts, you will see no arrogance, nor any insults to anyone whatsoever; I am at pains to make it clear that my intention is not to insult any individual.
I enjoy Bill's posts and have not (and will not) ask for censorship of them, as you seem to be doing to me here simply because I have made some facts clear which some may find challenging. It is just a post - if it doesn't interest you, don't read it. But don't complain about it when you have made that choice.
I have not been disrespectful, nor have I been intolerant. I have been completely civil throughout, and shall remain so.
Best regards
C.B.
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "devilsdoovers" <pagancon@..com .> wrote:
>
> Hello CB.
>
> I have to say I'm quite disappointed in the way you have conducted yourself during this debate. Without stating which side (if any) I concur with, regardless, I see no value in your arrogant and insulting posts. Isn't this list noted for its civil and respectful demeanor? I don't think you have been either. It's not the points you make I have a problem with, but the way you make them. Disrespectful and intolerant to the max IMO. Can't you keep it civil at least and not belittling of other views that don't fit your into yours?
>
> Dave
>
- 1.7.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "barbtrad" barbtrad@yahoo.com.au barbtrad
Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:45 pm (PST)
Greetings CB.
I don't think Dave was asking for censorship of your opinions, He just expressed his disappointment in the way they were expressed. I agree with him that the tone has certainly entered a faze I feel uncomfortable with..hence my decision to stop debating with you.
You think my thoughts are. "nonsense" I think your argument is convoluted and continually stating opinions as fact. I believe rhyme and reason departed.. time for me to join them. No ill will CB, just no point belaboring subjects we are so diametrically opposed about.
All the best anyhow...Bill.
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com ...> wrote:
>
> Dave,
>
> Clearly you do have a side (I don't, I'm just pointing out problems in what has been said) if you re-read my posts, you will see no arrogance, nor any insults to anyone whatsoever; I am at pains to make it clear that my intention is not to insult any individual.
>
> I enjoy Bill's posts and have not (and will not) ask for censorship of them, as you seem to be doing to me here simply because I have made some facts clear which some may find challenging. It is just a post - if it doesn't interest you, don't read it. But don't complain about it when you have made that choice.
>
> I have not been disrespectful, nor have I been intolerant. I have been completely civil throughout, and shall remain so.
>
> Best regards
> C.B.
>
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "devilsdoovers" <pagancon@> wrote:com
> >
> > Hello CB.
> >
> > I have to say I'm quite disappointed in the way you have conducted yourself during this debate. Without stating which side (if any) I concur with, regardless, I see no value in your arrogant and insulting posts. Isn't this list noted for its civil and respectful demeanor? I don't think you have been either. It's not the points you make I have a problem with, but the way you make them. Disrespectful and intolerant to the max IMO. Can't you keep it civil at least and not belittling of other views that don't fit your into yours?
> >
> > Dave
> >
>
- 1.8.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "tiddlywinksoldbean" tiddlywinksoldbean@yahoo.com.au tiddlywinksoldbean
Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:22 pm (PST)
Ah I think I see it now. You don't have any beliefs, so that puts you in a position of superiority and enables you to sit back on your "no beliefs" throne and attack the beliefs of others.
Well CB you do have beliefs. The rejection of other beliefs is a belief in its self. You think Gillard better than Rudd. Another belief. You think taking power by force of arms is bad - sorry CB, but another belief. You dismiss traditions as nonsense. Yep another belief. There is not much distinction between "beliefs" and "opinions".
Oh and thanks for talking down to me and inferring I'm too dumb to read or understand your posts. I think Bill has the right idea. No point in any further dialogue with anyone who argues as if their opinions are indisputable facts.
See you around.
Sean.
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com ...> wrote:
>
> Hello tiddlywinks,
>
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "tiddlywinksoldbeancom " <tiddlywinksoldbean @> wrote:
> >
> > I think you are drawing an awfully long bow in your argument CB.
>
> Hi there tiddlywinks,
>
> In what way?
>
> >Most of what you are putting up as argument makes no sense to me.
> >But then I'm a deistic Pagan/Satanist and you would most likely ridicule my beliefs too.
>
> IF I found them ridiculous, yes, yes I most certainly would and I would not apologise for it. I have to say I'm very surprised to hear a Satanist suggesting they would be offended at someone being frank about saying they thought something was ridiculous!
>
> LOL!
>
> What kind of Satanism is that?!
>
> >What about a bit of tolerance and respect instead of the disrespect and belittling others beliefs because they don't fit your view of things?
>
> Where have I done this? I have simply pointed out the problems in what has been presented as an argument. That's all.
>
>
>
> > No, I don't think either Bill or Cotty are speaking nonsense. Yes they are espousing beliefs not universally held, but as valid as any other IMO.
>
> This is the difference: You think that all beliefs are equally valid. This is itself just a belief, and not a fact, not a truth. I think that all beliefs are equally INVALID. Reality, in my experience, speaks for itself, requires no belief - which usually gets in the way of it.
>
> But that DOESN'T mean I object to other people believing things, just that I see no reason to take their beliefs as seriously as they do, and if those beliefs get in the way of sense or reason, I don't see why I shouldn't feel free to point this out.
>
> I do not place ANY VALUE AT ALL on ANY BELIEF WHATSOEVER - whether it's yours, my mum's, my own, Archbishop Pell's, Aleister Crowley's, Anton La Vey's, the Meat Mufti's, Starhawk's, Doreen Virtue Ph.D.'s, or Tom Cruise's.
>
> In fact, I try not to place value on anything at all unless it is already there! Keeps it real, you know.
>
> BTW - My first use of the word "nonsense" in this discussion as applied IN ONE VERY PARTICULAR INSTANCE to Bill's remark about Saddam Hussein was introduced very politely, and in a very particular context, and you should be mindful of this context when referring to my use of this word.
>
>
>
> >Just as valid as yours in fact .
>
> Have you read anything in this discussion at all?
>
> I've said it four times now:
>
> VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV
> >>>>>>>> I DO NOT HAVE ANY BELIEFS.<<<<<<<<<<
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
>
>
>
> > I don't know that I would be in full agreement with every view they hold either, but a lot what they are saying does make a lot of sense.
>
> Again I say, have you read this discussion at all?
>
> I think you've all probably read the same books and swallowed the same dogmas (beliefs), but that's not the same as things making sense.
>
> I get this sort of thing talking with groups of Christians all the time. One parrots a dogma they have decided to believe for whatever reason, the others back it up and say that it makes sense BECAUSE they believe it. That doesn't make it actually make sense, it just means they believe it makes sense.
>
>
> > You duck and weave and deny you are this or that, but CB, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. All ruling hierarchies rule ultimately by force. You can waffle on about armies and police being there to prevent violence.
>
> I could, but instead I made a concise and very clear point about the fact that this is their raison d'etre.
>
>
> > What you should say is unsanctioned violence, and the use of sanctioned violence as a remedy. In this they are dead right. And you are trying to sidestep the point.
>
> No. You are trying to sidestep the point that what you call "sanctioned violence" (i.e. the police and army) are a COMPROMISE which the non-violent have to resort to, in order to be protected from becoming victims of REAL violence.
>
> To simply say "oh well they all have guns, that means they are no different from criminials" is incredibly naive, if not embarassingly stupid. It is also an insult to those who have taken up arms reluctantly to prevent certain societies from collapsing into violence-filled pits of despair, loss, and agony.
>
>
>
> > To the point, they are explaining how their brand of Paganism (which is on topic), perceives the world around them, whereas you seem to be using mainly political ( off topic) argument to belittle their world view. This is after all a list called "Witches" workshop. Not athiests or anti religious, anti tradition workshop.
>
> Well if it is so off topic, why is it so interesting? It actually is PERFECTLY on-topic, I think : the question of our motivations in our spiritual practise, our relationships both to "tradition" and to reality, are all vitally important aspects of witchcraft, magic, and to paganism.
>
> I have no intention of belittling anyone's worldview beyond its natural size.
>
>
>
> > I can see the point where rulers who act directly to enforce their rule at the point of a gun are at least more honest ( not more right or more of a shining example)
>
> No, they are not more honest, just more violent.
>
> I fail to see the honesty connection! Just because you want someone's job or think you could do it better doesn't mean you want them to die, leaving their family bereft of a mother/father/sister/brother/ husband/wife/ daughter/ son/uncle/ aunt/neice/ nephew/grandpare nt/grandchild/ friend/breadwinn er/partner/ companion/ lover/teammate/ lodge member.
>
> Human beings have the capacity to think, and to feel, as well as to act you know.
>
>
> >than those who ultimately use the same point of a gun, but do it behind the pretext of due process.
>
> But they don't "use the same point of a gun"!
>
> If you observe due process, it is to ensure that something which needs to happen happens with a minimum of undesired, and unrelated, destructive effects which cost the community beyond the localised target!
>
> How hard is this to realise ?!?!?!
>
> Jesus christ!!!
>
>
> > IMO neither is right. Both are stinkers. I support neither.
>
> WTF ?!?!??!
>
> Sean doesn't support you, whether you use due process or whether you don't?
>
> No wonder you thought Bill's argument made sense!
>
> Best wishes,
> C.B.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Sean
> >
> > --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "cottytosmaid" <cottytosmaid@com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Greetings CB.
> > > >
> >
>
- 1.9.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "carteblanche13" carteblanche13@yahoo.com.au carteblanche13
Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:25 pm (PST)
Hi Bill,
A "tone you feel uncomfortable with"? Are you hoping "due process" is observed so people's feelings don't get hurt?
But isn't this against your so-called "tradition" - and the more violent a process is, the more honest and "free" and "pagan" it is, as you say?
All I have done is to prove very simply and clearly that your opinion: "more violent = more honest, more "traditional", more ancient, more "pagan", and therefore presumably better, and freer ",
is absurd - a matter of fact and demonstration, not opinion or belief.
Clearly I have challenged you past the point at which you and a couple of your mates feel comfortable - which is good, I think, given what your statements actually were.
If you were joking, as I said, then it is funny - but if you meant it, then it deserves all the ridicule which something as stupid as this gets. There is no respect incumbent upon a "belief" simply because it is held by someone who has been a soldier, or because it is part of a "tradition" of any kind at all. In fact that is even more reason to examine it closely. It has to stand or fall on its own merits.
In any case I agree that the point has certainly been made.
Moving on to more edifying things . . .
Best regards,
C.B.
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "barbtrad" <barbtrad@..com .> wrote:
>
> Greetings CB.
>
> I don't think Dave was asking for censorship of your opinions, He just expressed his disappointment in the way they were expressed. I agree with him that the tone has certainly entered a faze I feel uncomfortable with..hence my decision to stop debating with you.
>
> You think my thoughts are. "nonsense" I think your argument is convoluted and continually stating opinions as fact. I believe rhyme and reason departed.. time for me to join them. No ill will CB, just no point belaboring subjects we are so diametrically opposed about.
>
> All the best anyhow...Bill.
>
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com > wrote:
> >
> > Dave,
> >
> > Clearly you do have a side (I don't, I'm just pointing out problems in what has been said) if you re-read my posts, you will see no arrogance, nor any insults to anyone whatsoever; I am at pains to make it clear that my intention is not to insult any individual.
> >
> > I enjoy Bill's posts and have not (and will not) ask for censorship of them, as you seem to be doing to me here simply because I have made some facts clear which some may find challenging. It is just a post - if it doesn't interest you, don't read it. But don't complain about it when you have made that choice.
> >
> > I have not been disrespectful, nor have I been intolerant. I have been completely civil throughout, and shall remain so.
> >
> > Best regards
> > C.B.
> >
> > --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "devilsdoovers" <pagancon@> wrote:com
> > >
> > > Hello CB.
> > >
> > > I have to say I'm quite disappointed in the way you have conducted yourself during this debate. Without stating which side (if any) I concur with, regardless, I see no value in your arrogant and insulting posts. Isn't this list noted for its civil and respectful demeanor? I don't think you have been either. It's not the points you make I have a problem with, but the way you make them. Disrespectful and intolerant to the max IMO. Can't you keep it civil at least and not belittling of other views that don't fit your into yours?
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> >
>
- 1.10.
-
Re: Tradition
Posted by: "carteblanche13" carteblanche13@yahoo.com.au carteblanche13
Thu Nov 11, 2010 3:40 pm (PST)
Sean,
--- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "tiddlywinksoldbeancom " <tiddlywinksoldbean @...> wrote:
>
> Ah I think I see it now. You don't have any beliefs, so that puts you in a position of superiority and enables you to sit back on your "no beliefs" throne and attack the beliefs of others.
No thrones about it - if something makes no sense (such as the statement "more violent = more honest"), criticism naturally follows.
> Well CB you do have beliefs. The rejection of other beliefs is a belief in its self.
No it isn't actually. If I do not happen to have ever seen a reason to believe something, that is not a belief in itself. I am not actively disbelieving in something, I am simply not actively believing in something.
This is the sort of non-argument which Catholic Priests use.
>You think Gillard better than Rudd. Another belief.
No, it isn't a belief (of the kind we're dealing with), but an evaluation based on evidence. NOT TRADITION.
>You think taking power by force of arms is bad - sorry CB, but another belief.
No, it is actually a demonstrable fact which has been proven time and time again, and has led to the evolution of the democratic process, as it leaves behind fewer injuries and orphans. That makes it better in nearly everyone's books.
>You dismiss traditions as nonsense. Yep another belief.
No, I don't dismiss "traditions" as nonsense. I dismiss nonsense as nonsense, and if it happens to be part of a tradition, it in no way affects its status as nonsense or sense. It isn't a belief, but process of demonstration and fact which attends criticism.
> There is not much distinction between "beliefs" and "opinions".
But there is a yawning gulf between both of these and demonstrable fact.
> Oh and thanks for talking down to me and inferring I'm too dumb to read or understand your posts.
You referred to something which I have repeatedly denied, which indicated you had not read them.
>I think Bill has the right idea.
A belief which has been shown is indefensible and for which you have not presented a coherent or reasonable argument. But I will defend your right to believe it.
>No point in any further dialogue with anyone who argues as if their opinions are indisputable facts.
Sean, some things in this world actually are indisputable facts, and some things are not. One of those things is that the statement :
"can we really completely separate the motivations of the Husseins and the Gillards (/Howards/Rudds)? Aren't both seeking power over their people to push their own agendas even if that is at the expense of the living standards of their people? Only difference is one uses the machine gun, the other the propaganda machine."
...is ridiculous, because it misses the pretty obvious fact that one results in murder -- with all its real-world consequences, and the other one does not.
My rejection of violence as the first step in the process of dispute resolution is not a belief, it is a policy based on evaluation of the real world - and not a ridiculous medievalist fantasy.
Best regards,
C.B.
>
> See you around.
>
> Sean.
>
> --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com > wrote:
> >
> > Hello tiddlywinks,
> >
> > --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "tiddlywinksoldbeancom " <tiddlywinksoldbean @> wrote:
> > >
> > > I think you are drawing an awfully long bow in your argument CB.
> >
> > Hi there tiddlywinks,
> >
> > In what way?
> >
> > >Most of what you are putting up as argument makes no sense to me.
> > >But then I'm a deistic Pagan/Satanist and you would most likely ridicule my beliefs too.
> >
> > IF I found them ridiculous, yes, yes I most certainly would and I would not apologise for it. I have to say I'm very surprised to hear a Satanist suggesting they would be offended at someone being frank about saying they thought something was ridiculous!
> >
> > LOL!
> >
> > What kind of Satanism is that?!
> >
> > >What about a bit of tolerance and respect instead of the disrespect and belittling others beliefs because they don't fit your view of things?
> >
> > Where have I done this? I have simply pointed out the problems in what has been presented as an argument. That's all.
> >
> >
> >
> > > No, I don't think either Bill or Cotty are speaking nonsense. Yes they are espousing beliefs not universally held, but as valid as any other IMO.
> >
> > This is the difference: You think that all beliefs are equally valid. This is itself just a belief, and not a fact, not a truth. I think that all beliefs are equally INVALID. Reality, in my experience, speaks for itself, requires no belief - which usually gets in the way of it.
> >
> > But that DOESN'T mean I object to other people believing things, just that I see no reason to take their beliefs as seriously as they do, and if those beliefs get in the way of sense or reason, I don't see why I shouldn't feel free to point this out.
> >
> > I do not place ANY VALUE AT ALL on ANY BELIEF WHATSOEVER - whether it's yours, my mum's, my own, Archbishop Pell's, Aleister Crowley's, Anton La Vey's, the Meat Mufti's, Starhawk's, Doreen Virtue Ph.D.'s, or Tom Cruise's.
> >
> > In fact, I try not to place value on anything at all unless it is already there! Keeps it real, you know.
> >
> > BTW - My first use of the word "nonsense" in this discussion as applied IN ONE VERY PARTICULAR INSTANCE to Bill's remark about Saddam Hussein was introduced very politely, and in a very particular context, and you should be mindful of this context when referring to my use of this word.
> >
> >
> >
> > >Just as valid as yours in fact .
> >
> > Have you read anything in this discussion at all?
> >
> > I've said it four times now:
> >
> > VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV VVVVVVVVVV
> > >>>>>>>> I DO NOT HAVE ANY BELIEFS.<<<<<<<<<<
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^
> >
> >
> >
> > > I don't know that I would be in full agreement with every view they hold either, but a lot what they are saying does make a lot of sense.
> >
> > Again I say, have you read this discussion at all?
> >
> > I think you've all probably read the same books and swallowed the same dogmas (beliefs), but that's not the same as things making sense.
> >
> > I get this sort of thing talking with groups of Christians all the time. One parrots a dogma they have decided to believe for whatever reason, the others back it up and say that it makes sense BECAUSE they believe it. That doesn't make it actually make sense, it just means they believe it makes sense.
> >
> >
> > > You duck and weave and deny you are this or that, but CB, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck etc. All ruling hierarchies rule ultimately by force. You can waffle on about armies and police being there to prevent violence.
> >
> > I could, but instead I made a concise and very clear point about the fact that this is their raison d'etre.
> >
> >
> > > What you should say is unsanctioned violence, and the use of sanctioned violence as a remedy. In this they are dead right. And you are trying to sidestep the point.
> >
> > No. You are trying to sidestep the point that what you call "sanctioned violence" (i.e. the police and army) are a COMPROMISE which the non-violent have to resort to, in order to be protected from becoming victims of REAL violence.
> >
> > To simply say "oh well they all have guns, that means they are no different from criminials" is incredibly naive, if not embarassingly stupid. It is also an insult to those who have taken up arms reluctantly to prevent certain societies from collapsing into violence-filled pits of despair, loss, and agony.
> >
> >
> >
> > > To the point, they are explaining how their brand of Paganism (which is on topic), perceives the world around them, whereas you seem to be using mainly political ( off topic) argument to belittle their world view. This is after all a list called "Witches" workshop. Not athiests or anti religious, anti tradition workshop.
> >
> > Well if it is so off topic, why is it so interesting? It actually is PERFECTLY on-topic, I think : the question of our motivations in our spiritual practise, our relationships both to "tradition" and to reality, are all vitally important aspects of witchcraft, magic, and to paganism.
> >
> > I have no intention of belittling anyone's worldview beyond its natural size.
> >
> >
> >
> > > I can see the point where rulers who act directly to enforce their rule at the point of a gun are at least more honest ( not more right or more of a shining example)
> >
> > No, they are not more honest, just more violent.
> >
> > I fail to see the honesty connection! Just because you want someone's job or think you could do it better doesn't mean you want them to die, leaving their family bereft of a mother/father/sister/brother/ husband/wife/ daughter/ son/uncle/ aunt/neice/ nephew/grandpare nt/grandchild/ friend/breadwinn er/partner/ companion/ lover/teammate/ lodge member.
> >
> > Human beings have the capacity to think, and to feel, as well as to act you know.
> >
> >
> > >than those who ultimately use the same point of a gun, but do it behind the pretext of due process.
> >
> > But they don't "use the same point of a gun"!
> >
> > If you observe due process, it is to ensure that something which needs to happen happens with a minimum of undesired, and unrelated, destructive effects which cost the community beyond the localised target!
> >
> > How hard is this to realise ?!?!?!
> >
> > Jesus christ!!!
> >
> >
> > > IMO neither is right. Both are stinkers. I support neither.
> >
> > WTF ?!?!??!
> >
> > Sean doesn't support you, whether you use due process or whether you don't?
> >
> > No wonder you thought Bill's argument made sense!
> >
> > Best wishes,
> > C.B.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Sean
> > >
> > > --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "carteblanche13" <carteblanche13@com > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups. , "cottytosmaid" <cottytosmaid@com > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Greetings CB.
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
- 2.
-
MYSTERY CIRCLE Discussion group in Wollongong
Posted by: "Leigh" lvxnox@gmail.com leigh_blackmore
Thu Nov 11, 2010 4:32 pm (PST)
LOTUS HEALTH AND WELL BEING CENTRE
246 Crown St, Wollongong
Ph: 02 4226 4740
Fax: 02 4226 4740
Email: info@lotuswellbeing.com.au
Web: www.lotuswellbeing.com.au
MYSTERY CIRCLE
DISCUSSION GROUP
AT LOTUS
ALL WELCOME!
Thurs 5 pm during November-December 2010
Meetings cover a wide range of topics
Spirituality, The Occult, Wicca and Witchcraft, Ceremonial Magick, Qabalah, Tarot & I-Ching, Alchemy, Paganism, Myths and Symbols, Goddess Path & Other Mystery Paths
Presented and facilitated by Margi Curtis (`Bramble')
and Leigh Blackmore (Fr. LVX/NOX)
Each meeting will include:
Short input from Margi or Leigh
Occasionally something experiential
Plenty of time for discussion of the topic
Cost: $20 per session
(concessions available for students and unemployed)
Bookings: Please let us or Lotus know you are coming as seating is limited.
Email: info@lotuswellbeing.com.au
Leigh Blackmore: lvxnox@gmail.com
- 3.
-
Psychic Development Circle - Wollongong, 11/17/2010, 7:00 pm
Posted by: "WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups.com" WitchesWorkshop@yahoogroups.com
Fri Nov 12, 2010 1:04 am (PST)
Reminder from: WitchesWorkshop Yahoo! Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/ group/WitchesWor kshop/cal
Psychic Development Circle - Wollongong
Wednesday November 17, 2010
7:00 pm - 8:30 pm
(This event repeats every week.)
Location: Smith Street, Wollongong
Notes:
Explore your psychic gifts and the world of the unseen.
Within these circles the atmosphere is calm and protected, so you are free to explore your connections through meditation and practical techniques, in a safe environment.
Increase your knowledge of Meditation; Tarot; Oracle; Psychometry; Aura Reading; Dowsing; Spirit Connection; Angels; Fairy and many other psychic energies and tools, as we explore the unchartered world of psychic wisdom together.
Our Psychic Circle runs every Wednesday evening at 7pm
All are welcome and no experience is needed.
Contact Ali on 042 020 8879 or email alison@shamanicspirit.com.au
www.shamanicspirit.com.au
All Rights Reserved
Copyright © 2010
Yahoo! Inc.
http://www.yahoo.com
Privacy Policy:
http://privacy.yahoo.com/ privacy/us
Terms of Service:
http://docs.yahoo.com/ info/terms/
Need to Reply?
Click one of the "Reply" links to respond to a specific message in the Daily Digest.
____________________ ooo)(0({O})0)(ooo____________________
Witches Workshop hold regular workshops see
http://www.witchesworkshop.com/Circle/circle_workshop.html
Keep up to date via our WitchesWorshop Facebook Page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sydney-Australia/WitchesWorkshop/135651219624
WitchesWorkshop and Witch Camp Australia also run camps
several times a year - check out our websites for updates.
http://www.witchcampaustralia.org.au
http://www.witchesworkshop.com
___________________________________________________________
The WitchesWorkshop egroup holds the expectation that a
tolerant and respectful dialogue be strived for in our
communication with other pagans, witches magicians, et al.
Members are encouraged to challenge anyone not adhering
to these principles & to notify owner.
info@witchesworkshop.com
___________________________________________________________
Witches Workshop hold regular workshops see
http://www.witchesworkshop.com/Circle/circle_workshop.html
Keep up to date via our WitchesWorshop Facebook Page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sydney-Australia/WitchesWorkshop/135651219624
WitchesWorkshop and Witch Camp Australia also run camps
several times a year - check out our websites for updates.
http://www.witchcampaustralia.org.au
http://www.witchesworkshop.com
___________________________________________________________
The WitchesWorkshop egroup holds the expectation that a
tolerant and respectful dialogue be strived for in our
communication with other pagans, witches magicians, et al.
Members are encouraged to challenge anyone not adhering
to these principles & to notify owner.
info@witchesworkshop.com
___________________________________________________________
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Individual | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu