Who Believes In Me?

[river_styx]

Since when have atheists claimed to have all the answers? We have just as many questions as everybody else: we only demand that the answers make sense.

Yeah, I'm more spiritual than atheist just because I don't go in for the whole "Oh that's bad but it's just god testing me.........again!" routine.
The trouble is these religious types can't face up to the fact that they're the only ones who are in control of their lives. There is no all powerful being directing you and things can happen for no reason DEAL WITH IT.

 

[Anonymous]

Atheism is a broad church. Many witches, pagans and especially Satanists are technically atheists in as much as they see the power coming from the human mind and not from an external force. Demons and the effects of magic are often viewed by some as a product of the mind alone. Few I have met, who are not completely deranged from the outset, have actually subscribed to any kind of supernatural intelligence or external entity. Their philosophy (as opposed to belief which is more self-belief if anything) is almost identical to that of psychologists. Hence a great many being fascinated by Jungian psychology. The thinking being that deity exists only because they believe in it. Whereas Christians believe God exists irrespective as to whether anyone believes or not.

 

[Anonymous]

I saw a tee-shirt hanging outside a shop today:

"God created grass. Man invented booze. Who would you trust?"

I think we could all learn something from that.

 

[Anonymous]

What I want to know is does God believe in me?

Strangely enough I think, perhaps, that is entirely the point.

The African saying, `There is a dream dreaming us.', makes a lot of sense to me.

 

[Cult_of_Mana]

The African saying, `There is a dream dreaming us.', makes a lot of sense to me.

Any vampire leopards?

I'll get my coat.

 

[Anonymous]

Dismissing God and the supernatural just because it does not necessarily relate to our own miniscule experience of life (to date) is hardly an argument against the existence of either. I cannot see the wind, but I can certainly view its effect. God, in Holy Spirit aspect, is comparable to the invisible wind that envelopes us.

When we are uncertain and/or afraid, we sometimes become flippant and jocular. There is a great deal of flippancy and jocularity on this thread. Perhaps it is understandable.

 

[NilesCalder]

To flog your analogy to death Exo: we can see the wind from the effect it has on the world around us, but we never see the actions of the Divine in the same way. If a Deity leaves no fingerprints how can we be sure It exists at all?

Look at Churches with unbiased eyes for once. These are bodies which claim to be the agents of a loving and compassionate deity yet berate others for daring to live outside the narrow world view they propigate, spreading hatred, fear and violence rather than the love and caring which they claim.

Their words claim them to be Good but their deeds show us otherwise.

There is a theory that this whole God thing dates back from a time when our brains were wired differently and we all hallucinated daily; unable to express if a river was flowing to fast to cross or a mountain unsafe to climb (or whatever). Our subconcious would generate an authority figure to pass the information to us. A god of one stripe or another would appear and say "Cross here" or "Stay from My mountain" or whatever. Our brains are still in the process of evolving and now such 'Interventions' are rare rather than commonplace.

Niles "been there and done that" Calder

 

[Anonymous]

"I cannot see the wind, but I can certainly view its effect. God, in Holy Spirit aspect, is comparable to the invisible wind that envelopes us."

No Exo, it is not comparable - you are not comparing like with like - evidence (the effect of that which we call the wind) is not the same as a belief.

Fundamentalist religions, such as yours, do not take any account of, let alone respect and tolerate, the wide range of other cultures and their beliefs or non-beliefs.

As a lifelong agnostic, with an interest in all religions and philosophies, I have no fear, other than about the harm caused by them. Religions which are based on fear no longer have a hold on the majority of people in Europe - but people do have wishes/needs to express their feelings/beliefs about their spirituality, without fear.

I suggest that your posts reflect a fear - that you are afraid to be jocular or flippant - because of what your god might do to you!

Heather.

 

[Anonymous]

Great minds, Nigel............!

 

[Anonymous]

Our subconcious would generate an authority figure to pass the information to us. A god of one stripe or another would appear and say "Cross here" or "Stay from My mountain" or whatever. Our brains are still in the process of evolving and now such 'Interventions' are rare rather than commonplace.

Yeah, but just supposing the authority figure (a personification of our parents, according to some), was, in some way, actually external and our, arguably, more unevolved forbears were more tuned into the `genus locii' or, spirit of place. The same results would apply.

The question is, how much is happening inside, and how much outside, our minds? Where do the `hallucinations' end and the filtering and censorship, that goes on in the interface between our senses and thoughts, begin?

One side of our mind is more attuned to harmonies and dissonances in our environment and the other calculates our chances. Now our minds are so filled up with crap we rarely hear, or heed, the warnings and advice, from either.

Andro `Devil's advocate' Man.

 

[Anonymous]

heather71, r.e. Exorcistate:
I suggest that your posts reflect a fear - that you are afraid to be jocular or flippant - because of what your god might do to you!

I don't know. I get the distinct impression E. has unbuttoned his clerical gaiters and is actually enjoying his visits to the MB, these days. I detect a certain amount of levity in some of his replies.

 

[Anonymous]

It is novel to think of Catholicism as being a "Fundamentalist" expression of Christianity. The term "Fundamentalist" tends to be used nowadays as a theological swear-word to be used against anyone who takes their faith remotely seriously. In that sense I am flattered to be deemed "Fundamentalist," I suppose.

"Fundamentalist religions, such as yours, do not take any account of, let alone respect and tolerate, the wide range of other cultures and their beliefs or non-beliefs," proclaims Heather71.

Does she mean "respect and tolerate" in the way she is clearly not doing for the Christian faith and belief in God I hold?

"We never see the actions of the Divine in the same way [as the effect of the wind]," says Niles Calder. Speak for yourself, I say. Many have experienced and witnessed the actions of the Divine.

 

[Anonymous]

It is novel to think of Catholicism as being a "Fundamentalist" expression of Christianity. The term "Fundamentalist" tends to be used nowadays as a theological swear-word to be used against anyone who takes their faith remotely seriously.

True. In its widest sense, the word catholicism can be taken to mean the entire Christian faith. However, the particular brand espoused by E. and the Bishop represents quite a small corner of that broad church.

The fundamentalist accusation, seems to have come to mean, any adherent, of any religion, who sticks to a very narrow interpretation of their belief (book based, or no), denies all other interpretations and condemns all that falls outside their standards of belief.

 

[Anonymous]

It is novel to think of Catholicism as being a "Fundamentalist" expression of Christianity. The term "Fundamentalist" tends to be used nowadays as a theological swear-word to be used against anyone who takes their faith remotely seriously. In that sense I am flattered to be deemed "Fundamentalist," I suppose.

"Fundamentalist religions, such as yours, do not take any account of, let alone respect and tolerate, the wide range of other cultures and their beliefs or non-beliefs," proclaims Heather71.

Does she mean "respect and tolerate" in the way she is clearly not doing for the Christian faith and belief in God I hold?

"We never see the actions of the Divine in the same way [as the effect of the wind]," says Niles Calder. Speak for yourself, I say. Many have experienced and witnessed the actions of the Divine.

'Fundamentalists' aren't necessarily perceived by those of us who don't share their views as 'taking their faith seriously'. Most of the fundamentalists (a ratio of something like 10:1) I've encountered have struck me as clinging desperately to their faith in much the way a drowning man might cling to a spar of driftwood: he'd much rather have a spire of rock to hold onto, but rather than look about to see if there is one available, he expends all his strength and attention in keeping a tight grip on his waterlogged and treacherous piece of flotsam.

It almost always seems like they feel their faith is so weak and fragile a thing that they needs must shelter it from all knocks -real and imagined- lest it breaks apart and leaves them bereft of succour in a world which fear causes them to view with suspicion and hostility. They 'explain their beliefs' to you (how many of us have ran into that euphemism for evangelism?), and dismiss the serious moral and philosophical objections you raise as being of no matter because the morality and philosophy they are expounding is apparently God's, and thus cannot possibly be objected to.

__________________________________________________

""Fundamentalist religions, such as yours, do not take any account of, let alone respect and tolerate, the wide range of other cultures and their beliefs or non-beliefs," proclaims Heather71.

"Does she mean "respect and tolerate" in the way she is clearly not doing for the Christian faith and belief in God I hold?"

__________________________________________________

Heather71's comment might be disrespectful: after all, she clearly believes intolerance towards other faiths and cultures is a bad thing, so why should she show respect for something she feels is guilty of that intolerance?.

But her comment certainly isn't intolerant.

Here's an example of real disrespect and intolerance in a comment:

I recall attending my kid sister's (Fundie) church a few years ago and hearing the following announcement from the pastor; "Good news from our missionaries on the island of Bute (Argyllshire). They have just succeeded in converting a Church of Scotland minister to Christianity." I kid you not.

 

[Anonymous]

Sorry Niles - I know now you're not that other one - mea culpa!

The fundamentalist accusation, seems to have come to mean, any adherent, of any religion, who sticks to a very narrow interpretation of their belief (book based, or no), denies all other interpretations and condemns all that falls outside their standards of belief.

I agree with Andro's definition - I do not swear generally and certainly not against someone's beliefs.

But Exo, as you know most religions have in common the tenet 'brotherly love'. This does not always happen in practice, does it? - e.g. Northern Ireland, the Middle East. When I lived amongst the Free Presbyterians - 'wee Frees' in the north of Scotland, I respected their Sabbatarian views as I was the newcomer - but I found some of them to be hypocritical and not, in my opinion particularly good Christians - I kept that to myself.

This however, is a public debate and, as an agnostic, I do not have to hold to the tenet of 'brotherly love'.

Heather.

PS. Andro, you could also be right about Exo - on the BSM thread he finished a post with the word 'capice?' At the time I thought of it as a little threatening - almost Godfatherish - but it could have been a tiny jest - what do you think?

 

[Anonymous]

"The particular brand [of Catholcism] espoused by E[xorcistate] and the Bishop [Manchester] represents quite a small corner of that broad church," says AndroMan.

Oh really? How?

Bishop Manchester and his Catholic jurisdiction espouse less than the Roman Catholic Church insist upon as doctrine necessary for salvation, eg dogmas promulgated during the First and Second Vatican Councils, ie Corporeal Assumption of the BVM, the Immaculate Conception, and Papal Infallability etc.

This makes Bishop Manchester and his Church less, not more, "fundamentalist" than the largest Catholic jurisdiction in the world. Furthermore, the bishop's church accepts married clergy and denies nobody the sacraments where an obvious abuse is not evident. This is in sharp contrast to the RC Church.

"Fundamentalism," to my mind, is the taking of every last word of Scripture literally, including numbers and obvious metaphors. This neither Bishop Manchester, nor the remainder of Catholicism, including Roman Catholicism, is guilty of in the least. It is, therefore, inappropriate to label him as a "Fundamentalist."

 

[Anonymous]

AY??

Many witches, pagans and especially Satanists are technically atheists in as much as they see the power coming from the human mind and not from an external force. Demons and the effects of magic are often viewed by some as a product of the mind alone. Few I have met, who are not completely deranged from the outset, have actually subscribed to any kind of supernatural intelligence or external entity. Their philosophy (as opposed to belief which is more self-belief if anything) is almost identical to that of psychologists. Hence a great many being fascinated by Jungian psychology. The thinking being that deity exists only because they believe in it.

Sorry Ex, matey
Although I can't speak for the Satanists (I raise my eyebrows, well one at least, at the way you seem to be trying to perpetrate the Xtian misconception that Old Nick has something to do with Pagans by lumping Witches, Pagans and Satanists together) whom I see as following a lifestyle choice rather than a religion, my experiences are vastly different to yours.

Pagans (some of which may be Witches - but not all witches are Pagan) see everything as interconnected and part of the same whole or One represented by a dual Deity - hence the belief that there is a spark of the Divine within us all which links us. But I have never met a Pagan yet who believed that the power originates from them and that the Dieties are there for the practitioner's own convenience.

Oh and believe me, take a close look - do all Xtians look corpus mentum? Do you really think just because someone does not embrace Xtianity and follows their own Path that they are completely deranged? I say again - how rude!

Believe what you want to believe - everyone.


NO ONE has the right to stand up and belittle anyone for thier beliefs, however apparently whacky and/or non-Christian they may be.

 

[Anonymous]

Well, Exorcistate, I think I'll stick with my earlier definition. I admit, however, that Bishop Manchester sounds like a pussycat in comparison with, hypothetical, Papal Nuncios with Opus Dei links, Pat Robertson, or the Reverend Ian Paisley.

Putting aside quibbling over theological niceties. I, personally, wouldn't be a Fortean if I didn't have a belief in an animistic universe. So, I post on this thread. I don't take it too seriously, because I think the animating principle also has a bit of a sense of humour. The Humour is fundamental to the nature of reality. We just don't get the joke,

 

[Anonymous]

If I have learned one thing it is that if you have one hundred pagans in a room you will find one hundred differing opinions as to what paganism represents for each of them. However, few in my experience, particularly few of the leaders, actually subscribe to an external supernatural reality. After discussion with many I have found that they are attributing "power" to the human mind and deities to their minds' perception of a reflection in nature. Only a small number of often unhinged individuals within paganism actually believe that gods, godesses, demi-gods, demons etc exist outside the mind's projection of their perception.

Witches and Satanists both consider themselves to be pagan. You only have to go to the writings of LaVey, Aquino, or indeed Crowley to discover that much. However, they also tend to pour scorn on witchcraft and view its as a mere training exercise for the erstwhile uninitiated; though Crowley claimed to also be a witch. Ordo Astrum Serpentis, ostensibly a "witchcraft coven" during the 1980s, used basic witchcraft as a training period for new members. It was actually a satanic cult, as each of its ex-members would later testify. (See From Satan To Christ by Sean Manchester). John Pope, self-proclaimed successor to Aleister Crowley, has latterly claimed to be an initiate of witchcraft; though he once ran the United Temples of Satan. David Farrant, jailed for necromantic diabolism in Highgate Cemetery and posting death dolls with menacing messages, has always claimed to be a "high priest of witchcraft." Alex Sanders, responsible for the pagan/wiccan revival in the UK, following the post-war repeal of the Witchcraft Act, never denied his own dabbling in what he himself described as black magic. I do not have to lump witches, pagans and Satanists together. A significant number are already doing a good enough job of that all by themselves.

The problem is that a pagan can, more or less, write their own rules. A Christian cannot. He or she is constrained by the teachings of Christ and the tenets of the New Testament.

Quicksilver talks about rudeness, whilst referring all the time to "Xtians" and "Xianity" (instead of Christians and Christianity) as though the name "Christ" is so anathema as to be unmentionable. This is rudeness personified in my book.

 

[Anonymous]

If I have learned one thing it is that if you have one hundred pagans in a room you will find one hundred differing opinions as to what paganism represents for each of them.

It is an infinite universe, after all.

Only a small number of often unhinged individuals within paganism actually believe that gods, godesses, demi-gods, demons etc exist outside the mind's projection of their perception.

Does that extend to all deities? Or, is it a case of, `everybody's except mine?'

Where does Shamanism fit in to all this? I admit, modern shamanism is a pale reflection of its original self. The earliest form of belief system has become, mostly, a `New Age' fashion. But, in its most pure form it does look to an external Animating Principle, or Spirit, in nature. Versions without, would just be psycho- babble tricks for playing about in the subconscious.

The problem is that a pagan can, more or less, write their own rules. A Christian cannot. He or she is constrained by the teachings of Christ and the tenets of the New Testament.

A few hours watching Trinity Broadcasting Network on cable, or satellite, would soon show the amazing contortions possible, even by relying only on that text.

You get 100 devout Christians in a room and you'll eventually have 101 schisms.

 

[stu neville]

If I have learned one thing it is that if you have one hundred pagans in a room you will find one hundred differing opinions as to what paganism represents for each of them.

A statement that in my experience you can extend to virtually any belief system: religion of any shade is the ultimate in subjective experience.

ibid
Witches and Satanists both consider themselves to be pagan. You only have to go to the writings of LaVey, Aquino, or indeed Crowley to discover that much. ..I do not have to lump witches, pagans and Satanists together. A significant number are already doing a good enough job of that all by themselves.

Many satanists do describe themselves as pagans, but again very few pagans are satanists: it's a PR exercise on the part of the latter, almost analagous to advertising your house in an estate agent's window as actually being in a "nicer", more prosperous area than it actually is. Most pagans regard satanists in the same light as other religions do, by and large as people who wish to ascribe their personal amorality to a higher power. That said, members of many religions do the same: again morality is as subjective as belief.

Personally, I believe in a higher intelligence than man: the nature of which I cannot fathom, and TBH am content not to. My own opinion of religion in general, as I have stated elsewhere, is that most have the same basic tenets (be nice to others, be tolerant, don't kill anyone, etc) which have then been interpreted out of all recognition according to the relevant period's zeitgeist: as until modern times most people were functionally illiterate, the predominant Church in any nation could place whatever spin suited it upon scripture: as many nations were, and indeed in some cases still are Theocracies, to question this was de facto treason.

That having been said, I respect anyone who holds beliefs and is open and willing to discuss them. As for personal morality, again at risk of repeating myself, do as you would be done by is, to me, the best dictum one could formulate. Tolerance are kindness are two way streets.

Stu

 

[Anonymous]

satanism

According to the poll at the top of the thread, we have one satanist amongst us. As I have never knowingly met one, would that person please come forward and, as simply as possible, explain what is meant by 'satanism' and why they chose to become a satanist.

Thank you.

Heather.

 

[Anonymous]

Xtian vs Christian

Please accept my apologies, Exorcistate.
'Xtian' is a common shorthand way of typing Christian (like Xmas) and no disrespect was intended.

Believe me when I say that I say that I truly admire practitioners of any Religion, insofar as the message which is intended to be broadcast, but I do have issues with the methods and practice of some.

Religion is an abstract tool used by Humans to try to explain reality and existence, like Science, Maths and Art.
What one person sees as the 'truth' may not be another's interpretation.

You cannot dictate that a person has to have a particular concept of Deity or dictate their method of worship - Faith is open to personal expression, not as laid down in strict doctrine IMHO.

What is important is faith itself, not the concept of Deity or method of worship - that's just the vehicle to 'get what it's all about' into your head.

Maybe if more people focussed on getting what it's all about into their head, instead of insisting that only they are right and everyone else is wrong, we could all just get on with life.

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Xtian vs Christian

Religion is an abstract tool used by Humans to try to explain reality and existence, like Science, Maths and Art.

Uhm, slight difference of opinion here: Science and Math are fairly specific tools used to understand and explain reality, and aren't particularly interested in understanding or explaining existence. That would be a spiritual quest. But you're right about Art and Religion being about explaining reality and existence. ...So long as you didn't intend to imply that the explanations of Art and Religion necessarily require any profound understanding of the reality behind the existence they are attempting to explain.

 

[river_styx]

A christian can't write their own rules???
So the current version of the bible is a literal translation of the original islamic texts is it?

 

[Anonymous]

A christian can't write their own rules???
So the current version of the bible is a literal translation of the original islamic texts is it?

Islamic????

Latin, maybe Greek, some Hebrew and a smattering of Aramaic surely?

 

[Anonymous]

Re: Re: Xtian vs Christian

Science and Math are fairly specific tools used to understand and explain reality, and aren't particularly interested in understanding or explaining existence

Fair comment

But you're right about Art and Religion being about explaining reality and existence. ...So long as you didn't intend to imply that the explanations of Art and Religion necessarily require any profound understanding of the reality behind the existence they are attempting to explain.

Quite right, we seem to be blindly grasping answers without taking time to ask ourselves what the questions are most of the time.

 

[river_styx]

Islamic????

Latin, maybe Greek, some Hebrew and a smattering of Aramaic surely?

Oops, let this be a lesson to you all. After one 23 hour day make sure you have more than 4 hours sleep the next.

 

[ogopogo3]

Re: AY??

NO ONE has the right to stand up and belittle anyone for thier beliefs, however apparently whacky and/or non-Christian they may be.

Actually, we DO have the right.

 

[marion]

Re: satanism

According to the poll at the top of the thread, we have one satanist amongst us. As I have never knowingly met one, would that person please come forward and, as simply as possible, explain what is meant by 'satanism' and why they chose to become a satanist.

Thank you.

Heather.

On this thread

http://www.forteantimes.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=425

a board member discusses her satanic beliefs , perhaps she has some answers . I don't know if she still posts on the board .