More than a Sign at a Football Game

flat flat buy apartment

flat flat buy apartament

nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk nedvizhimost sdayu tomsk

kvartiry m frunzenskaya kvartira snyat odnokomnatnaya ekaterinburg kvartiry kirovogradskaya 24 prodazha kvartir silikatnaya prodam kvartiru g lyubercy rynok kvartir sankt peterburg arenda kvartir g omsk gp kvartira ru pokupka kvartir g ufa

xerox phaser buy ink cartridge

buy cheap viagra buy cheap viagra,buy cheap viagra buy cheap viagra,

buy cheap viagra buy cheap viagra,

g_6 g_6,

bahsnelf rqhwoidx nmws yrckn iycwd ejaiypn jkwvgfety

David:

no, I don't see your attitude as being like that of my ex. The strength of your cinvictions is evident in your posts, and i can respect that, even if I don't share those convictions. And while you have, at times, misunderstood what I believe, you have never "spoken" condescendingly to me.

You and I can agree to disagree, but enjoy greater understanding of each other's p-o-v, no conversions necessary. I see that as a good thing.

Namaste.

Thank you Lep for you story. Like I said before, I really enjoy hearing other worldviews. I would hope that you are not confusing me with the likes of your ex-husband in that I am telling you what you think. I'm merely engaging the idea with philisophical reasoning and logic. I know what you think and respect the sacred right of freewill in your choice. I will never say my way is better than yours because I believe in religious plurarisms as a positive thing in this world as to keep every ideology on an even playground. For me, it's an endless journey to know how these ideas are shaped, whether culturally, religiously or philisophically. I appreciate your testimony as a way of increasing my knowledge of the such. I still believe in absolute truths, but want to share one with you.

From being on this thread I have a chance to learn. To learn other's beliefs, ways of thinking and cultural backgrounds. To live in a pluralistic world, I find peace in knowing other's beliefs and understanding them to the best of my abilities. I think it is when some with their own beliefs choose not to recognize other's is when we have division. I still struggle with moral relativism because I see the effects of such a philosophy. It seems to be a negative effect. This to me is what causes division. There is evil in this world and taking from the evidence, if morals are relative, society will try to eliminate the thought of evil. Where will that lead us to? I know not on the right path, but to more evil. I will continue to understand the beliefs of others, but it is moral relativism that will forever destroy us. I do thank you for your time Lep and to others as well. To learn from each other will greatly benefit each other and will enhance respect for each other. I hope we can continue to do this, otherwise will not this world always be divided? So here is my absolute truth...If morals are relative in society, then we have not starting point for morals at all. I fear for that.

Have a wonderful day.

The Good Words/Passages were articulated via reason and common sense by the ancients. These Words of Wisdom were simply repeated with each major race and religion. Unfortunately the Words were eventually attributed to embellished men (e.g. Moses, Jesus, Mohammed, Joe Smith) in most cases as a means of profiteering as noted by the contemporary billions of dollars owned and controlled by the Mormon, Christian, Jewish and Moslem religions. It is time to get our money back!!!!!

GERRY:

My bad - somehow in my mind I combined the original question regarding my name with your guess as to the meaning. I obviously haven't had near enough caffeine yet this morning.

Lepidopteryx,

the only thing I regret is that I forgot to sign my last post and left it inadvertently anonymous!!!

I, too, have had experience with people who tell me what I REALLY think!

Thank you!

Gerry

Lepidopteryx,

the only thing I regret is that I forgot to sign my last post and left it inadvertently anonymous!!!

I, too, have had experience with people who tell me what I REALLY think!

Thank you

Gerry

ANONYMOUS DAVID:

You're on the right track with "elegant wing."

Lepidopteryx is a hybrid of "Lepidoptera" which is the scientific order of butterflies, and "phoenix," which is the mythical bird that is reborn from its own ashes. I use a "y" instead of an "i" just cuz I like it that way.

I came to the realization that I was Pagan while I was marreid to my ex-husband. He had some of the same issues with relative truths that you do, only he expected me to not simply respect his opinion (which I did) but to tailor my own spirituality to his, or at least give that appearance (and that I could not do). One of the many factors that led to our divorce was the fact that he kept insisting that my departure from Christianity was only a temporary thing, that I would eventually return to the "true way," and that I shouldn't call myself Pagan because I really wasn't, and referred to attending the Unitarian services which I find so meaningful as "playing church." I hate when someone else tries to tel me what I really believe. He expected me to pretend to be Christian around his family, which I also refused to do. I don't pretend to be Christian around my own Southern Baptist parents. They've learned to live with it, and no longer ask questions about the altar in my living room.

Despite efforts to remain civil, the divorce got ugly, especially when he started hurling accusations that I had had affairs with at elast one man and one woman who attended my church.

Once it was over, I felt depressed and dirty. One of the few things that kept me sane (other than the routine of caring for my daughter and our pets) was taking off my clothes and lying in the sun in my backyard. I'm a fire sign - I require light and heat, and lots of both. One afternoon, while I was sunbathing, a bright yellow butterfly lit on my abdomen and stayed there for several minutes. I wondered what it was trying to tell me. After coming in from sunbathing, it finally dawned on me that I could now live my life the way I really wanted and needed to, and the only thing stopping me from doing it was me.
Butterflies start out as caterpillars - slow, earthbound, and not exactly what most people consider pretty. After a period of dormancy, they emerge as these beautiful, delicate creatures that look like flying flower petals but are capable of flying across the ocean. The butterfly was the perfect metaphor for what I had been going through, and I realized that the one that had lit on my abdomen was my totem notifying me of our relationship.
The phoenix is also a metaphor for transformation, renewal, new life brought out of destruction, so I have adopted it as a second totem.
Thus Lepidopteryx became my spirit name.

Sorry, it was me, Gerry.

Lepidopteryx (is it "Elegant-wing"?)

I think our general human mindset has been corrupted by the total commercialization of life: Everything must have a price to be paid, starting with the preposterous original sin "bargain" and continuing with the stupid commercial idea of heaven and hell.

We are not even aware that we supplant the natural course of events, including random episodes ("flat tire") with an "all-knowing, all-enabling" (omnipotent) god. God thus has become a "joker" entity for any imaginable natural event. Whatever exists and happens - it is thus "god's will". The strange thing is, that even the most ardent "god" partisans are completely unable to define him - beyond the fact, that he is in this sense "omnipotent", that is, a joker for everything. But if you have a "joker" in a play for everything, the play completely loses its meaning. You cannot play a game with only jokers as playing cards. If god means everything (joker), he means nothing.

That is not my version of human dignity, value of life and responsibility. I, like you, want to retain my ability to love and admire nature, music, (I am a musician), art, literature, friends, without having to resort to an "omnipotent" puller of marionette strings. The beauty of nature includes its risks, its surprises: There would not be any beauty without the risks. The beauty depends on risks, on the uncertainty, unpredictability of life.

The question "why god created storms and earthquakes" is only valid within the narrow and constrained "orthodox" religious systems, not outside of it, not in reality. Natural disasters like storms, tsunamis, earthquakes are natural consequences of the physical existence of the world and its laws, of the existence of ourselves. Without these natural laws that can create disasters we would not exist.

Well, I think I might have a few more things to say. You seem to be wanting to blame nature and the planet Earth for her own bodily processes. When an individual becomes physically incarnate, it comes with many blessings--joys, loves, learning, and most of all just the experience that life brings. But it also has another side as well. Once you have become a living being, it is a certain truth you will also die. Along the way there will also be suffering, pain, and sorrow. This is part of the cycles of nature, part of the functioning of the body of the Goddess Gaea and the Planet Earth. If you find accepting this to be too harsh or too painful, by all means do not be a Pagan--just as when I found the violence depicted in the Bible unacceptable it was one of the things leading me to cease being Christian. Now, as for why I am uncomfortable with the violence of the Bible but accepting of the violence in nature, I think that has to do with purpose, and the will of those involved. When hurricanes and earthquakes occur, as I have said, this is part of the funtioning of the organs in the body of the Goddess. They have been occuring long before Humans evolved, so all her creatures have had to learn to deal with this. (by the way, in my version of the faith, Humans are no more special to Gaea that any of her other children.) When Yahweh ordered the slaughter of whole populations, in at least one case after they had already been defeated and captured, that is a direct act of malevolence, not an accident of bodily function.

Now, seeing as how we have decided to be living beings on the planet, that has these functions, then we have already accepted the risks associated with that. We will all die a physical death, and personally, I don't see how going in a flood or earthquake is worse than being eaten by a cancer or being shot by a mugger. And, of course, one must also consider the human choices that are involved. If you live near a mountain in an earthquake or volcano zone, you have accepted certain risks. If you live on the Gulf of Mexico during huricane seasom, you have accepted others. Where I live, I am fully aware a tornado could swoop down and destroy me and/or all I own with little or no warning at certain times of the year. I understand the most geologically stable place in the world is central Australia, but for some reason you don't see hordes of people swarming to live there. They realize that physical safety is not the only issue--living is the issue, and experiencing all the wonder and joy life has to offer. This would be why so very many people live in the wonderful climate and enlightened society that is California, despite the common knowledge that quite likely within our lifetimes horrible dammage will occur to the major cities in California from earthquakes. When this happens, it would be foolish to blame it as a direct attack by Gaea. She has already let us know it is coming, and yet there are those who have chosen to live there. And I cannot say they are wrong--there are more things to life than avoiding death, pain and loss. And of all the things my Gods offer, they do not promise that I can avoid these things. (I don't think there are any Gods that promise that in this world).

My dearest Lep,

Thank you for the CTS that you have obtained because of me. It is not in vain at all. I appreciate your explanations and respect you to the fullest.

I just have one final question. No more after that, I think I've learned enough for one week. Time to go on a brain vacation from philisophical and religious thinking.

How did you come up with lepidopteryx. Does that have a meaning of some sort? Just curious, that's all.

Oh by the way, my real name is David. Nice to meet you. Shhhh....don't tell anyone. :)

ANON 1:

**Everything is divine therefore everything is linked as a WHOLE. So I guess that does mean that I can blame your tomato plant for Katrina and Peru!**

Why do you require someone or something to blame? If you get a flat tire on the way to a job interview, do you blame God? Satan?

**Not to be offensive, but maybe simply because it does not conform to anything logical or absolute. Maybe this is why I cannot make this my reality.**
It's not a path that everyone can walk. That's ok.

**I don't know how to understand something that cannot understand itself.**
I understand my beliefs quite well, thank you very much. They make perfect sense to me.

**It's kind of like a religion where you can have your cake and eat it too. Or a buffet line of religious thought where you just pick what you like and ignore the rest. "I think I'll pass on the sin, an extra side of divine nature, hold the eternal being, and for dessert some everything is whole topped with a hint of moral whatevers. Yummy!"**

Why is the concept of sin necessary in order for you to consider a spiritual path valid? The Divine reveals Itself to different people in different ways. I don't require the concept of sin in order to be a moral person. And you will find that the Rule of Three and the concept of karma - you get back what you put out. If you put negative energy into the Universe by harming others, then that negative energy will be reflected back to you. If you put positive energy into the Universe by treating others well, then that positivity is reflected back to you. So, yeah, in that sense, you DO get to choose what you want. But there is no eternal condemnation or punishment for "sin" because there is no "sin," just poor choices of behavior. In computer jargon, it's along the lines of GI-GO. the Universe tends toward balance - if you upset that balance, it's on you to right it.

**I see why paganism is so appealing. It's what you make it. I hope not to be offensive, but this is what I've learned so far.**
Darling, all faith is what you make it. But Paganinsm isn't a case of making it up as we go along. If that's what you think after all this, I've given myself a case of CTS in vain.

Arminius:

Pagan is an umbrella term that encompasses many different belief systems with significant commoonalities - like the term Christianity.

Wicca is a specific Pagan path, just as Catholicism is a specific Christian path.

If you are Catholic, you would feel qualified to make general comments about Christianity as a whole, but you would likely not feel qualified to comment on specific practices of say, Southern Baptists.

Same with me and Wicca. because Wicca is not my specific path, I don't feel qualified to try to explain it, especially to someone for whom Paganism is terra incognita.

Lep,

"I'm Pagan, but not Wiccan", you said.

Could you educate a seeker here? I grovel in my ignorance . . .

Lep,

I think you lost me at:

"ANON1:"

Yeah I guess I don't get it. Let me try to figure something out here.

"For me, the Divine is that overarching Whole of which we are all a part."

and then you said,

"If I'm going to accuse the gods of sending kKatrina to wipe out my husband's school, then I might as well accuse my tomato plant of sending the earthquake in Peru."

and one more thing to link this all together..

"I see it as inextricably imbedded in the physical world, so everything is divine"

Ok. Everything is divine. I got that. Everything is divine therefore everything is linked as a WHOLE. So I guess that does mean that I can blame your tomato plant for Katrina and Peru! C'MON KETCHUP!

Ahhh!!!

Of course I will never understand this system of thought. Not to be offensive, but maybe simply because it does not conform to anything logical or absolute. Maybe this is why I cannot make this my reality. I don't know how to understand something that cannot understand itself. It seems self-contradictory?? And the contradictions are meaningless to those that follow this system of thought. It's kind of like a religion where you can have your cake and eat it too. Or a buffet line of religious thought where you just pick what you like and ignore the rest. "I think I'll pass on the sin, an extra side of divine nature, hold the eternal being, and for dessert some everything is whole topped with a hint of moral whatevers. Yummy!"

I see why paganism is so appealing. It's what you make it. I hope not to be offensive, but this is what I've learned so far. I do appreciate this conversation thought and have greatly enjoyed it. I especially thank you for sharing your faith and thoughts with me. Have a great evening.

ANON1:

**So is nature divine?**
Abso-freaking-lutely.

**If you say nature is divine, then it has a personality, right?**
I think you anthropomorphize your deity more tha I do mine. While i refer to gods and goddesses, I see them as the generative and surival aspects of nature, not as beings that in any way physically resemble me, and certainly not as beings prone to temper tantrums.

**It means you and nature are one and that nature is in a sense personal divine being or beings. So if hurricanes and earthquakes are part of this divine nature, then why can't the divine nature (your god(s)) be held accountable for random acts of violence?**
Because my gods aren't the ones who send massive floods in a fit of pique. For me, the Divine is that overarching Whole of which we are all a part. If I'm going to accuse the gods of sending kKatrina to wipe out my husband's school, then I might as well accuse my tomato plant of sending the earthquake in Peru.

**Otherwise nature is just nature with no divine attributes, right??**
You see the Divine as something separate from the physical world. I see it as inextricably imbedded in the physical world, so everything is divine. I think you see the function of the Divine as being to reward "good" and punish "evil." That's not what I see as the function of the Divine. I see the function of the Divine as being to facilitate awareness of the Interconnectedness of Everything (apologies to Douglas Adams and Dirk Gently).

**Or maybe I just lost myself in understanding one bit of what wiccans believe? I definately see myself with the latter eventually. :)**
Again, I'm Pagan, but not Wiccan, so I can't speak for Wiccans as to specifics of their paths. I can only tell you what my reality, my truth is.

Where Doth Not Nature?
You said:
"The gods all lie. Humanity speaks. The gods will kill a man or woman for naught, but man, largely needs a god to kill."

God does not kill. Man does.

Cannot you look for the good and beautiful that is there too?

Where not Nature 'Red in tooth and claw' I'd be one to find solace in a holy, changing text of an ever-changing, transcendent being.

Alas...the world is all around me.

It drips blood from every talon, it stinks with killing which makes 'life' possible. What sort of god would create such an evil thing?

The wars of the gods, and the gods of the wars all lay down together in this red, and unholy river. They, baptized, self-extinguish a right to speak delusion as truth.

The words of men are all we have. Though often caught in emboldened lie, they still say more than all the gods put together.

The gods all lie. Humanity speaks. The gods will kill a man or woman for naught, but man, largely needs a god to kill.

I love this Lep,

"Are we arguing? I thought we were comparing contradictory truths"

I wish you could see my smile. If you were next to me right now I would hug you. I guess the point is lost somewhere and I might as well give it up, huh? But I had to say, that was funny. Thanks.

One more thing though.

"Go back and re-read my post. New Orleans was NOT targeted, nor was Peru, and neither hurricanes nor earthquakes are divine punishments. Weather happens. Weather patterns have nothing to do with good and evil. Hurricanes are the result of collisions between warm and cool air masses. If you live near the Gulf of Mexico, expect hurricanes. Earthquakes are the result of shifting ground faults. If you live near a seismically unstable area, expect earthquakes"

So is nature divine? If you say nature is divine, then it has a personality, right? It means you and nature are one and that nature is in a sense personal divine being or beings. So if hurricanes and earthquakes are part of this divine nature, then why can't the divine nature (your god(s)) be held accountable for random acts of violence? Otherwise nature is just nature with no divine attributes, right?? Or maybe I just lost myself in understanding one bit of what wiccans believe? I definately see myself with the latter eventually. :)

God created this wonderful universe some 14 billion years past. He set it in motion, knowing that we would evolve, and waiting to see what would happen.

Eventually, a hurricane came upon New Orleans. It was not a punishment. It was a test.

We failed.

Hi Anon:

I have to agree with my friend Lepi on this one too. We don't look at weather as some sort of punishment for anything. Especially in disaster zones, it's about using your common sense. If you live in a low lying area, that has been known to get hurricanes or earthquakes or volcanoes, don't be surprised if one day you lose your house as a result of it. The areas were not targeted because 'sinful' people lived there. People often decide where they want to put a house without taking into consideration the words of those who have lived there before. It's about understanding Nature's patterns in any given area and realizing that in some places there is a bigger risk than others.

A lot of people are so hung up on 'subduing' nature that they're always surprised when Nature shows up in certain areas and destroys everything in the way.

The passage in scripture that is referred to as The Lord's Prayer and also the Our Father: Our Father, Who art in Heaven, hallowed be Thy Name, Thy Kingdom come, thy Will be done, on earth as it is in Heaven, give us this day our daily Bread, forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from the evil one. OUR FATHER, as in the Father of the entire human race considering that not only did He create everyone but also everything. WHO ART IN HEAVEN, not only is He in Heaven but He is also putting the finishing touches on the Heavenly Jerusalem not to be confused with the New Jerusalem which is going to go down the tubes just like the Old Jerusalem only more so. HALLOWED BE THY NAME, actually God is Pure Love but from so many of the posts that call themselves christians, you would never know. THY KINGDOM COME, God's Kingdom which will be a Kingdom of Pure Love and it is for all of His children which is ALL OF HUMANITY. THY WILL BE DONE, Like it says in many places in the bible, it is God's Will that ALL BE SAVED, also if all that someone calling themself a christian, cares about is going to the "good place" , how christian is that, considering that on the cross Jesus said, "Father forgive them", there is not an asterick after them, them means ALL OF HUMANITY, we have all done wrong at least I have. ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN, as it says even the forces of evil, satan and his cohorts, are working toward the Will of God even if inadvertantly, besides being a liar and a thief, the deceiver is also a loser. GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD, this refers not only to that which sustains us physically but also the Eucharist which is the BREAD OF LIFE. FORGIVE US OUR TRESPASSES AS WE FORGIVE THOSE WHO TRESPASS AGAINST US, this is a divine equation, pure and simple, Jesus told us as much. AND LEAD US NOT INTO TEMPTATION, satan is the tempter and like it says when we fall which we all seem to do at times at least I have we can ask for forgiveness, we can go directly to God for forgiveness, the curtain in front of the Holy of Holies has been torn in two, yes the one that so many people are trying to sew back together. BUT DELIVER US FROM THE EVIL ONE, yes satan and his cohorts are real and in God's Plan, All of Humanity will be delivered from all evil that is why we are to be willing and active participants in God's Plan whatever we may have been called or chosen to do. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ANON1:
**Why was N.O. targeted or Peru targeted by your god? Just for fun? Or was there a reason? Were these people evil in Peru and deserved it?**

Go back and re-read my post. New Orleans was NOT targeted, nor was Peru, and neither hurricanes nor earthquakes are divine punishments. Weather happens. Weather patterns have nothing to do with good and evil. Hurricanes are the result of collisions between warm and cool air masses. If you live near the Gulf of Mexico, expect hurricanes. Earthquakes are the result of shifting ground faults. If you live near a seismically unstable area, expect earthquakes.

**I see the way a human being sees. I see in a sense of human reality. I am not a bee or could never be a bee. I am no other species but human. That is the absolute truth and the absolute reality.**

Exactly my point. Your reality and that of the bee are different. To you, the flowers are "really" red and yellow. To the bee, they are "really" blue and white.

**So I guess our beliefs and pre-suppositions oppose one another. But this is why there is not relative truth. You have a truth that is contradictory to mine. Therefore truth is not relative or it would not be contradictory.**

No, it shows that cotradictory truths can be equally valid.

** If truth is relative, why are you arguing my points?**

Are we arguing? I thought we were comparing contradictory truths.

Wiccan,

You just came perilously close to feeling the fury of my Celtic ancestors!!! Could you have withstood our Brew Jihad? Only your reference to Bushmills saved you.

Lager is 'yellow beer', and is despised by all true beer drinkers. Good ale, stout, and, yes, porter rule! Check out this website:
http://www.arrogantbastard.com/
And keep in mind - You Are NOT Worthy!!!!! This is about the Ultimate Ale, the Drink of all of us Celtic Warriors!!!!

Regarding Bushmills - oh, Lord, I do adore the juice of the barley, but my old stomach forbids me much of it. I love Irish whiskey, but a superior Scotch single malt . . . now there is heaven.

Oh, yeah - a good mead is mighty fine stuff too.

Also - I grew up in the heartland of Moonshine, in the South. (= the Southeast of the US of A). Some of it is quite good, but really fiery stuff.

Thanks for your patience!

Lep,

There is a difference in my God and yours. Yes, my God struck the firstborns of Egypt. Your god struck New Orleans, Peru, Pakistan, etc. If we take the pre-supposition that my God is true then you can believe what you want as in terms of how He works. Since your god(s) are in or are nature, then you god(s) are killers for no apparent reason. God had a reason for killing the firstborns. Yes it was targeted and for a specific reason. Why was N.O. targeted or Peru targeted by your god? Just for fun? Or was there a reason? Were these people evil in Peru and deserved it? Or is there no explanation as to why your gods did these things. Or is it that nature is not devine at all which is why you cannot explain the reasoning for these events?

"The "reality" of color depends on several factors: pigment, light wavelength, observer. Light of different wavelengths reacts with different materials to produce a different chemical raction, which is then perceived by an observer as a specific color, depending on the photochemical composition of his/her/its eye. Again, I ask you, are the flowers "really" red and yellow, (the way human beings see them), or are they "really" blue and white, (the way the bee sees them), or are they "really" shades of grey (the way a species with no color receptors would see them). Or are they "really" chartreuse and puce, even though there may be no species that sees them that way? And does it ultimately matter? "

I see the way a human being sees. I see in a sense of human reality. I am not a bee or could never be a bee. I am no other species but human. That is the absolute truth and the absolute reality. Therefore I live in human reality that flowers are whatever color humans see them as which in reality if they are red and yellow then they are red and yellow. I believe we come to two different outcomes because of two different pre-suppostitions. I do not believe we are "one" so to say as nature. I believe we are created and different from any other form of nature. I know you feel differently. But with your pre-supposition, you can conclude that a bee and human see differently because you believe they are "one". I believe that we are far different from bees and could not compare realities with a bee and a human. I only know human reality. So I guess our beliefs and pre-suppositions oppose one another. But this is why there is not relative truth. You have a truth that is contradictory to mine. Therefore truth is not relative or it would not be contradictory.

I do thank you for this discussion. I have to point out one thing though in general. If truth is relative, why are you arguing my points?

Do you see the impossibility to hold to that statement?

Lep-

Or when my Mom and I had some of her friend's homemade peach wine...only time in my life I saw Mom tipsy. She was so cute!

WICCAN:

**Give me Bushmills any time. You don't just see the Gods, you can speak with them too. Just don't ask to remember the conversation :)**

Sounds like my most recent experience with a friend's home-brewed mead...

Lep and Arminius-

"And you said:
"For the Pagan, the oneness is very real - it's freaking palpable.

So is my Christian God. We see the same, through a glass darkly."

That's because you've got that glass filled with ale, or porter. Fill it with a decent lager and you'd both see just fine! ;-)

Full disclosure- I work for a beer wholesaler, and have drank beer maybe 7 times in the past 26 years. Yuck! Give me Bushmills any time. You don't just see the Gods, you can speak with them too. Just don't ask to remember the conversation :)

Lep,
You said:
"ARMINIUS:
**Thank God I stocked lots of beer!**
Save me Guinness or three."

Several cases here for you! Nectar of the Gods indeed. I have Irish ancestry - my father was born there.

And you said:
"For the Pagan, the oneness is very real - it's freaking palpable.

So is my Christian God. We see the same, through a glass darkly.

ANON1:
**But my question is this. My God is assumed to be a 'monster' by the destruction of peoples as recorded in the OT. Your god or gods are in nature. What reason can you give me for the destruction of 400 lives in Peru? What reason can you give me for Hurricane Katrina? Why did your god allow this? Is it safe for me to say that your god is a monster and more monsterous than mine because at least mine has reasons? Fair question, right?**

The difference is that according to your scriptures, when your god, for example, killed all the Egyptian firstborn, it was a direct attack by him on a specific group of people. It was AIMED. Same with all the cities the Children of Israel sacked with their god's help as they trooped through the desert.
Mama Nature didn't deliberately aim Katrina at New Orleans. My husband and I lost 2/3 of our houshold income as a result of that storm, but I don't see it as a personal attack. Weather happens. My deities aren't control freaks. They don't send storms or droughts or earthquakes as punishment for sins. You could say that the increase in unusually intense weather phenomena is influenced by human behavior in terms of global warming, but again, it's not a supernatural punishment, it follows natural law.

** Some see green as green, some see it as a blueish color, but what is the reality?**

The "reality" of color depends on several factors: pigment, light wavelength, observer. Light of different wavelengths reacts with different materials to produce a different chemical raction, which is then perceived by an observer as a specific color, depending on the photochemical composition of his/her/its eye. Again, I ask you, are the flowers "really" red and yellow, (the way human beings see them), or are they "really" blue and white, (the way the bee sees them), or are they "really" shades of grey (the way a species with no color receptors would see them). Or are they "really" chartreuse and puce, even though there may be no species that sees them that way? And does it ultimately matter?

**If oneness in nature is somewhat of a dogmatic statement in wicca, then those who do not see truth are not one in nature and therefore nature is seperate from man. Oneness in nature does not exist in reality. I have heard from a wiccan point of view that we are ALL one with nature, somehow intertwined. That is making an absolute statement that we are all in the same reality. But if truth is relative according to wicca their very own statements are self-contradictory. You cannot believe in relativistic truth and make a statement that we are all one in nature, because my truth might differ from that and therefore we are not.**

For the Pagan, the oneness is very real - it's freaking palpable. There are those who go to great lengths to separat themsleves from the natural world, and for them the connection is weaker. But I doubt that anyone can truly claim to believe that their actions have no effect on the natural world, or vice versa. That's the universality of the connection. Wretch Limbaugh may believe that human beings don't have the power to destroy the earth, but it doesn't change the fact that every time he flushes his toilet, it affects the planetary water supply, every time he cranks his car, it affects polution levels, etc. - just as it does every time anyone else does it. That's the universal connection.

ARMINIUS:
**Thank God I stocked lots of beer!**

Save me Guinness or three.

Friends,

don't jump to conclusions: When I (with Lep and Arminius say, that there are many truths, depending on the "system" of observer and observed, and depending on the context, that does not mean that there is no such thing as truth or that any arbitrary nonsense can usurp the term "truth"! Nonsense, logic stupidity, selling fairy tales as history, asking people to follow institutionalized superstition don't fall into this "relativity" category, and the creationist stories may be (rather desperate, emotionally generated) opinions, but not truths, because they intentionally, for the clerical agenda, avoid, even detest honest thinking.

And Jay, I am with you on most points, but I don't think there is an objective answer to every question.

May I just repeat the cues:
Reality is process. Things change. No static truth.
Truth lies only in the system of observer and observed (Heisenberg), a position rather difficult to accept.
It even depends on honesty and modesty (Socrates: I know that I don't know).
And I may add: It not only depends on context, but also on argumentation level, physically (as I stated: practical human vs. subatomic or cosmic level) and philosophically.

Hey, Lep!

You said,
"If observing an object changes that object, then reality can be neither static nor objective.
And that's fine with me - it keeps things interesting."

My reply:
Exactly. True is objectively True within the context, and that context itself is subjective.

I sense a philosophy here, struggling to get out of our blatherings. Back to the bomb shelter! Thank God I stocked lots of beer!

I have a question for my pagan friends. I've heard consistently that the Christian God was a so-called "monster" in the OT due to certain actions as recorded in the OT. Of course my God has reasons for these which you may find acceptable and which you may not find acceptable. But if truth is relative (and more importantly if morals are relative) then it is acceptable. But my question is this. My God is assumed to be a 'monster' by the destruction of peoples as recorded in the OT. Your god or gods are in nature. What reason can you give me for the destruction of 400 lives in Peru? What reason can you give me for Hurricane Katrina? Why did your god allow this? Is it safe for me to say that your god is a monster and more monsterous than mine because at least mine has reasons? Fair question, right?

BTW, I am sympathetic to the pagans on their focus on nature as well. Not as a worshipping source, but as an acknowledgment of the importance of our habitat.

Concerning truth again. Arguments against absolute truth negate reality. Truth conforms to reality. Some see green as green, some see it as a blueish color, but what is the reality? There is where you find truth. If one sees green as a blueish color, then are they living in reality as a sense of universalistic reality or their own personal reality. If oneness in nature is somewhat of a dogmatic statement in wicca, then those who do not see truth are not one in nature and therefore nature is seperate from man. Oneness in nature does not exist in reality. I have heard from a wiccan point of view that we are ALL one with nature, somehow intertwined. That is making an absolute statement that we are all in the same reality. But if truth is relative according to wicca their very own statements are self-contradictory. You cannot believe in relativistic truth and make a statement that we are all one in nature, because my truth might differ from that and therefore we are not. Do you see the contradiction?

JAY:
**There is a true answer to any question we may ask because there is a reality that is objective. Whether humans can perceive that truth or not is irrelevant. At best, a human observer can perceive and understand subjective approximations of reality in some cases, and in other cases may be unable to perceive even a hint of it. That does not negate the reality that exists independent of observation.**

If Heisenberg was correct, then the very act of seeking truth changes the nature of truth, making it infinitely mutable.
If observing an object changes that object, then reality can be neither static nor objective.
And that's fine with me - it keeps tings interesting.

Oh, damnit! That last post to Gerry was from me, Arminius. My bad . . .

Gerry,

Here is the expansion on Pilate's statement from 'Jesus Christ Superstar':
What is truth?
Is truth unchanging law?
We both have truths
Are mine the same as yours?

Regarding truth - in accordance with Einstein, Heisenberg, et al, as you wrote - truth, that slippery beastie, depends on the context. See my post above about axioms. The example I gave is the triangle; always has the sum of its angles = 180 degrees in plane geometry. True? of course. Move to spherical geometry. Sum of angles can be between 180+ and 360- degrees. True? you bet.

For the record, I am Christian, but do not accept the traditional axioms of many - I reject the 6-day gig, for an example. I see thru a glass darkly, and continue the search.

I also agree with your opinion of the pagans.

It's late for me to jump into this, but it seems to me that the definition of "truth" has taken a beating in this discussion. There is a true answer to any question we may ask because there is a reality that is objective. Whether humans can perceive that truth or not is irrelevant. At best, a human observer can perceive and understand subjective approximations of reality in some cases, and in other cases may be unable to perceive even a hint of it. That does not negate the reality that exists independent of observation.

Biblical creationism and the modern scientific theory of evolution cannot both be true; one is wrong or both are wrong, even as approximations of reality, regardless of how many people believe in one over the other. So-called truths such as "love is good" are subjective assessments based on strictly human perceptions ... not to say they are wrong, but they are lacking in objectivity.

I enjoyed your philosophical conversation about truth, and I would like to add a few remarks.

We should not regard "truth" in life, science, philosophy, evolution, especially not in religion as something mathematically comparable to 2+2=4. We would run into logical and even semantical morass (Pontius Pilatus' rhethorical and almost sarcastic question "what is truth" to me is one of the most important statements in the bible). We would easily stumble over classical logical traps like "all Cretians lie; I am a Cretian, lol!

"Truth" is for us what our brain makes out of the different physical inputs it receives and processes, with the equipment of our genetical being. Thus, we observe a certain frequency as a color or, in music, as a pitch. (In music, to stay with this example, you can transpose any melody into any other key, with not a single tone left of the original, and still the melody is as "true" as ever!)

Our brains are disposed that way. We do not observe "truths", not even when recognizing a familiar face, but we observe and recognize proportions, movements, not facts. Facts are what we deduce from these uncertain sensations.

Green is the sensation created by our brain by a certain frequency pattern. We don't know for sure if you perceive this (measurable, "true") frequency exactly as "green" as I do, but let us assume that the probability is extremely high. So, green is not objectively "true", but it is our personal perception of a light vibration, it only can be regarded as "true" in a sense that we can communicate about shades of green with a considerable hope that the other person has the same sensation - color blind folks have other sensations, and depending on a particular lighting, green can also be blue. An object, therefore, cannot be "truly" green: It depends.

Furthermore, truth does not lie in observed objects, but it is only found in the system of observer plus object. Heisenberg found ("Unschärferelation", uncertainty relation principle), that an observed object changes, on the atomic level, with the measuring observer. That means, the idea of "truth" has only a certain practical value ("green"), just like the Newtonian world is "true", as long as you don't introduce the Einstein relativity of a four-dimensional space-time, or even, as the latest conjectures about "truth" go, about an 11-dimensional "multiverse".

Thus, if you can agree on the assumption that truth is only found in the system "observer plus observed object", there must be innumerable truths, since each system of truth changes depending on the observer.

The "eternal, immobile truth" of all religion is nonsense. Life (even "eternal" life, an oxymoron) can only be regarded as process, as development (you can call it evolution).

All this does not preclude the immense, infinite awe I experience wondering at nature, my own existence, my role in the social context, my love, my hope, my fear. I only vigorously reject the demand that I "obey" a god that I (mankind) have created myself (talking about "original sin", what a horror!)

Btw, of all the parties involved in this discussion I am most sympathetic with the pagans for their awe towards nature, their common sense and their complete lack of indoctrination!

ANON1:

**Wow Lep, from the looks of your schedule, how do you find time to sleep?**

In the words of Warren Zevon, "I'll sleep when I'm dead." I'm fortunate in that three or four good hours a night will usually suffice, and if need be, I can set the alarm on my Palm and take a power nap at my desk on my lunch break.

**About our argument over truth, we can end that if you want. I understand the frustration. I know that sometimes it's hard to find the words to express your true thoughts. I do that too...all the time. For me it's called a "brain fart".**

I don't see that discussion going anywhere. You find it impossible to conceive of multiple, equally valid truths, and I find it impossible to imagine a world without them.
And we call those moments brain farts at my house too. ;D

**Anyway, good luck to you on all that your doing. If you wouldn't mind, I would like to ask your permission to be able to pray for you. I know we have different faiths, so I would hope that I can pray to my God for you? Thanks.**

I consider prayer offered on my behalf, regardless of the faith of the person doing the praying or what deity they are praying to, to be positive energy directed toward me, and I'll take all the positive energy I can get. I will ask, however, that you not pray for my conversion, although from what you've posted so far, I don't really imagine you as the type who would use prayer as an act of aggression (which is what I would consider a prayer for another person to convert from one faith to another).

Hi Anon 1:

I've had a hard time in other conversations getting through to other people that it's ok if they believe something different, but there are as many possibilities as there are people. What one seemed to have the hardest time with is that Christian idea of heaven holds absolutely no interest to me if as Jews or Pagans everyone I hold dear is elsewhere. Fire to me represents a cleansing, purifying element that is a part of each ritual I do. If I'm already dead, I don't think I'll experience it, if at all, the same way I might while still alive. If that version of god exists, he's got a lot to account for.

I think it's incredibly limiting to any deity to have one book and say 'that's all that's been said about him'. Why limit the Divine that way?

You say that your spreading of the 'good news' is done out of love. As do others. But to a Pagan, often times that 'love' comes along with absolutely horrendous acts done in the name of that love. The Burning times was long ago, but things do still happen today in the name of Jesus or your god that contradict completely what he taught, even in America. Most likely you won't hear about it in the mainstream media because most people don't think we even exist, or don't have a religion of our own, or worship something that has nothing to do with us.

Please understand, I have no problem with Christians or anyone else. I was raised Jewish and have felt like I dodged a theological bullet. Never had to be afraid for my mortal soul. Don't know if Jesus existed (no archaeological evidence that i can find indicates anything other than the period of time he's said to have lived) and I certainly don't think he would have been the first person to come up with the idea to love unconditionally and not judge.

I think so many people get caught up in language that they miss the point of what Jesus is supposed to have said. I have a problem with hypocrisy in any religion. Claiming 'god' called them to do the most cruel things to other life on this planet and calling it love. And then wondering why it tends to backfire.

I see the Divine in absolutely everything, all the time around me. Therefore there cannot be a place in any life that is separated from love for me. I can interact with the universe at almost any time (except maybe when operating heavy machinery! :) ) so I feel it everyday, in everything I do, and it gives me a sense of joy and peace that is active and ultimately renewable as well as an absolute marvel at how it all works. The more I find out from science the more amazed I am.

Blessed be on your journey. May you find what you seek. :)

Wow Lep, from the looks of your schedule, how do you find time to sleep? I'm very impressed I must say. I always appreciate an artistic talent. Acting and singing....nice!

About our argument over truth, we can end that if you want. I understand the frustration. I know that sometimes it's hard to find the words to express your true thoughts. I do that too...all the time. For me it's called a "brain fart". Anyway, good luck to you on all that your doing. If you wouldn't mind, I would like to ask your permission to be able to pray for you. I know we have different faiths, so I would hope that I can pray to my God for you? Thanks.

ANON1:

I'm not angry with you - just frustrated that I can't seem to get across what I mean by relative truth.

Add to that the fact that I'm a bit tired - I just accepted a role in a play that a friend of mine wrote (5 characters, 3 actors), and right after Labor Day, I'm auditioning for a community theater musical production. So I'm trying to get off book for the role I've already accepted in case I get cast in the other show so that I will be able to do both shows, despite the overlapping rehearsal schedules, while at the same time working on my song for the vocal part of the audition ("Frank Mills" from "Hair" - it's my favorite song from the whole show).

I'm going to take my script and a glass of blackberry wine to bed with me now and study my lines for a while longer - I've got about half the first scene down and I want to have the first act down cold by the time we have our first rehearsal Tuesday night. Work is really going to interfere with my script study time.

Truth is NOT relative. There is an objective reality, however, our ability to perceive it, as individuals and as a species is imperfect. What you may define as two different but equally true "truths" are simply life paths or thought-processes that work for YOU as individuals, but neither one is necessarily the same thing as reality. Call it subjective truth if you want, but even that muddies the concept of the word.

Science provides the most reliable path to finding objective truth. It will likely never answer everything, perhaps not most things, but it certainly is a powerful tool for weeding out those beliefs which are NOT true. And once you've done some heavy weeding, whatever is left is significantly more likely to be true than the collection of stories that you started with.

Lep,

I would never refer anyone to AIG. They are a bunch of whackos. Just thought I would share. I would much rather prefer to refer someone to the likes of nature magazine or national geographic for scientific answers.

And by the way Lep, you seem to portray a sense of anger towards me. I'm not sure what caused this or not, but if you don't like what I say and it offends you we can stop this conversation if you like. If you don't agree that's ok. I never said anyone was wrong for disagreeing. We all have our opinions and our beliefs. I surely understand if you do not want to be challenged by an opposing idea and if you would prefer, I would rather not argue an idea in place of losing respect for the individual. I only intend to challenge ideas in a respectful and courteous manner. Does that mean I have to agree with you on everything? No. But because I disagree doesn't mean that I hate you. I hope you realize this.

I do believe that the main topic that I brought up is the most important in all aspects of life and I see the disagreement on that. That truth is relative. Like I showed before, it's an impossibly logical position to hold. I respectfully mean that, but that is reality. I guess since no one else can come to terms with that reality, the point of the conversation must be over, I guess. I do thank you Lep for your opinions and your shared beliefs. I have learned a lot about the wiccan belief system and found it to be quite educational for myself. I thank you for that. Take care and have a great day.

I have a new name, Anon to Anon 1. Sound good? Now they can't delete me. :)

Priver, I forgot that I wanted to respond to one of you comments.

"It's really wonderful to have this conversation with someone who may feel differently but who doesn't resort to 'my book is literal' and 'you're going to burn forever'.. so many thanks for that. :"

Yes, I know that many Christians approach the subject of "burning in hell" as a way to fearfully gain points in an argument. First of all it's not very Christian to tell someone they are gonna burn in hell. That is not our decision and we are not the Judge. I would be lying to you if I said I didn't believe that anyone would go there. So, I will remain truthful. On the subject of our eternal beings, I think it needs to be approached sensitively. I truly feel that if we discuss the eternal state of being in hell or heaven we need to explain the why's in a loving manner. I believe we are to love everyone as commanded by Jesus. This being so, I would find it that if I were to love someone, would I care about their eternal being? Of course! So to approach this in a simplistic and proper manner would be that I do care about your eternal being. I believe in hell as a real place. I don't know if there really is "fire and brimstone" and the such but I do know that it is the eternal absence of love. I wouldn't want anyone to go there. God doesn't either. It is by choice whether we choose to accept God or not. If not then there is a place where those are able to go to forever and be denied the presence of God. God is love, therefore it would be the absence of love. A very despair place I would imagine. So, I have no idea if your gonna go there or not. Some may confess to faith in Jesus on their death beds and recieve salvation. Some may not. It is by choice. God respects your choice if you choose to remain absent in His presence here on earth, then He will respect that choice in the eternal realm as well. But overall, this is the Christian belief and the struggle to preach the Word of God (or the gospel) to everyone. It is by love in those who we do not even know that we preach this gospel, not for our sakes, but for yours. You may not believe it or not want to believe it, but we do and out of the love of our hearts we want to tell you about it. I would hope that this is the proper method about talking about the eternal being of our souls. Every sin is forgivable, but one. I choose not to tell you what that one is, so you do not commit it just in case one day you decide Jesus is right for you. But for now, I can say that for the love of mankind I preach this gospel. The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world. Whoever believes in that is saved. That simple. That is my message in it's simplicity. Whether in the end you accept that or not is your decision and for me to ever say anyone in particular would be going to hell is not the Christian thing to do. Just though I'd clarify that. Thanks.

In response to Cal Thomas’ column condemning people concerned about global warming wherein he also dismisses the consensus from the scientific community whose reputable members, unlike opinion columnists, are required by their peers to maintain high ethical & professional standards. Perhaps Thomas does not understand that these standards preclude require scientists to warn about climate changes that will greatly impact all of us, with drought, flooding, and extinctions resulting in starvation and disorder. People of good conscience have a moral duty to loudly ring all the belts that can still be rung to avoid catastrophic human suffering.

This is a column meant to promote denial and continue a destructive status quo that benefits powerful energy industries. Not that Thomas has much credibility. He is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing, a mouthpiece for the economic right-wing under the guise of a Christian political moralist. I suspect he is in truth more beholden to the principles of Caesar than the commandments of Christ.

Thomas would have the reader believe that respect for our environment is a religious “jihad.” He demeans the common ground of decency by claiming that love, respect and protection for God’s earthly creation insult the Creator of this irreplaceable diversity and beauty. Thomas’ deceptions include accusations that reputable scientists are distorting science and silencing opponents, especially the “real” climatologists.

These tactics are accompanied by Thomas’ usual disregard for the deceptions that have defined the Bush Administration, including silencing scientific reports at the behest of the oil industry, policies actually written by this industry, as well as the numerous deceptions in Bush Administrations statements about numerous policies and issues.

It is a measure of our cultural disintegration that opportunistic extremist voices are awarded prominent roles in mainstream media while reasonable counterparts are virtually drowned out by news entertainment and partisanship. I tire of people of Thomas’ ilk reducing our public discourse to the name-calling most appealing to the least common denominators of bigotry and ignorance. It is hard work to remain apathetic to our grandchildren’s future; the alternative is uncomfortably insistent that we might have to adjust lifestyles a notch to ensure common survival. I tire of their rhetoric, as reasonably argued as school-yard bully taunts, the lies and deceptions which have promoted war and opposed the common good on every issue and at every turn, and at their vicious reactions to every criticism of their preferred policies enabling greed, selfishness and ignorance.

ANON:
**However according to the bee analogy, it's missing one thing. Reality. Yes, they may see it in different colors, but what is the reality.**

So what color are the flowers really? Or does it matter? As long as the pigments they contain react with light in such a way as to attract pollinators by being poerceptible to their visual organs, does it matter if they are red, yellow, blue, white, chartreuse, or puce?

**But would they be willing to die for a lie?**

Sure, if they earnestly believed that Ieshua was the Messiah, and that their interpretation of events was true.

**If I witness something and make a lie about it, I sure would not be willing to die and be tortured for that lie.**

I never said that they made up lies. I said that they believed that he was th fulfillment of prophesy, and that belief colored their accounts of events.

**It may seem fair to punish or even destroy the adult for their evil actions, but the children?? This is one of the many questions that non-Christians raise. My only request for an answer is to give me a specific passage Biblically in context.**

How about the whole damned exodus from Egypt? Multiple accounts of wholesale destruction of every city the Children of Israel encountered, down to infants, livestock, and crops.

**Otherwise another answer is that children have an age of accountability. Therefore, maybe their parents did evil and God had to wipe out a whole race of people to stop this evil, but the children get to be with God forever. Some think this is not right, but what better than being with God forever. God is love. In the presence of love forever sounds good to me. Now whether going to that presence of God is now as an adult or in infancy, then how do I make that decision. I am not God, but I know God is just and those children are better off being in the presence of love, then living in the presence of evil.**

Sorry, but I don't buy the idea of justified genocide. And if children who have not yet reached some arbitrary age of accountabilty are better off dead, then why not just kill them all at birth?

**I think the 6000 year thing is one of the big misconceptions about Christianity.**

I've had it thrown at me by more fundamentalist Christians than I can count who constantly refer me to AIG.

Lep!

You said,
"Gotta agree with you there. I get mine form a local apiary and there's all the difference in the world. As for beer, I don't do anything that's labeled "reduced calorie," "light," "lite," or otherwise altered from its true nature. I mean, wtf is "fat-free sour cream?" And I refuse to drink any beer that light can pass through. "

A True Lady after my own heart. Damn, what a pity you are already married! OK, so far as beer goes, check out
http://www.arrogantbastard.com/
You are not worthy! Neither am I! Oh, great God in heaven, THAT is an ale!!!!! I truly believe St Pete has one in his hand right now.

More on math when dinner has settled down. Bread in oven, stew on the stove. Gotta get the portabellas in the stew.

Very insightful responses. This is what I love about cultural differences and religious differences. I would think it would be important to challenge the ideas of others not out of lack of respect but out of learning. I hope that my challenges are met with continual respect as well as to the challenges of Christianity will be met on my part with respect. I actually find it quite satisfying to defend my faith and I'm sure you might all as well.

You know I was just thinking this morning how similiar paganism is with hinduism. They both use two seperate forms of logic. There seems to be a disregard for contradiction. For example in hinduism they say you can be a christian, muslim, pagan, etc. but still be a hindu. Huh? But being a christian means that there is only one god, not many. So that is contradictory. Get what I'm saying? How can I be a christian and believe in only one God and be a hindu and believe in many? It's like telling someone that I've never been married, but then a half an hour goes by and I tell them that I've been married 4 times. See the contradiction? This is why truth is so importatnt to me. It should be for everyone, shouldn't it? If we knew the absolute truth about WMD's in Iraq, do you think we could have stopped the war? Maybe, maybe not, but it would give us better leverage. If we knew the absolute truth about Iran and if they are indeed building nuclear weapons as compared to just peaceful nuclear energy, then wouldn't we react different? And wouldn't our actions be different. I like what Winston Churchill says about truth. "The absolute truth is always accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." How true is that?

Lep,

I see your examples of relativistic truths. However according to the bee analogy, it's missing one thing. Reality. Yes, they may see it in different colors, but what is the reality. For example, just for argument sake, let's say the God of the Bible is real and the goddesses and gods of paganism are not. The reality is that the Biblical God is real. You don't see it that way, but it doesn't mean it's not real. There is a reality of truth. Just because some do not see it that way doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The steak analogy is not about truth but opinion. The absolute truth is that steak has a specific texture and taste that we all can identify with. It's a matter of opinion as to who like it. Just like a jalapeno. We can all agree that the jalapeno is spicy. It is opinion if one likes spicy or not, but the absolute truth is that it is spicy. Maybe spicier to some people than others, but still spicy.

Let me re-phrase the truth relativism phrase. Let's say that in reality truth really is relative. This means that anyone can have whatever truth they want because it's all relative and it's all the truth. So my truth is that relative truth is false. If you disagree with my truth, then you disagree with your own statement that "truth is relative" because it wouldn't be in my case. And if you agree with me then truth is not relative. It is a logically impossible position to hold!

"The men who worte the NT believed that Ieshua was the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies, so it makes sense that they would write their accounts in a way that would show him to be."

But would they be willing to die for a lie? If they wrote the NT accounts as eyewitnesses to the accounts upon fabrications, then why be imprisoned, tortured and eventually murdered for that lie? If I witness something and make a lie about it, I sure would not be willing to die and be tortured for that lie. I'll just tell the truth. So if indeed they fabricated the NT to fulfill prophecies, then they were the dumbest knuckleheads in the history of the world. Especially Saul of Tarsus, considering he had a very comfortable life as a high priest. Then one day Jesus came to him because Saul was persecuting Christians. Saul became Paul and gave up a life of luxury for torment, loss and eventual murder. Why? For a lie? Doesn't seem to be right does it?

"My daughter's dad and I created her. That does not give us the right to do with her as we please. Just the opposite - having created her imposes upon us an obligation and a responsibility to protect her from harm and to make sure that her needs are met. And while disciplinary consequences for misbehavior are part of that responsibility, we do not have the right to kill or abandon her, no matter how badly she behaves."

Very good point, but quite the difference between a God creation and pro-creation on a human level. Of course when our kids are out of line or disobey, we don't kill them. But the difference is that they are our literal children from pro-creation. We are not literal pre-creation children from God. We are simply creation. God must be a just God as well. I mean what do you do with those who are evil? Just like our court systems. What do judges do with those kill their families? They make a judgement. I would tend to think the Creator of all things would have a right to judge accordingly. Of course the argument Biblically is for the children of these evil people. It may seem fair to punish or even destroy the adult for their evil actions, but the children?? This is one of the many questions that non-Christians raise. My only request for an answer is to give me a specific passage Biblically in context. Otherwise another answer is that children have an age of accountability. Therefore, maybe their parents did evil and God had to wipe out a whole race of people to stop this evil, but the children get to be with God forever. Some think this is not right, but what better than being with God forever. God is love. In the presence of love forever sounds good to me. Now whether going to that presence of God is now as an adult or in infancy, then how do I make that decision. I am not God, but I know God is just and those children are better off being in the presence of love, then living in the presence of evil.

"As for an Ultimate Source, all I can say is that I don't know yet. But I don't think it was spoken into being 6000 years ago"

I can see you've been either listening to atheists or young earth creationists. They always bring up Ussher's Chronolgy of a 6000 year old universe. I'll tell you that I've examined the words in the creation account of Genesis 1 in Hebrew and there is quite a bit of suggestion that the universe can be much older. In fact with an indefinite amount of time. For example: Gen 1:1-2 says V 1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Ok so we have basic creation in verse one. Universe and earth created in one verse. Just the foundation so far. V 2. 2The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. So it indicates that there is an earth that was formless and void and God was moving about on this formless earth. For how long? Billions of years maybe? See how the creation account is suggestive of a longer than 6000 year span since creation? So between verse 1 and 2 we have an indefinate amount of time. Who knows, maybe it was billions of years, right? I think the 6000 year thing is one of the big misconceptions about Christianity. It is always used by atheists to try to prove the Bible wrong scientifically.

Anyway, enough babbling. Just though I would clarify a few things. Have a wonderful day you all!

Arminius:
**Be careful of 1 + 1 = 2. Think math. It is basically a closed system (not entirely), and if you consider this it holds true. Taking it beyond the bonds of logic is simply methphysical masturbation.**

You say this as though metaphysical masturbation is a bad thing. I find it every it as pleasurable as the physical variety.

**Also note that I am a honey snob, and search for honey made from wild flowers. The common processed clover honey bears the same resemblance to true honey as light beer does to a true beer.**

Gotta agree with you there. I get mine form a local apiary and there's all the difference in the world. As for beer, I don't do anything that's labeled "reduced calorie," "light," "lite," or otherwise altered from its true nature. I mean, wtf is "fat-free sour cream?" And I refuse to drink any beer that light can pass through.

Arminius,

Before you say that there is a limit beyond which mathematics cannot be applied, read Edwin Abbott's "Flatland" and Tom Stoppard's "Arcadia."

Yes, they're both satire, but also both make some excellent connections between mathematics ans metaphysics.

Lep,

You can indeed apply mathematics to a lot of things. Keep in mind that you will eventually reach a point where it does not apply.

More later. Just kneaded the bread, and must get the stew going.

I love mathematics, and I was fortunate enough to have had sevcreal teachers who approached it as a language, not as simply a set of steps to be memorized.

My husband, my daughter, and I were talking about something similar the other night - the idea that mathematics can be used to describe anything. (She's taking a philosophy class this year, as well as a class in theoretical maths, and she's finding that there's a lot of overlap). I guess it's time for her to read "Arcadia."

Antaeus,

Be careful of 1 + 1 = 2. Think math. It is basically a closed system (not entirely), and if you consider this it holds true. Taking it beyond the bonds of logic is simply methphysical masturbation.

Regarding vegans. I won't even write this in caps. They are a cult. I do not say this lightly.

Honey?!? Oh, my God! Here is a true gift from heaven! I cannot live without it. Also note that I am a honey snob, and search for honey made from wild flowers. The common processed clover honey bears the same resemblance to true honey as light beer does to a true beer.

Oh, goody. Math.

Even before I was Pagan I was heavily into the environmental movements, and the left wing of it at that. There was an article in on the early 80's Earth First! journal that discussed Math. To believe that 1+1=2, one would need to believe that there are, in fact, two of the same thing, rather than every single thing being unique. Set theory, on which Math is based, teaches us to seperate objects into groups based on things they have in common. But what many people forget is that these groupings are for our convenience, those lines around those sets exist in our minds, not necesarily in reality.

Then the article went on to explain the problems with the concept of 1, which assumes items remain the same over time, rather than changing from one instant to the next as they in fact do.

As for Vegans--my journey to Vegetarianism was a very slow and gradual one, each step taken for a different reason. At the point I had stopped eating Dairy and Egg products, I foolishly assumed I was therefore Vegan, and called myself such for about half a year.

Then I met an actual Vegan.

I was quickly and decisively informed that I could not even think of being Vegan until I had also given up honey, and that there were other issues as well. I was recomended to a few books.

I actually did try to give up honey, but my spiritual connection to bees, plus the fact that my commitment to organics already eliminated white sugar, made this too difficult to continue. Also, actual Vegans apparently can't eat food that is cooked or served in utinsils or dishes that have ever been used with meat. They cannot eat at a restaurant without first having closely questioned exactly how the food is cooked, which limits their eating out to restaurants willing to tell them that yes, vegetarian dishes are cooked in seperate pots reserved for that use only. There are many other issues I won't go into here--again googling will yield a wealth of reading on this subject.

Several years later I was in the check-out line at the local natural food store when the cashier commented that I shopped a lot like a Vegan and asked if I was one. For some reason she became rather offended when I said I didn't think I could be rude enough to be Vegan.

My take on axioms, eh?

Track anything back far enough and you find an axiomatic basis.

Even to prove that 2 + 2 = 4, you have to first define "two," "plus," "equal" and "four." Defining terms for any proof involves accepting certain assumptions. Every mathematical proof I've ever studied has begun with the word "Given:" followed by a set of conditions under which the proof is true.

And is 2 + 2 = 4 true if you're using a number system other than base 10? Or is even 2 + 2 = 4 a relative truth?

If proving something that we can physically demonstrate by counting on our fingers, toes, or other bodily appendages involves a certain degree of, for want of a better word, faith, is it any big surprise that proving the basis of one's faith to one who does not share it is nigh impossible?

Now, please tell me more about your brother and biodynamics. As a gardener and one concerned about the production methods used to bring the food my family eats to the market (it's why I'll pay $9 for a free-range, organic pullet at the Farmer's Market rather than $3 for a cage-raised, debeaked, antiobiotic- and hormone-laced fryer at the supermarket), my curiosity is piqued.

Lep,

You exhaust me! Please stop making me think so much, it hurts! (LOL)

For starters, we agree on steaks. As an aside on that, my brother in law (actually a 'true' brother, if not a blood brother) is heavily into biodynamics. He defines biodynamics thusly: "Take away the chemicals, which makes farming negative, and you have returned to organic, which is zero. Add biodynamics, and you are in the positive." He sells his stuff world wide, even to Saudia Arabia. Suggest you get on the web if that interests you. If you can find biodynamic wine, I urge you to try it. Anyway, my brother will not hire a vegan; his experience with them has been that they are evangelistic bigots who are very disruptive. No problem with vegetarians; me either, my daughter is one, and so is my best friend.

I would be very interested on your take on my small piece above on axioms.

ANON:
**If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self contradictory. Therefore there is one Truth and truth is absolute, not relative. When you say "truth is relative", that's making an absolute truth statement which means that that statement is self-contradictory and therefore false. Truth is absolute. So either my God is true, your god(s) is/are true or neither of them are true. Either we both are not living in reality because truth conforms to reality, or only one of us is. Which one? And if Wicca is not a systematic religion, meaning that one wiccan can believe in one god and another believe in many, then isn't it contradictory? And if contradictory, then how can it be truth? Or are we both living a lie?**

I'll take you back to the bee. Are the flowers REALLY red and yellow, or are they REALLY blue and white, or does their color depend on the ocular and nervous structures of the observer?

If I say that well-done steaks are disgusting, and rare is the only way beef is fit for human consumption, that is absolutely true for me. When my mom says that rare meat is nasty, and the only way any meat is fit to eat is well-done to the brink of burnt, that is absolutely true for her. When my vegan friend says that all meat is nauseating, it's true for her - put a steak on her plate, and she will barf no matter how it's cooked. Who's right? Or do we all have different, but equally valid dietary truths?

**Also, when I look at Biblical prophecy whether is be messianic or end times prophecy, it is hard to resist the fact that it is 100% accurate to the minute detail. This for me qualifies as proof of a specific devine being. That devine being the God of the Bible. The Bible is also historically accurate and backed with archaeological evidence.**

I'm always skeptical regarding prophecy. The men who worte the NT believed that Ieshua was the fulfillment of Messianic prophecies, so it makes sense that they would write their accounts in a way that would show him to be. Hindsight and interpretation can make any event the fulfillment of a prophecy. As for end times prophecy, people have been declaring imminent Armageddon for over a century now, and it hasn't happened yet. So I'm not sure where you get 100% accuracy of prophecy. As for archaeology - Atlanta, Georgia is a real place. William Tecumseh Sherman was a real general who burned it to the ground during a real historical event called the American Civil War. There is extant physical evidence that this war and Sherman's March actually happened. Despite the fact that "Gone with the Wind" is set in a real place and contains descriptions of real battles, it is still a work of fiction.

**In short, if in fact the God of the Bible is the one true God, that would make Him creator of all things. How can we question what God wants to do with His creation?**

My daughter's dad and I created her. That does not give us the right to do with her as we please. Just the opposite - having created her imposes upon us an obligation and a responsibility to protect her from harm and to make sure that her needs are met. And while disciplinary consequences for misbehavior are part of that responsibility, we do not have the right to kill or abandon her, no matter how badly she behaves.

**I can't say I've ever met a person who can sincerely tell me that they do not have any regrets in life that were causes from their own shortcomings (sins). Only when I accepted the free gift of grace could I feel forgiven. This was the only "feeling" I got from my God. I "feel" forgiven. There is nothing like having the weight of sin lifted off your back. But it can't be lifted if you can't recognize it. This is what my God has done for me. Forgiven me of my sins and offered me eternal life in His presence.**

Have I done things I wish I hadn't? Sure. But rather than condemning myself with guilt over so-called sins, I try to learn from them so that I don't make the same mistake again. (Instead I find brand new nistakes to make). If I harm another, I seek foriveness from and make what reparations I can to the one I harmed, not a deity. It is my belief that only the one harmed can forgive the harm, and they have the option of refusing foriveness. It can't be done via third party. If I steal your car, and I apologize to my mom for having stolen your car, she can't forgive me for it. If I ask your forgiveness, you might or might not choose to forgive me - it might depend on my reason for having taken your car (was it to joy-ride, to use as a get-away car fro robbery, or to transport my hemmorhaging grandmother to the hospital?), whether I returned the car or not, or what condition I returned the car in (did I push it off a cliff, total or strip it, or repair any damages I did while I had it?).

** And for my own educational purposes, what does wicca say concerning the meaning of life, creation and after death?**

I can only speak for my own beleifs on the subject, since there is no dogma that I know of, and even if there were, I have always had a problem with accepting dogma simply because it's the established dogma. It has to make sense to me, or forget it.
Creation - I think that our Universe is one of many, and that phenomena such as black holes, quasars, etc result from overlaps between them. I think that the Big Bang which began our Univers may well have been the result of just such an overlap. It makes more sense to me than "God said, "Let there be..."" As for an Ultimate Source, all I can say is that I don't know yet. But I don't think it was spoken into being 6000 years ago.
The answer to the ultimate question regarding life, the univers and everything is 42. We just haven't figured out exactly what the question is. Or so say the mice. The meaning and purpose of your life is up to you to find. The meaning and purpose of my life is up to me to find. One size fits all is an incomplete sentence.
After death, my unembalmed body will be placed in the earth, where it will become food for worms, beetles, bacteria, fungi, and other assorted beasties. It will pass through their digestive systems, and the remains that emerge will become part of the soil, which will feed plants, which will feed animals, which will feed other animals, all of which will utimately die, and become part of the soil...and so it goes. That's eternal life, baby. That part of me which is pure energy, my spirit, will disperse and become part of the vast energy of the Universe. If I have left this earth with a karmic debt still owed, then when conditions are right for me to be able to repay that debt, my spirit will be pulled back to the physical realm and reborn in another body, giving me the opportunity to correct the imbalance I created.

**If involved in Wicca, are all Wiccans polytheistic? Or are there monotheistic wiccans as well? **

I've never known a monotheistic Wiccan, but I do know that many focus more on the Goddess than on the God.

**Is wicca sort of the pagan name for a diverse religion? Really kind of like there are different denominations but it's still called Wicca?**

Wicca is to Paganism what Methodism is to Christianity. Just as all Methodists are Christian, but not all Christians are Methodist, all Wiccans are Pagan, but not all Pagans are Wiccan. And just as there are different branches within Methodism, there are different types of Wiccans.

Hi Antaeus,

I tend to move more towards twos because for me it represents a balance, or at least a striving to restore a balance when it's been lost. The number 4 has always played a huge part in my life and in the patterns I've picked up on. Four directions, four elements, etc. For me, the threes, fives, and sevens sometimes are really hard to wrap my brain around because I have a tendency to search for the patterns, to try to see/restore balance. I guess it's just the way I'm wired. :)

I do agree with you when you talked about

"In other words, we are each so unique that to focus on and bond with persons we share a few characteristics with is to ignore the fact that in actuality we are each totally unique."

What I meant was recognizing that no matter what our socio/economic status, religious background, etc, that we are all human, all part of the web of life and as such we should honor that. I do agree that there is a unique place and purpose for everyone and that the idea of life is to get as close to that as possible. If everyone followed the same path, all believed in exactly the same things, did exactly the same things, life would be pretty boring. and most likely Stagnant. The only constant that the Goddess has shown me is change, diversity. Love and appreciation for all that I have follows daily from it.

Anonymous:
This path is not an easy one, for most people, for a whole lot of reasons. It wouldn't be right for me to try to convince you that your idea of truth is somehow bad. All I can do is share what I've felt, experienced and learned.I learn just as much from people who think differently than I, and I really enjoy the process. To correct misinformation about what Paganism is and is not. And the process never ends.

It's really wonderful to have this conversation with someone who may feel differently but who doesn't resort to 'my book is literal' and 'you're going to burn forever'.. so many thanks for that. :)

I think you're confusing Wicca and Paganism. It's a common mistake. Paganism is an umbrella term used these days to describe any number of earth based spiritual systems, of which Wicca is one of the larger. Wiccans honor the Great Goddess, known by many names, and the holidays are following the cycles of seasons as she gives birth to the Sun God, her consort, who impregnates her in spring and then dies as the world grows cold. I think for Wiccans as for many Pagans it really depends on how the Goddess chooses to reveal Herself to them. It's not so much a pick and choose as a seek and this is what I've experienced. It's more monism for me than polytheism. The gods and goddesses for me are all part of one overarching force. Others feel differently, and that's ok. It may actually change for me as I go forward, and that would be ok too.

Are there squabbles over differences? Of course. But as Pagans we understand that there are supposed to be more than one path to the divine. And that's ok. Often what will happen is that Pagans will gather somewhere and perform rituals on the holidays, then when they dissipate will go home and do their own brand of ritual. Paganism has such emphasis on taking responsibility for what you do to other people.

There is such a practical side to Paganism that tends to get lost in the 'what is truth' discussion. We don't discount logic. We just learn when to use it and when it's not going to help. Scientific thought plays a HUGE part in it too. I learn about what has been figured out from the evidence and put that in my worldview. That's how I fell in love with the Earth and all the possibilities. Nothing is static and there is so much to learn from Nature and others. For me there's an incredible joy and wonder at the mystery of it all. :)

Bright blessings. :)

Anonymous,

Excellent posts, thank you. I appreciate your search for understanding and your acceptance of others.

A few comments here, bear with me please.

Wicca, as I understand it, is certainly diverse. But if you want the ultimate, Guiness-Book-of-World-Records-type of diverse religion, check out Hinduism. Runs the gamut from classical polytheism thru monotheism into atheism. And includes a temple devoted to rats! Endlessly fascinating.

You are a bit hung up on 'truth' and 'reality'. I could say 'Define truth and/or reality and give three examples of each.' Flippant? Of course. But such a question can produce some interesting thought experiments/adventures that can be learning experiences. Pursue and examine and analyze any organized body of thought, and you will reach axioms. Any 'proof' offered by these bodies of organized thought, whether they be religions, philosophies, constitutions, or scientific ideas, depends on the axioms that they stand on. And these axioms cannot be proved - they are accepted on 'faith', as it were.

Take plane geometry, the classical example. By accepting Euclid's five axioms, you can prove, and prove logically and absolutely, that the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 degrees. Ahah! you say. A universal truth! Well, er..... not exactly. In spherical geometry, a triangle can have 3 angles totaling anywhere from 180+ to just under 360 degrees..... all depends on your viewpoint, i.e., your axioms.

Well, there are certainly several different types of Wicca, such as Gardnerian, Alexandrian, Faerie, and many others--a good Googling would probably find you dozens. And I suppose some of them have definate views on Deities and how many there are--as I said in my reply to Priver, a lot of them believe that All Goddeses are an aspect of The Goddess, and All Gods are an aspect of The God. Dianic faiths would even go on to say the only The Goddess is important, and The God, if he exists at all, is certainly in a secondary position to her.

As for how both could be right, I'll use the pie anology. If you leave the pie whole, or cut it into eight equal slices, or divide the crust from the filling, it is still the same pie. And in a Universe filled with many types of energy, many objects and substances all interacting with one another, it is perfectly valid to say on the one hand that they are all parts of the same whole, so it is all One thing, but it is also perfectly valid to address each part individually, or divide reality into those parts that interact most closely together, so it would be equally valid to have Two Gods, or Twelve, or Hundreds.

And again, I wouldn't say that Wiccan or Pagans make up, or create, their own diety(ies). I would say rather that we interact with those diety(ies) that we experience, that interact with us. So it isn't about our immaginations or our desires to feel good as much as it is about our experiences, or for some of us, our visions. Let me put it plainly. My relationships with my Gods are as real to me as my relationships with my family and my closest friends. My memories of my past lives are as real to me as my memories of first grade. Everything I have expereiced in my life since that August day in 1984, joys and sorrows, triumphs and disasters, hopes and fears, have reinforced my beliefs and trust in Wicca/Paganism and the Deities I worship.

I'm not so sure I believe in any laws of non-contradiction, either. I believe contradiction is around us all the time, and it is the human mind that finds ways to ignore and rationaize this, since I admit a non-contradictory world is easier to deal with. I think you see reality as something solid, stable, unchanging, with static laws and predictable outcomes. In this you share a lot with scientiists and their methods. I on the other hand see reality as fluid, constantly changing, with relationships rather than laws and interactions between forces that are not always predictable or non-contradictory. There is a pattern to the Universe, but that pattern is extremely complex, more so than humans can grasp in its totality, and constantly changing to boot.

So, I would say it would not be so innaccurate to say that we do, in fact, live in different worlds. And mine functions quite nicely for me, as well as me working for _it_. And since you have stated how well your world works for you (and you for it, of course), I don't see a reason for either of us to change.

I very much enjoyed reading all your posts. I am always a sucker for wanting to hear another person's worldviews. I appreciate it. And not only do I appreciate it, I respect your right to your faith as well. We have all been given the right of freewill in choice. I believe our freewill is sacred. Something that my God gave us so that love can be truthful, not forceful. Whether you accept my God or not is your choice and your freewill and to violate that choice is to violate something that is sacred. I would hope that you do not see my line of questioning as a violation of your freewill. Again, I question the idea while remaining respectful to the individual. I think that's the key to peaceful understanding in a pluralistic society. I hope that you all would agree.

Unfortunately, I am stick stuck on truth. I know you are all probably sick of it, but I do think it is important. I believe we are in reality, not some dream where anything goes. I believe there is an absolute truth that conforms to reality. When I think of terms in logic, I have a hard time understanding Wicca. I realize it is not a systematic religion. It is kind of a pick and choose method of however the individual would like to create their own deity. Of course this is an assumption that is the basis for the following question. If involved in Wicca, are all Wiccans polytheistic? Or are there monotheistic wiccans as well? And how is it logical that they both can be right? I've heard some explanation on this, but have yet to figure out the meaning. I would believe that the laws of non-contradiction come into account. If reality is based on truth, then how can some wiccans say there is only one deity and some say many? Is wicca sort of the pagan name for a diverse religion? Really kind of like there are different denominations but it's still called Wicca? Just curious. Thanks.

Hello, Priver, its nice to see someone besides me is up and on the computer this late on a Saturday night. :) You also handily illustrate how in Wicca we each have our own vision of and experience of the truth of the Universe. Duality is a very common, indeed the standard, way for Wiccans to explain the basis of reality. Its never really worked for me though--I always have this bad habit of making things as complex as possible, and I'm afraid I see the relationships of the various and sundry components of the Universe and Reality as being much less organized than that, where the forces interacting are in fives and sevens and hundreds rather than being neatly divided into twos. (Same with deities--I still cringe a bit when I hear the "all Goddesses are one Goddess, all Gods are one God" line). Also in my practice I tend to emphasize our differences, our uniqueness, rather than our sameness. Many enlightened humans put forward the idea that deep down, we are all the same, and that conflicts arise when we focus on our differences rather than our similarities. I would like to put forth for consideration an opposite approach. Many of the conflicts that occur amoung humans are between different groups of people who see themselves as similar to one another and different from another group. Since I see us all as unique persons, individual expresions of the life of the Universe, I would say rather that we should not consider someone who shares ethnic background, religious profession, economic situation, or political affiliation with us to be significantly more similar to us than someone who does not share these things. In other words, we are each so unique that to focus on and bond with persons we share a few characteristics with is to ignore the fact that in actuality we are each totally unique. I think that uniqueness is something to be valued, to be treasured, because it means each person is not replacable or ignorable. I Believe, I have Experienced, that each person has a place to fit into the Universe, a place that is their place of Power and Joy. If, however, we try to fit into someone else's place, follow their vision, be like them, then the place in the Universe that we fit into will remain empty, and we will remain out of place, uncomfortable and alienated.

At any rate, many blessings to you all--I don't know what time zones you are in, but here it is approaching time to enter the dream reality instead of the physical one.

I'm in something of a loquacious mood, so I'll give one of your other questions a shot. I'll have to preface it by saying I'm not sure what all Wiccans specifically has to say about Creation/Death, etc- different people will have different opinions. I can and only will speak for myself. I can't say I know enough specifically about all Wicca to speak for others. My path has much in common with Wicca and I hope to learn more about it eventually. Each path we must walk on our own, but all paths lead to the center.

For me, I see everything as a polarity, existing in cycles: life/ death; creation/destruction, male/female, day/night. One cannot exist without the other. Both exist in us. Dark/Light. There can be no creation without destruction. I believe that there is some sort of creative force, and that it is possible to tap into an interactive relationship with it, in whatever form it presents itself. Death for me is just as sacred as life. It is part of the cycle, and we are part of it and cannot escape it, much as we might want to. As for an afterlife, I have considered three possibilities thus far:

If there is a 'hell', I'd be going there anyway based on my being born Jewish. All my family and everyone I love would be there. Then would it 'really' be hell?

If the energies that make up me/my soul go back into the energies of the Earth from whence it came, that would be fine.

If it was determined that my energies would be best served in another form, that's ok too. I'm absolutely loving my life now, why wouldn't I love it in the future, no matter what form it took?

No matter what happens, I'm no longer afraid to die. I'm only afraid of dying before I've gotten to do everything I've always wanted to. Because I know that my body will decay and become part again of the elements from which I was formed. I'll be in the arms of the Goddess (Earth) one way or the other.

I don't expect her to work FOR me. I hope to establish a reciprocity where She will look out for me and I will do my best to look out for her.It's less about subjugation and more about respect and honoring.

When I was asking God to change me, I did not believe as I do now. I believed that god would give me a new heart, as it says he would in the writings of Paul. I now do not believe it to be necesary for me to ask continiuosly for "forgiveness" for something that is an intrinsic part of my nature.

As for Wicca and the Meaning of Life, I cannot speak for all Wiccans since, as we have already made clear, Wicca emphsizes a personal relationship with the Universe rather than any type of Dogma. What we share in common instead is a number of ceremonies, rituals, teachings, and meditations whose chief purposes are to facilitate the union with the universe, our communication with it, and our celebration of it. Personally, I have expereinced the "after" death as instead being a series of lives, in each one of which I was a unique person, but which I can also perceive as a pattern when taken as a whole. It is also my belief and experience that the purpose of the Universe was to Exist, to dance into being and become reality instead of remaining potential. As for its purpose, I believe that changes and grows, becoming more complex and rich as the universe itself grows and matures. It is my belief that nothing that exists can be destroyed, and equally that nothing that exists can remain the same, but that all continues in an ever-changing and (if you can feel it, if you can percieve it) joyous cycle. To quote Whitman once again, since the subject of this week is quotes after all--This time, it is the last half of the poem "Who Learns My Lessons Complete" from the Autumn Rivulets section of _Leaves of Grass_:

"It is no small matter, this round and delicious globe moving so
exactly in its orbit for ever and ever, without one jolt or
the untruth of a single second,
I do not think it was made in six days, nor in ten thousand years,
nor ten billions of years,
Nor plann'd and built one thing after another as an architect plans
and builds a house.

I do not think seventy years is the time of a man or woman,
Nor that seventy millions of years is the time of a man or woman,
Nor that years will ever stop the existence of me, or any one else.

Is it wonderful that I should be immortal? as every one is immortal;
I know it is wonderful, but my eyesight is equally wonderful, and
how I was conceived in my mother's womb is equally wonderful,
And pass'd from a babe in the creeping trance of a couple of
summers and winters to articulate and walk-all this is
equally wonderful.

And that my soul embraces you this hour, and we affect each other
without ever seeing each other, and never perhaps to see
each other, is every bit as wonderful.

And that I can think such thoughts as these is just as wonderful,
And that I can remind you, and you think them and know them to
be true, is just as wonderful.

And that the moon spins round the earth and on with the earth, is
equally wonderful,
And that they balance themselves with the sun and stars is equally
wonderful."

I would also like to quote from Starhawk, since she was the first author that spoke directly to my soul and confirmed that Paganism was indeed my path. Unfortunately, I'll have to type her poetry in instead of cutting and pasting since I don't know of an online source.

From the book _Truth or Dare:Encounters with Power, Authority, and Mystery_ by Starhawk. The last half of the poem "A Story of Beginnings":

"This is the story we like to tell ourselves
in the night
when the fire seems nothing but dying embers winking out
and the labor is too hard and goes on too long
when we can't believe that we can make it
We like to tell ourselves
that we remember the First Mother

She is alive in you as you in her
A power keener than the weapons edge, a healing deeper than the wound
Feel her in your belly, at the bottom of breath
Her power is life, it is stronger

She is a being who is spinning, fire covered with a sweet crust shell
Feel her pulse, remember in yhour nerves winks the spark of the first fire
You are alive in her as she in you
You are her
Your misty breath great cloud of gasses set in motion by your spinning cand
swirl and cool and rain
for thousands and thousands of years
while you build up, tear down, and rearrange
the ridges and valleys of your skin
carve an smoothe your wrinkles
And the water
softens every shapr edge into soil
fills the basins of you coeans
In you veins flows ocean water
Remember the lightning, sparks striking into being
something new
Life, teeming, greedy life
That grows, cell by swelling cell, divides, devours, unites and changes, filling your ocean belly, flinging a green cloaks over the land, learning to swim, craw, run, stalk, fly, caress, and stand erect, made of
earth air water fire
and what goes beond these and unites these
the mystery

She is alive in us: we are alive in her as in ech other
as all that is alive is alive in us
and all is alive

When we are afraid, when it hurts too much
We like to tell oursleves
stories of power
how we lost it
how we can reclaim it
We tell ourselfes
The cries we hear my be those of labor
the pain we feel may yet be that of birth."

For Anonymous:

I agree with Lep and Antaeus. I too have had similar experiences. For Pagans, such experiences are repeatable and sometimes are remarkably similar to one another's even for people who have never met before, and we learn to discern between what is what we want to hear versus what we need to hear. I am not speaking about 'faith' when I ask the question. If someone has such an all encompassing experience that cannot be explained by any 'rational' means that gives them specific enough information that they act on it and end up saving their own or someone else's life, is that a bad thing?

Let me put it another way. Suppose you walk into a house to look for someone, and you suddenly realize that you're not alone, more than that, you're in danger. Nothing appears to be out of place, but you have a strong feeling that you are in terrible danger. Something just makes you not feel safe. Then you enter one part of the house, and sure enough, there's someone with a bloody knife coming up behind you. Would you stay there and logically try to analyze if you are being deceived? I should hope that you would have enough sense to get out while you can. Most of the time people only listen to their innermost intuition, that bypasses all rational thought when it's a dangerous situation. As a Pagan what I am learning is to use that same intuition and to trust that it will lead me in the right direction. We learn to establish our own reliable relationships with the universe and nature around us, and learn to tell when we are being led in one direction or another. It's less about 'good' vs. 'evil', its about the person and the choices they make. It's not about favoring intuition OVER logic either, it's finding a balance between the two. Faith ultimately cannot be found logically.

But ultimately it is up to us to take responsibility for the harm that we cause. Most Pagans live by at least a couple basic rules. "An it harm none, do as you will". This also includes doing harm to yourself. when you do something bad to another, whether it's another animal, the earth Herself, or another person, it's the same as injuring yourself. Plus we also believe that what we do comes back to us, amplified. Usually threefold, though some will say more, some less. When you see the Divine in everywhere, in everything, you take as much care as possible to show as much respect as possible, knowing whatever you send out comes back to you. If I harm someone, I work to try to apologize and make amends for what I do. i don't believe I am forever 'damned' for it. Nor is anyone else.

I believe that we get so tangled up in our words and little details when we attempt to describe these things. There's such an insistence on pure logic that so many people don't realize the similarities described by all religions. We're so often talking about the same things, just using different names.

I think of truth as a puzzle. After a certain amount of living, I may have found one tiny little piece. After all, we've all here lived till whatever age we currently are, right? We must have figured SOMETHING out. One little tiny piece. Someone hands me a copy of the bible. Maybe I choose to read it. Maybe it provides another little piece. Then maybe someone hands me a book of mythology (of a culture I may or may not have an interest in) and I find wisdom in the stories there. Another little tiny piece. Then maybe I meet someone who teaches me how to tap into my innermost intuition, learn about myself, face my fears in a whole new way that helps me find more joy, balance in life and appreciation. ANOTHER little tiny piece. Et cetera. And so it continues for the rest of my life. I may never have all the pieces. And that's ok. But the picture that is slowly forming is bigger, more wondrous and more amazing than any of us can ever find words for. A whole lot of yins meet scores of yangs, if you like.

It's when we stop looking at ourselves as different from one another and start looking at each of us as absolutely the same that we can find consensus about how to proceed in society. Which will grow, adapt, change, hopefully learn from the past and ultimately evolve as we do.

Ant,

I know exactly what you mean about the OT accounts. There are a great deal of explanations and apologetics to cover all that, but I feel compelled to respond to a different matter. In short, if in fact the God of the Bible is the one true God, that would make Him creator of all things. How can we question what God wants to do with His creation. And if it weren't for man and his sinful nature, then these things would not even occur. That is a short answer and I know definately not a sufficient answer. However I am curious about another issue if you do not mind?

you said

"As for when I left Christianity, what I expected of God was what he promised--that he would change me so that I could become capable of living the type of life he demands that you live. This sort of transformation is mentioned repeatedly in the books of the New Testament. But this was not what happened. I remained the person I was, one who had characteristics that are forbidden to Christians and not compatable with a Bible-based lifestyle."

This sounds to me that you were not taught true Christianity. What do you mean by "forbidden characteristics". If you think Christianity requires you to do something besides have faith, then you've been taught the wrong thing. True Christianity recognizes that man is by nature sinful. Even you admit this contrary to your current belief system. You said that God could not change you. Why would you need to be changed if you thought you were a good person? What changes were you looking for? I'll tell you right now, I'm a born again Christian and have a complete faith in Jesus. But I sin all the time. I always do bad things contrary to what you may think constitutes a person who holds the Christian faith. I probably could not go a day without saying a cuss word. Maybe a week without judging someone. That is the point of Christianity. We could never live up to the perfect and holy laws of God because we are not perfect and holy. It is only when we recognize this that we realize we need forgiveness. I believe it can be a learning experience as well, but there are some things in my life and I'm sure in your life as well that you may feel guilty of or have a hard time forgiving yourself. This is why we need Jesus. This is why I need Jesus. I can't say I've ever met a person who can sincerely tell me that they do not have any regrets in life that were causes from their own shortcomings (sins). Only when I accepted the free gift of grace could I feel forgiven. This was the only "feeling" I got from my God. I "feel" forgiven. There is nothing like having the weight of sin lifted off your back. But it can't be lifted if you can't recognize it. This is what my God has done for me. Forgiven me of my sins and offered me eternal life in His presence. A free gift I might add, that I cannot do to earn but simply accept. This may seem too simple, but it really is. The hard part was cutting past my ego and my pride and to humbly admit that I am a sinner and I can do no good because of that. I can only do good if the good is for the glory of God and by the glory of God.

This is my faith, and I thought I would share it a little bit. I know you might say that it works for me and not for everyone. That may be the case, but I wonder why anyone would expect God to work for them. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

So, I'm curious Antaeus. In your Christian experience what were you expecting as far as change goes? A constant warm fuzzy feeling? Or is it possible that to learn to be obedient to God is a process and not an instantaneous event that springs you to life? And for my own educational purposes, what does wicca say concerning the meaning of life, creation and after death? I know those aren't simple questions, but I really am curious. I have no idea. Thanks and good evening to you.

As an aside, I'm a little worried about the fact that you remain anonymous. I have noticed that several posts on older threads have been removed, many of the from an "anonymous". I note that one of the rules is that unsigned posts will be removed. Does this mean that in a few weeks this will have become a one-sided conversation, and that all of anonymous's post will have been removed? I certainly hope not.

But of course our perception of reality is flawed, that is my point. While you may be able to determine certain facts, about your daughter for example, you cannot know all there is to know about her--I am sure she has surprises in store for you yet. Since we cannot perceive reality as it truly is, only thru the senses we have and the
mind we use, we are stuck with calling those perceptions "reality", but in actuality it is only our perception of reality. And when we are talking about something so all-encompasing as the nature of divinity--then how can we possibley perceive enough to know all there is to know about divinity? Of course, here also is where the language breaks down, where the words we use cannot express the expereiences we have. That is how I have expereienced divinity--in ways so complete and assuring that language cannot express it. But I would never assume that the ways I have experienced it are the only ways there are, or that deny that others may have experienced different truths.

Also, you have accused me of trying to think logically. I'm afraid this is an old habit, left over from my atheist days. When I first became Pagan, I read a number of books in a variety of traditions. Two of them were by a man named Hyemeyohsts Storm, _Seven Arrows_ and _Song of Heyokah_. Thru them I learned something I labeled "symbolic thinking" as a way to replace logical thinking. I found it was a beter way to interact with a Universe I perceived as living and aware rather than static and unresponsive. As I've aged, however, I tend to fall back into the old logical habit. I really don't mean to be too logical.

Actually, Paganism has no sins so there is not need for forgiveness. As for our personal "shortcommings" that would assume we are trying to measure up to some external standard of behavior, when what I try to do is to live in harmony with those around me. I would call any mistakes I make "learning experiences".

I'm afraid I don't see any 100% accuracy in Biblical prophecy so I can't really comment on that. My understanding of history is also not very compatable with what is presented in the Bible. The evil of the Old Testament I was talking about were direct commandments from God, such as:

Killing all the inhabitants of certain nations and cities, including women and children. In others, allowing only virgin young girls to remain alive to become slaves for life.

Ordering parents to stone to death unruly children.

Ordering the slaughter of all who worship other gods, even family members. Ordering the slaughter of everyone living in cities that tolerate the worship of other gods.

Ordering the death by stoning of anyone who works on the sabbath, who "commits adultrey", or of women who don't scream loudly enough when they are raped.

This is just a small sampling. And then in the New Testament, the promise to eternally torture by fire all who do not become the slaves of God by renouncing their former lives and recieving his spirit. Can you not see how some might consider these the actions of a Monstrous being rather than one worthy of worship?

As for when I left Christianity, what I expected of God was what he promised--that he would change me so that I could become capable of living the type of life he demands that you live. This sort of transformation is mentioned repeatedly in the books of the New Testament. But this was not what happened. I remained the person I was, one who had characteristics that are forbidden to Christians and not compatable with a Bible-based lifestyle.

Ant,

you said,

"I instead state the belief that one _cannot_ know "The Truth" unless one is aware of all things at all times"

No. I'm sorry your wrong. You are speaking of knowledge, not truth. According to your logic, I need to know everything in the world to determine what color my eyes are. I have a daugher. I know this to be absolutely true because I change her diapers and haven't seen a winkie yet. Therefore it is absolute truth that she is a girl. I do not know everything in the world, but I know that to be true. And that truth is absolute.

The only way your logic works is by knowledge. For example: an atheist cannot say absolutely that there is no God. Why? Because the atheist would have to know everything in the entire universe to conclude absolutely that there is no God. Truth is different. Truth is absolute. I don't have to have complete knowledge or awareness of the entire universe to know absolutely that my daughter is a girl. Make sense?

Are you seeing how truth is absolute yet? There is no logical way of thinking that can conclude truth to be relative. If truth is relative, then reality is relative. I would like to hope that I live in reality. If not, then everything is meaningless. See why it's important to have absolute truth. Otherwise, our perception of reality is flawed. Once our perception of reality is flawed, how can we know what's right or wrong, or what's real or not, or what's love and hate? Get what I'm saying?

Ant,

First of all I would like to emphasize that I am not trying to be offensive towards your beliefs. I believe pluralism is a good thing. It gives us options and also does not seat one set of ideas above any other. I believe in respecting the individual while engaging the idea. It keeps all individuals on an equal plane. Just so you are aware my beliefs are that we are all made in the image of God. No matter what beliefs or set of ideas we are ALL made in the image of God and therefore equal in the eyes of God. And, by the way, I don't believe you are satanists or satanic worshippers as you may have assumed. I understand that you have found a way that works for you. I respect this but have a hard time understanding it.

you asked,

"So what proofs do you accept?"

I believe that my heart can be decietful. What I might think is the right thing or what is truth I believe can decieve me. I'm sure most can agree that if something feels right, it has the potential to be wrong. It is very possible. Therefore, proof for me would have to come in the form of some sort of physical evidence. For example: If I am to believe in a supernatural being such as the God of the Bible, I need to believe in the miracles performed by Jesus, right? Also, when I look at Biblical prophecy whether is be messianic or end times prophecy, it is hard to resist the fact that it is 100% accurate to the minute detail. This for me qualifies as proof of a specific devine being. That devine being the God of the Bible. The Bible is also historically accurate and backed with archaeological evidence.

I recognize similiarities with other religions as well. That doesn't qualify as proof that Christianity is false. They are merely coincidentals. It's not that far-fetched that many other religions would have stories of someone dying for the sake of others and people coming back from the dead. These are found in stories today of heroism and other fantastical stories.

Oh and by the way, God didn't create evil. I think you might be assuming that with the OT account that you mentioned. Good cannot create evil. Love cannot create hate.

So, I have a question for you. In what way did Christianity not "work" for you? What were you expecting to get out of it? Was it a certain constant emotional ecstatic experience that you were looking for? Was is the need for some sort of feeling from the divine? Oh and one more question about your faith. How does your faith in the "gods", or Universe per se, account for your shortcomings? I'm not sure if you agree at all or in part with the doctrine of sin that Christianity preaches. But is there anything resembling this doctrine in your religion that gives you forgiveness for you sins?

Thanks and have a great evening.

You are the one that says truth cannot be contradictory, that has never been my definition. In fact, if I knew more of the ins and outs of physics, I could post proofs that many of the accepted theories of physics do in fact conradict one another--they have yet to find a unified theory that explains everything without contraditions. Read a few pages of Stephen Hawkings, that will give you the gist of the idea. But if you go all the way up to my first post to you, I instead state the belief that one _cannot_ know "The Truth" unless one is aware of all things at all times. How on earth could you, since all is connected and all affects everthing else. Instead we can only deal with the part of the truth that has revealed itself to us. Rather than say that "Truth" cannot contradict itself, and therefore opposing things cannot be true, I would say rather that Truth is much, much too large for any human to perceive, and that therefore what seems to be contradictory may be only one peice of a much larger puzzle. The old story of the 5 blind men describing an elephant, and each of them "contradicting" the other, because they are describing the body, the legs, the ears, the trunk, and the tail of the elephant, seem to be relevant here.

Anyway, I would say that the greatest divide amoung humans would not be between those who have contradictory truths, but between those who have searched for Truth, for their own relationship with the Universe, as opposed to those who have never given such things a second thought, instead accepting whatever answers they were given as a child, never exploring the other possibilities that are out there, or the deeper meanings of the answers they were given for that matter. I find these people much more difficult to understand that those who have explored, and reached truths that are not "compatable" with my own.

Hmmm, the problems of evil. This I think is a problem that all religious as opposed to atheistic perspectives have to answer--if your God/Goddess/All That Is is so powerful and benevolent, then why all the suffering? I guess my answer would have to be, that is part of the price of existance. Lepidopteryx has it right--on this planet, lifeforms have evolved needing to prey upon one another, and this involves lots of pain. I guess the next question would be--is existance worth the cost of pain? Most creatures seem to agree it does--even if terribly wounded or sick, most creatures still struggle to maintain their physical existance. As creatures who have evolved to see more complex relationships, this will to live has not on the whole diminished. Despite the pain I have experienced, I still think the gift of life is worth the pain. But, I can now see how my actions affect the Whole that we are all connected to. So I therefore choose, for example, to eat food that is grown more in harmony with the natural cycles, rather than those that are stressed even more by being grown in artificial and disconected ways. In my interactions with fellow humans, I try to always keep in mind, as I've already said, that all my actions affect everyone and everything else.

Since we are all connected, then the Gods and Goddesses I work with are a part of me(or more accurately, I am a part of them), so there is definately mutual energy exchanged, it is not all a one-way street. As far as deception goes, I really don't see the point of it--why would the universe go out of its way to deceive me? If you are talking some sort of christianish devil business, then according to Christian dogma I was already doomed as an atheist. Why go to all the trouble of deceiving me so I would go to hell if I was already headed there? But again, I must say, I have never seen the slightest evidence for myself that Christianity works, so don't have any beliefs myself in it. In fact, to go a bit further than probably is politically correct, and definately farther than my fellow Pagans would, since most are all about not attacking other religions--even if the Bible were 100% true and it was proven to me, I could not follow it. The Deity depicted in the Old Testament fits my definition of a Monster, a being of malevolence and hatred. The Jesus of the New Testament merely postpones the suffering and torture that the Old Testament God did in this world to an afterlife, that you can handily escape if you pledge to be his slave. I will absolutely not worship either of them, unless in some way it was proven to me that the image of them depicted in the Bible was somehow distorted and not a true representation of them. I know that there are Christians that do, in fact, worship Jesus and God in ways that depict them as kindly and that deny the horrors depicted in the Bible are in fact what they condone. But why then do they call themselves Christians? I have never really understood that...

Now, to ask you a few questions. You have said that the states of ecstacy granted to me by my deities are not proof, that the oneness I feel with the Universe could be deception, and I believe you are trying to say that individuals cannot, in fact, discover their own truths by becoming more closely connected to the Universe. So what proofs do you accept? What exceptional proofs have you personally experienced that prove your beliefs are "The Truth", and more importantly, that all other beliefs are not? If another person had the exact same "proofs" for their truth then how would you reconcile that? Because really, all the proof mentioned in the Bible--resurections, healing of the sick, virgin births, water to wine, walking on water, dying for the salvation of others--all of them have earlier examples in religions and myths of other peoples--of Mithra, of Dionysius, of Osiris, of Horus, of Innana and Damuzi. I will maintain my faith as I have experienced it. I would never think of asking another person, including you, to give up the truths they have experienced from the Universe.

Thank you for your responses Lep. I've learned a lot from the details you shared with me. I think I could respond to a lot of your responses, but I have one in general that I will stick to.

"You refuse to believe that there can be more than one truth. Admitting that there can be more than one truth is not indicative of not caring about truth, it's recognizing that Truth is bigger than our ability to perceive it"

You are saying that truth is relative. What I'm trying to portray to you is that that is an illogical statement. It is self-contradictory. Meaning that it is not valid. If what is true for me is that relativism is false, then is it true that relativism is false? 1) If you say no, then what is true for me is not true and relativism is false. 2) If you say yes, then relativism is false. Relativism seems to defy the very nature of truth; namely, that truth is not self contradictory. Therefore there is one Truth and truth is absolute, not relative. When you say "truth is relative", that's making an absolute truth statement which means that that statement is self-contradictory and therefore false. Truth is absolute. So either my God is true, your god(s) is/are true or neither of them are true. Either we both are not living in reality because truth conforms to reality, or only one of us is. Which one? And if Wicca is not a systematic religion, meaning that one wiccan can believe in one god and another believe in many, then isn't it contradictory? And if contradictory, then how can it be truth? Or are we both living a lie?

ANON:
**I would think that the person doing the heroin would be a menace to all of society.**

Only because it's illegal. Legalization would stop much of the crime associated with drug use.

**But my point was that to this person heroin "feels good". It feels right because it caused the body to feel like it is in a state of "ecstacy". So if we base truth on feelings then this heroin addict has the truth as well. How unpleasant is that?**

He has found something that gives him pleasure. I guess you could call it a kind of truth, but I don't see it as transcendental, merely physical. And addiction is certainly not a religious experience, at least not as I define the term religious. Although I must admit that I have had some chemically-induced mind-expanding experiences that couldbe descibed as religious.

**So you say you have good feelings when it comes to your faith. How is that any different from the "good feelings" that a heroin addict feels and how does that make it truth?**

It makes it as true as anyone else's beliefs. In the end, that's really all any religion has to vouch for its veracity.

**Am I to assume that you really don't care about truth and would rather believe in something that gave you a good feeling? I don't mean to be offensive at all, but I feel these are valid questions.**

You refuse to believe that there can be more than one truth. Admitting that there can be more than one truth is not indicative of not caring about truth, it's recognizing that Truth is bigger than our ability to perceive it.

ANON:
**So the pre-supposition is that we should all find a "way" that works for US, correct? What about a "way" that we should work FOR?**

For me, the two ideas are inseparable - it's a reciprocal thing. My beliefs make sense to me, and they inspire me to work toward a more harmonious relationship with the Universe at large. A more harmonious Universe, in turn, benfits me and every other living thing. The more I see the benfits of a harmonios Universe, the harder I work towards that end.

**If we are to be so self-centered as to find a belief in something false only because it works for "US", then what gain is that in believing something false?**

I don't see myself as believing in someting false. In fact, it would be impossible for me to believe in something I thought was false.

**So to learn more from your point of view, I'm curious from a wiccan perspective, I've heard you mention that there are many gods and goddesses and the such and that nature in it's own is divine. Is this correct? And all those good feelings come from this divine source. So what about pain and sufferings and evil? Does all this come from the same divine source as well? And would that make this divine source a good thing or a bad thing?**

Pain happens. On a fundamental level, everything that eats does so at the cost of something else's life. Cow eats grass - grass dies when it is eaten. I eat a steak - cow dies when it is butchered. I eat a salad - spinach dies when I pull it out of the ground by the roots. Plants take their nutrients from the soil, which is made up in part of the decayed remains of dead organisms, including human beings. Death is a part of the life cycle, and sometimes it isn't peaceful or painless.
I don't see people as evil, so much as I see them making poor choices because they either can't see or refuse to see that the harm they do to others ultimately harms themselves as well. They only see the immediate result of getting what they want right now. Sometimes this is the result of mental illness, sometimes it's just selfishness and short-sightedness.

Oh Ant, one more thing, sorry. I forgot to answer your question. How selfish of me.

" Going back to my basic rule, how does heroin cause someone to become more closely connected to the universe, to be of benifit to the all that we are all part of?"

It doesn't. I would think that the person doing the heroin would be a menace to all of society. But my point was that to this person heroin "feels good". It feels right because it caused the body to feel like it is in a state of "ecstacy". So if we base truth on feelings then this heroin addict has the truth as well. How unpleasant is that? So you say you have good feelings when it comes to your faith. How is that any different from the "good feelings" that a heroin addict feels and how does that make it truth? Am I to assume that you really don't care about truth and would rather believe in something that gave you a good feeling? I don't mean to be offensive at all, but I feel these are valid questions. Thanks. have a great day.

Oh by the way Ant, it looks like you've been talking with "Concerned the Christian Now Liberated", huh? "tiny wingie fictional thingies"? It's getting old, huh?

Ahh...I'm getting it now. So the pre-supposition is that we should all find a "way" that works for US, correct? What about a "way" that we should work FOR? If we are to be so self-centered as to find a belief in something false only because it works for "US", then what gain is that in believing something false? You'll have to forgive me because I've never spoken to any Wiccans before, so to understand your faith is a process on it's own for me.

So to learn more from your point of view, I'm curious from a wiccan perspective, I've heard you mention that there are many gods and goddesses and the such and that nature in it's own is divine. Is this correct? And all those good feelings come from this divine source. So what about pain and sufferings and evil? Does all this come from the same divine source as well? And would that make this divine source a good thing or a bad thing?

Ant, you said

"Since they have imparted useful information to me, and since my interactions with them have provided me with actual physical results, then I act under the assumption that they are who they claim they are. More importantly, my faith has been a source of such intense states of ecstacy that I cannot doubt its authenticity without evidence greater than what I have experienced, and I cannot at this time immagine what that might be."

If you would be so kind, could you explain to me what the physical results that you saw are? And how would you know if these results were from something peaceful and loving as compared to something that might be decieving you?

I would see the point of reference to begin as something I have already stated--that we are all connected, that what affects one affects all of us. I fell I have already addressed the issue of moral relavance as a working system for large groups of people as well. If you believe that sex with toddlers is ok, then form a group to advocate that laws be changed to reflect that belief. I for one shall oppose it, since I believe such a thing would harm everyone. I don't see that movement having much of a chance to catch on.

As for my evidence--in other threads there is much talk about "pretty fictional winged flying thingies". Well, lets just say that I have been subject to "hallucinations" of Pagan beings that might fit this category. Since they have imparted useful information to me, and since my interactions with them have provided me with actual physical results, then I act under the assumption that they are who they claim they are. More importantly, my faith has been a source of such intense states of ecstacy that I cannot doubt its authenticity without evidence greater than what I have experienced, and I cannot at this time immagine what that might be.

As for my expereinces with Christianity, I have mainly never seen one iota of evidence that it is true in the slightest. Remember, I didn't believe in Paganism either until I had expereinces that led me to believe otherwise. With Christianity, despite the faith I had as a child, it never worked for me in any way, never did for me any of the things the Bible and the preachers I was surrounded with said it would. And again, when I became an adolescent I became aware that at the most basic level I was not compatable with a Christian lifestyle anyway. The few months after I realized this and before I realized that I had no actual reason to believe Christianiy anyway were amoung the most miserable of my life. Lets just say I fully understand why adolescense is a time when the suicide rates are higher than at other times of life.

And as far as heroin users--they do what they do to attain pleasure--but is their lifestyle really what they dreamt of, what their innermost longings call for? Perhaps for some it is--maybe this was their life to expereince that type of joy and realize the hollowness of it from the inside. Going back to my basic rule, how does heroin cause someone to become more closely connected to the universe, to be of benifit to the all that we are all part of?

ANON:
Actually, the sky is only blue for us because the particular arrangement of rods and cones in our eyes, are able to see the blue portionof the light spectrim reflected by particulate matter in the atmosphere. Back to the bee and the wildflowers. If another species sees using different wavelengths of the spectrum, the sky is not blue to it. Past the atmosphere, the sky is not even blue to us - past the atmosphere, there is no "sky."

**What evidence does it take for you to believe in something? If you believe in the supernatural such as a god or goddess, shouldn't something supernatural occur?**

Such as what? Water turning to wine? What real evidence is there for that having happened?
For me, every morning that I wake is a supernatural event, in that it is an interface of my nature with that of the rest of the Universe. The supernatural does not have to come from a source distinct from me - it is a part of me, and I am a part of it. It emcompasses and exceeds all - I am a part of a bigger Whole that is more than the sum of its parts. That's my Supernatural, not events that defy the laws of nature.

**I see you had a bad experience with Christianity as a youth. How does a bad experience with something conclude falseness in that thing?**

I can't answer for Antaeus, but I can say that it made it false for me. I came to a point where I simlply no longer believed it. Belief is not an act of will. I can SAY I believe the beast purring in my lap is a mackerel, but the evidence of my senses tells me that it is, in fact, my cat. And no amount of effort on my part will cause me to actually believe that it is, in fact, a mackerel. Christianity works for you - groovy. I am truly glad that you have a truth that works for you. But it isn't one-size-fits-all. And what evidence do you have that your version of the Divine is THE TRUTH? As much as I do of mine - what you feel.

Very good points of view Lep and Ant. I enjoy questions and philisophical thinking like this because these questions, I feel, are important to ask considering that relativism leaves us with no point of reference for morality.

If morals are relative, where is the point of reference to begin? Some would think sex with a toddler is ok. I don't. But if morals are relative, then why should I say it's wrong. If anyone to claim that morals should be relative, then how can we judge or make laws condemning those whose choices are relative as well? I have a point of reference for moral absolutes. That person's point of reference for morals varies depending on his/hers worldview.

If truth is relative then I can claim that the sky is red and never was blue. Does that make sense? No. The absolute truth is that the sky is blue. This is reality. Truth and reality are intimately shared. If truth is relative, then reality is also relative leading those to believe in an imaginary truth to not live in reality. So again, how can one know what truth is so as to live in reality and not find comfort in falsehood? Can anyone feel comfortable knowing they do not live in reality but find comfort in believing what is not true? I'm sure most would agree that knowing truth and living in reality are very important or you might just be fooling yourself, right?

Ant you asked,

"I for one will change my vision of truth based on my experiences alone. What do you believe therefore should be done with me?"

Search the evidence. Searching for evidence is an experience, right? I know there are certain evidences that some need more than others. What evidence does it take for you to believe in something? If you believe in the supernatural such as a god or goddess, shouldn't something supernatural occur? I see you had a bad experience with Christianity as a youth. How does a bad experience with something conclude falseness in that thing? And how does a warm feeling of some sort conclude truth, such as the experience you had on your porch? If I shoot heroin in my arm I might get a great feeling throughout my body. Does that make it right? Or does that make it the truth that heroin is a good thing? I guess the point I'm trying to make is that should we base truth on experience or evidence?

To BGONE and the rest of the world: Actually the bible can help lead you to God but from listening and reading different things, I've come to realize that for some people all the bible does is lead them to the bible. I have met God so I can say that I don't believe in God because I know He is real and that He is Pure Love and that He is a Trinity, I also know that satan is real and he is not nice at all but he can try to come across as mister nice guy, remember he is also called the deceiver. There is still a lot that I believe in though and I do have to take a lot on faith but I tend to look at things a lot differently knowing some things. In some ways I look at the bible like the miracles that Jesus did while He was among the breathers, they should help lead you to Him not be an end in themselves. The whole bible is true even though I might not know what all of it means and just because some people have used it to justify so much evil that does not mean it isn't true only distorted. The SIMPLE message of Jesus has been so distorted that calling yourself a christian does not mean that you are one. Watered-down christianity is not christianity at all. God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, THINK ABOUT IT. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

ANON:
**You say absolutes create division. I don't see how. I think absolutes would create unity. Do you believe in moral absolutes? If you are morally relativistic then can you really say that Charles Manson is a good guy? Since morals are relative, why can't murder be ok to some and therefore because of moral relativism be accepted as a whole by society? If morals were absolute then murder is bad no matter who you are and we are all in unity on this. I personally believe the only way to unify as a whole is by means of absolutism whether that be in truth or morals.**

Societoes have prohibitions against murder because murder is not beneficial to the society as a whole. A society whose members are constantly knocking each other off won't survive. However, as I'm sure you are aware, different societies have different criteria for what constitutes murder. So a killing that one society would consider murder could be perfectly acceptable in another. That's one of the issues with evangelism in general and foreign missionaries in particular- one group is attempting to impose their religio-cultural values on a group that has a different set of said values that they believe in just as fervently as the evangelists. I remember when I was a kid, my mom telling me and my sister to each pick out a toy to be sent with a group of missionaries to a remote area of the African continent where the pagan heathens lived. The toys were to be given to the children as Christmas presents. She mentioned how awful it was that these kids had never had a Christmas presenst, and in my child's mind, I assumed that these poor children were heartbroken because they saw one Christmas after another go by with no gifts. It wasn't until I was considerably older that it dawned on me that these children were not upset at having never gotten Christmas presents because Christmas was not part of their world.

**you said

"What is right for one is not necessarily right for another, and that's ok."

Is it o.k to molest children? Some sickos out there think it is. So does that mean it is? According to your logic you accept child molestation, rape and murder depending on if the individual who does these acts thinks they are "right". So do you really mean that statement?**

Again, harming the children of a society is not good for the society, or for the children who will someday be expected to function as memebers of that society. But different cultures have different standards of legal adulthood. In some cultures, for example, a girl is considered marriagable at menarche. In others, she must be 18 to marry withpout parental permission, and even with parental permission cannot marry under the age of 16. I know girls who had their first menstrual cycle at the age of nine. I certainly would not consider a 9-year-old girk wife material, but if I lived in a different society, I might.
In some cultures, marriages are arranged and the bride and groom have no say in the matter. Here, both parties must consent to be married.

I would like to challenge some of your major premises, that relativistic morality has caused the problems that you state. In Europe, for example, secularism is far more advanced and accepted than it is here, and yet they have less violence and crime in general. As for divorce, or course, that would depend on whether or not I would consider divorce a bad thing. I have always thought my mother, for example, might have had a better life if she had left the man who continiuosly abused and belittled her, but instead she stayed with him and still mournes him 13 years after his death.

But to address the issue of child abuse, and other forms of crime--I don't need an external authority to condemn these things. I condemn them based on my own relationship with the universe. And since we live in a democracy, I support and vote for persons who also condemn them. That wouold be how a secular, relativistic based society would maintain order--by a majority of the persons in that society supporting measures to encourage or discourage certain behaviors. And in reality, that is how societies operate anyway. 200 years ago, slavery was a normal, moral, supported way of life, and when enough individuals in the society changed, they elected representatives who supported that change, eventually leading to the conflict that outlawed slavery. Similar but less violent changes occured with regards to womens rights, civil rights, and any number of other issues. On the child abuse front, for example, it used to be moral and accepted for parents to beat their children, but now it isn't. It used to be normal for 13 year olds to be married, but now it isn't. All of these changes occured due to individuals making individual decisions--in most cases, the religious and accepted social institutions followed rather than led on these issues.

You are correct in that disunity is caused by conflicting absolute truths. That, again, is what caused the Thirty Years War, that War being one of the reasons our founding fathers so carefully avoided enshrining one religious system over another. So my question to you is, since _I_, for example, do not and will not perceive or accept your "single truth", then what do you proposed to do about it? What do you believe should be done to those who have what you perceive as erronious truths? You can argue all you want about how we all should have one perception of truth because there is only one truth, but this will not happen. I for one will change my vision of truth based on my experiences alone. What do you believe therefore should be done with me?

Someone posted the following on another message board quite some time back regarding conflicitng truths - I'm trying to recall if it was WICCAN or SILVLARO, since I can't seem to find the page I copied it to.

Picture in your mind a field of wildflowers. You look at them and see red and yellow blooms. Because a bee's eye optic system is sensitive to a different portion of the light spectrum than yours, a bee will see those same flowers as blue and white. Same reality, two very different perceptions, both correect for the individual in question.

Antaeus,

Thank you for sharing your testimony. I know it is something probably personal and very real to you. I do thank you for that.

"... that if the belief in moral absolutes created unity, and since almost all of the world's major religiouns believe in moral absolutes, then why don't we see unity?"

I believe the best way to answer that is to realize that the moral absolutes provided by each individual religion are not the same. If each has their own set of moral absolutes then of course this is not a unifying factor and that is not absolute but relative. I'd like to ask you then, according to today's society we are increasingly becoming more pluralistic and of course more relativistic within our morals. Do you see this benefiting society? Because if you take a look historically at western society and the decline of moral absolutism, what have we got? An increase in crime. An increase in murder. Higher divorce rates. So yes, it is possible to unite through relative morals, but in what way? Are we uniting in violence and hate? Because obviously as a whole relativism has impacted society to choose what we all THINK is right as compared to what really is therefore leading us to our own destruction. Now, I don't believe individual relationships with the universe per se lead to those becoming child molesters. I never said that and would never assume that. My only intention is to suggest that if we give up on society and claim that everything is relative, then who are we to judge if child molestation is good or bad. It's all relative, right? Depends on who you are and what you think? There has to be absolutes. Not just some because just some is relativism. There needs to be some form of moral absolutism.

I feel the same goes for truth. Wouldn't you say there needs to be a defining truth as well. Of course if we leave truth as relative then we do not have truth at all. Truth conforms to reality. Truth is what makes reality reality. Aren't we desensitive to reality these days because there is no such thing anymore as truth with a capital "T"? What divides us? And what can unite us. I believe this is the sole question for mankind. How do we find unity in diversity? What is truth? Is the truth Jesus? Is the truth Allah? Is the truth the Goddess? Not all three can be true because that is not reality. We need to live in reality not some imagination. So which one is true and how do you find out? What are the defining factors to know which is true? Is there evidence of a "Goddess"? Is there evidence for the God of the Bible? Is there evidence for Allah? Should I base my beliefs on a "feeling"? I wouldn't. I believe our hearts can be decietful. If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm a Christian. I never based my faith on a "feeling". I found the evidence. I know you claim that you didn't find enough evidence to convince you. I'm curious as to what evidence convinced you that the "Goddess" is truth? Is this truth of yours reality or something that keeps you comfortable? I'm curious. Thanks.

I can only say, anonymous, that if the belief in moral absolutes created unity, and since almost all of the world's major religiouns believe in moral absolutes, then why don't we see unity? The Thirty Years War was one of the nastiest and most vicious immaginable, and was fought between three groups (Catholics, Lutherens, and Calvinists) who each had very strong, though unfortunately differing, beliefs in moral absolutes. One of the truths the Universe has told me, one of the _my_ truths, is that we are all connected--that what each of us does affects each other thing in the universe, and what every single thing in the universe does affects the entirity of the universe. That is why causing others pain and suffering, or impeding their path of unity with the universe, is wrong. It is not just "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", but much more literal--what you do to others you are also doing to yourself. So, taking Charles Manson as your example. Where his actions taken with regards to valueing each individual as a sovereign and irreplacable piece of the universe, connected and interelated to all others? For that matter, in harming all those others, didn't he harm himself and his followers as well? The path he chose, does it seem that it lead to fulfillment or happiness? Then I don't think he makes a good example for others to follow.

As for child molesters, again, are they treating their victims as beings who as valuable and unique in the universe as themselves, or are they treating them as objects, useful only in what temporary "pleasure" they can get out of them? And these child molesters, do they themselves have happy and fulfilled lives, in harmony with the universe? I can't percieve that I must say. I have met with several persons who have been victimized by molesters, however, and their perceptions are certainly that their experiences have made their lives much more difficult. Why do you think believing in individual relationships with the universe would lead one to support child molesters? What would be the motivation behind that?

When I talk about things the Universe told me, in this case I am talking about other than what would be possible in a universe governed exclusively by known scientific theories. Since I was, in fact, an atheist for ten years, it took something outside of scientific reality to persuade me that spirituality and divinity existed at all. Specifically, in my case, it was an early morning encounter with the Moon Goddess, face to face, soul to soul. One night in August of 1984 about 4:30 am I went out on my front porch a confirmed and convinced atheist and came back in the house a Pagan. I then set out researching what that might entail other than my memories of Greek Mythology as a child, and that is when I encountered Wicca and the writings of Starhawk, Weinstien, and the others available in 1984. As for Christianity, I didn't need to be introduced to that. I was born into a home with a father and brother as fundamentalist preachers. What I encountered from this faith was only pain and hatred, and when I reached adolesense I discovered I was physically and deeply incompatable with Christianity and its true Biblical teachings. There was a year there where I researched other varieties of Christianity, and a few other faiths as well, but ultimately decided I didn't have enough evidence to believe any of them, and at the time atheism seemed to be the clearest explanation for what I had encountered at that time. If another form of spirituality/explanation of the universe/ultimate truth wants me to follow it, all it has to do is introduce itself in a way that would make me recognize it as a message from the universe, and then persuade me it was closer to "truth" than what I already have perceived and lived. It is certainly possible, I have already changed worldviews twice.

Priver,

I like your questions. Yes I would like to think that whatever faith someone has that would be beneficial to themselves would be great. If it caused them be a "better person", great! But, what constitutes a better person, I don't know? What makes a person "good"? And compared to whom? So is there really a faith that can make someone "good"? I believe we all do bad things once in awhile, whether that be lying, cheating, stealing or even just using bad language. None of that is beneficial for someone. If fact even those with faith in whatever faith still lie or steal or whatever. Doesn't lying to someone have an ill effect on another person? So really is anybody so-called "good"?

You say absolutes create division. I don't see how. I think absolutes would create unity. Do you believe in moral absolutes? If you are morally relativistic then can you really say that Charles Manson is a good guy? Since morals are relative, why can't murder be ok to some and therefore because of moral relativism be accepted as a whole by society? If morals were absolute then murder is bad no matter who you are and we are all in unity on this. I personally believe the only way to unify as a whole is by means of absolutism whether that be in truth or morals.

you said

"What is right for one is not necessarily right for another, and that's ok."

Is it o.k to molest children? Some sickos out there think it is. So does that mean it is? According to your logic you accept child molestation, rape and murder depending on if the individual who does these acts thinks they are "right". So do you really mean that statement?

have a great evening. Thank you for the conversation.

Antaeus,

Very well said. Your post reminds me of something one of my teachers once said to me:

The universe speaks to us in whichever voice will compel us to take action, make changes in our lives and DO something.

Maybe for some that voice is Jesus. If it compels the person to turn their life around and be a better person, more power to them. But Maybe it comes from some other interaction. My only question to the Anonymous is this:

If someone, through what they believed to be their own personal relationship with the universe came to have information that they wouldn't ordinarily have, and that information could really help themselves or someone in need, is that a bad thing? Regardless of what you believe constitutes 'truth'?

Oh, and Pagans will almost never claim that they have 'the ONE truth'. We don't go in for the absolute like that. Absolutes create division, separation which can lead to fear. For us, all paths lead to the same end. What is right for one is not necessarily right for another, and that's ok.

Thank you Antaeus. Good points.

I'm not a scientist as well, but I would assume that scientific truths and spiritual truths are two different matters. You cannot scientifically prove anything spiritual. All things spiritual are by faith. Wouldn't you agree? So if there are different faiths in different deities some claiming that there is only one and some with many, who has the spiritual truth? I would say by going by experiences in your life alone cannot constitute for absolute spiritual truth.

And I'm curious. What has the universe told you? And how did the universe go about telling you what you believe to be the truth? For example if someone came and told you about Jesus, couldn't you constitute that as the universe telling you another truth? It's a matter of accepting it or not, right? Why not accept that truth? Or should someone conform what they WANT to be the truth even though it isn't based solely on if they like that form of truth or not. I would think that a lot of people make a God or Gods to how they would like them. But if indeed there is only One True God, then the others are false regardless if someone likes that God or not, which leaves that person in rejection of the Truth. Basically stating that "that is truth but I don't want it and I want my own truth even if it is false because my truth makes me happier because it's from my own imagination and I can conform it to my own reality instead of the real reality". Wouldn't it be great to know the truth?

I am not a scientist, but I believe I understand science enough to know that scientists are very relunctant to label things as "truth", that instead they say things are supported by the evidence, or the best explanation for observed phenomena, or some similar verbalization. Since the one "truth" you are talking about is then more philosophical than scientific, I would ask you--What evidence do you have, what pre-conceptions do you have that there is this "truth" that you speak of? I have experienced what _I_ call truth, but I do not pretend that it is _the_ truth, the one truth that explains everything in the universe. What makes you believe there is such a thing? Physicists have been thinking and searching for the unifying theory of everything for decades and while they have approached it they have not yet seized it. Do you believe that this truth can be reached more readily thru philosophy or religion? As I said above, I can only go on my own expereinces, and they tell me the universe, and truth, are both constantly changing and unique to each individual based on their reactions with it and perceptions of it. If the Universe has revealed a unifying, single truth to you, or at the very least inspired you to look for such and be satisfied with no other, then far be it from me to try to persuade you to abandon a quest given you by the universe. I can only remain true to what the universe has told me.

Antaeus,

Thanks and nice post.

"You said that truth cannot be relative, that logically there can be only one truth. But to truly know that truth, one would have to be aware of every single particle in the universe, and at all times as well since they would change in position and interaction with one another at every moment:

I would disagree. You made an absolute statement that the truth can only come by knowledge of everything. If that's the truth, then there is no such thing as truth to begin with or moreover there is nothing at all because to define anything would require to know everything. Truth cannot be relative because to say so is logically impossible. It is self contradictory. There can only be one truth. One absolute way for a spiritual outcome and only one truth concerning God or gods. Either there are many gods or one God. They both can't be right. What is the truth as it conforms to reality? One God or many? And how can anyone choose which one? By feeling? Or can we know if there is one True God or many true gods?

So, I would guess that it becomes a guessing game to who is right. Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans...etc.. But they all can't be right. They all can't be true. Only one is. Which one?

I don't mean to be offensive by the way, I'm just getting a little philosophical, that's all. thanks for the discussion by the way.

ANON:
**Your truth is this, Christians truth is that. Who is right? They all can't be, because that's illogical considering that the Christian God says He is the only God and the Islam God says he is the only God and so on so forth. If truth is relative then how do we know what is truth? I don't believe it can be subjective or relative. In fact stating that truth is relative is an illogical statement because it is making an absolute statement in contradiction to itself. So there has to be just one spiritual truth. Who's is it?**

I think there are some cases where more than one truth can be true. Most (but not all) religions believe that theirs is the only Truth. It has been my experience that all religous paths contain some truths that I can apply to my life, but there is no single pre-fab path that I can embrace in toto. My path is an eclectic collection of ideas from many monotheistic and polytheistic paths, as well as ideas from scientific and other secular literature, and a few things I've figured out on my own.

The bottom line is that none of the paths claiminf to be the One True Faith can prove their claim any more than th next. The best any of us can really do os to try to live as decent, ethical, and moral a life as possible. IMO, any beliefe system that encourages its followers to do that is a valid one, regardless of what names it calls its deities, or whether it even has deities.

Anonymous:

You said that truth cannot be relative, that logically there can be only one truth. But to truly know that truth, one would have to be aware of every single particle in the universe, and at all times as well since they would change in position and interaction with one another at every moment. Humans, of course, cannot come close to doing this. We can only act on our own experiences. They have led me to believe that there is that in the universe that chooses to reveal itself to those that seek it, to reach back to those who reach out to it. Since each of us reach out to the universe with our own histories, our own mythological stories to color our perceptions, what the universe reveals to us when it reaches back to us is put in terms we can comprehend and connect to--if it didn't, we wouldn't recogize it for what it is. That does not mean that what each of us perceive, thru our senses and pre-conceptions, is untrue--it is just what the universe can send to us that we can receive. That is why there are so many different truths--human minds and souls by themselves are not complex enough to take in the whole truth, so we receive those parts we can understand. If one trusts the universe and the perceptions it sends us, then we act on those as if they were truth. Of _course_ others see the truth differently because they approach the universe differently, and in turn are apporached by the universe differently. I see the trouble as being when one person trys to force the vision and relationship that the universe has granted them onto other people, rather than encouraging them to form their own relationship with the universe.

Arminius:
**Are we so very different? Not in my mind.**

Not so very different there.

Lep, you said:

"I know that I feel the Divine within me when I garden, when I feed the bird, when I clean the litter boxes, when I give the cats' prey a decent Pagan burial, when I make love with my husband, when my daughter kisses me goodnight. What more truth do I need?"

My reply:

I know that God is with me when I walk out on my deck in the morning, look at the trees and sky, and give thanks for another day. He is with me when I return my dogs' greetings, and give them food and water. He is with me when I talk to my son about school, Dungeons and Dragons, or anything else. He is with me when I talk to my daughter about baseball or school or her dancing. He is with me now as I write this. I FEEL His presence, and I rejoice in it.

Are we so very different? Not in my mind.

Thanks lep. I do think no matter what the belief it is important to live as morally outstanding as possible. But I think what it boils down to is what is truth?

Your truth is this, Christians truth is that. Who is right? They all can't be, because that's illogical considering that the Christian God says He is the only God and the Islam God says he is the only God and so on so forth. If truth is relative then how do we know what is truth? I don't believe it can be subjective or relative. In fact stating that truth is relative is an illogical statement because it is making an absolute statement in contradiction to itself. So there has to be just one spiritual truth. Who's is it?

ANON:
**thanks. but doesn't that mean that truth is relative because not everyone has the same feelings while gardening and the such?**

All religious/spiritual experience is subjective. That doesn't make any of them less real to those who have them, no matter what their faith. It's one of those cases where what's real to one doesn't have to be real for all, but is real for the one nontheless.

**And how do you know what you feel is something divine. can't it be just some feeling just like feeling cold or hot. why is it something divine instead of a normal chemical reaction or stimulation. i'm very curious about this because i wonder how anyone can feel something and call it something divine or from the "gods" and such. is it possible that it is just a natural feeling of endorphins that go into the brain?**

I don't objectively know it any more than the born-again Christian objectively knows that what he is feeling is the infusion of his soul with the Holy Spirit. What I do know is that it is my sense of being inextricably connected to the Divine that informs my desire to live as harmoniosuly as possible with other denizens of this lovely blue-green planet and with the Mother herself. Is my connection to the Mother endorphins? Perhaps. Is the born-again's baptism of the Holy Spirit endorphins? Perhaps. As long as it leads us to live ethically, does it matter?

Lep,

thanks. but doesn't that mean that truth is relative because not everyone has the same feelings while gardening and the such?

And how do you know what you feel is something divine. can't it be just some feeling just like feeling cold or hot. why is it something divine instead of a normal chemical reaction or stimulation. i'm very curious about this because i wonder how anyone can feel something and call it something divine or from the "gods" and such. is it possible that it is just a natural feeling of endorphins that go into the brain?

ANON:
**How do you know that? Is that truth? How do you know that everything is divinely natured?**

I know that I feel the Divine within me when I garden, when I feed the bird, when I clean the litter boxes, when I give the cats' prey a decent Pagan burial, when I make love with my husband, when my daughter kisses me goodnight. What more truth do I need?

Thomas Baum: you wrote:

Isn't it kind of amazing how the bible can really upset people that don't believe in it at all.

-----Geez

I thought faith was in God. Are you saying faith is in the Bible? Do you believe in God?

"Here's one of the points where your faith and mine differ. It's not possible for me to be separated from the Divine. It's in the food I eat, the air I breathe, the water I drink, my husband's off-key singing in the shower, the love I make, the child I raise, the half-eaten squirrel my cat left on the doorstep, the baby mockingbird I'm raising to release when it's grown. "

How do you know that? Is that truth? How do you know that everything is divinely natured?

Hmm, I see now why so many people post twice.

Antaeus:

I have read and re-read "Song of Myself" more times than I can count, and every time, I find something that I hadn't seen before. In fact, it's getting time to replace my copy of "Leaves of Grass" again - the binding is coming apart.

Lepidopteryx:

Since this week's theme is quotes, let me post a short one, the second stanza of the third section of Walt Whitman's _Song of Myself_.

"There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now,
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now."

That is perhaps one of the main divides between (some) Pagans and Monotheists--we have our union with the divine right here and now, and live it every day, whereas some Christians must wait for some point after death. Another difference I have noted from these posts is that Christians seem to literalize their mythology quite a bit more than most Pagans I know. It seems many of the posters above actually believe that the Garden of Eden story occured literally rather than being a tale about enlightenment and seperation from the divine. That may be why as we are discussing it with them we keep missing each others points.

As a third party who is neither Christian nor Pagan, Lepidopteryx is certainly making a lot more sense to me. Thanks for your thoughts Lepidopteryx. If only people would be more open minded then perhaps this world would not be quite so violent and divided into "believers" and "non-believers" who fight over heaven rather than live in peace on earth.

Lepidopteryx:

Since this week's theme is quotes, let me post a short one, the second stanza of the third section of Walt Whitman's _Song of Myself_.

"There was never any more inception than there is now,
Nor any more youth or age than there is now,
And will never be any more perfection than there is now,
Nor any more heaven or hell than there is now."

That is perhaps one of the main divides between (some) Pagans and Monotheists--we have our union with the divine right here and now, and live it every day, whereas some Christians must wait for some point after death. Another difference I have noted from these posts is that Christians seem to literalize their mythology quite a bit more than most Pagans I know. It seems many of the posters above actually believe that the Garden of Eden story occured literally rather than being a tale about enlightenment and seperation from the divine. That may be why as we are discussing it with them we keep missing each others points.

Arminius:
**Heaven should be defined as being with God, and hell as being separated from him. Seeking union with the One, the Deity, or whatever, is common to many religions...I am not with God, here on spaceship earth, but I know that He is with me.**

Here's one of the points where your faith and mine differ. It's not possible for me to be separated from the Divine. It's in the food I eat, the air I breathe, the water I drink, my husband's off-key singing in the shower, the love I make, the child I raise, the half-eaten squirrel my cat left on the doorstep, the baby mockingbird I'm raising to release when it's grown.

Arminius:
**Heaven should be defined as being with God, and hell as being separated from him. Seeking union with the One, the Deity, or whatever, is common to many religions...I am not with God, here on spaceship earth, but I know that He is with me.**

Here's one of the points where your faith and mine differ. It's not possible for me to be separated from the Divine. It's in the food I eat, the air I breathe, the water I drink, my husband's off-key singing in the shower, the love I make, the child I raise, the half-eaten squirrel my cat left on the doorstep, the baby mockingbird I'm raising to release when it's grown.

lepidopteryx stated: (>> my statements)

For God so loved humanity that he showed them the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and forbade them to eat it.

>>For parents loved their children so much that they taught them right from wrong and encouraged them not to follow the wrong, yea, even forbade them to follow the wrong..(perish the thought)

For God so loved humanity that after they ate of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, he became afraid that they would also eat of the tree of life and become like him, so he not only punished them, but their entire species until the end of time.

>>For man so loved himself that he took on the role of thinking he was the final word of what is right and wrong...so we find ourselves in the same quagmire today.

For God so loved humanity that he flooded the earth, killing all but one family.

>>For God loved humanity so much that he, temporarily, took them out of their misery...read the story (btw...temporary, meaning God can and will provide the opportunity to return life to all who have lived. He has that power, man doesnt)

For God so loved humanity that he turned a woman into a pillar of salt for looking back at what had been her home as she fled.

>>For parents love their children so much that they entreat upon them to not endearingly look back on things that are against nature. (Do you really think sane people want to live in a society where homosexuals knock at the door asking them to send out someone in their house that they might 'know them'? c'mon people.)

For God so loved humanity that he caused a person to be born for the sole purpose of being tortured to death.

>>For God so loved humanity, that he gave His only son, who now lives again..as will be the same for all humans who have not known God thru all the millenia.

I'm having a bit of difficulty seeing the love.

>>I'm not.

JOHN M:
**You, also, are buying the lie that being like God is much better than being obedient to Him. You also have a limited view of Sin. You are limiting it to wrongdoings against other people.**

I have to live with other people, and I have to live with myself.

**You are ignoring the big sin of rejecting God and living life for yourself. You, like all of us, have set yourself up as your own master, so it is no surprise that you applaud Adam and Eve for liberating you from the control of your Creator.**

I thought that the goal of a parent was to get the offspring to a point where they no longer needed to be controlled by the parent. I certainly don't want my daughter to forever be under my control. I wnat her to go out and make a life for herself and be her own mistress. Why would a heavenly father not want the same for his children?

Lep, you said:

JOHN M:
**I can't believe you would think so little of an eternal garden where you could have God with you, in person, all the time. Isn't that the definition of heaven? What more could we want? What more were we created for?**

I don't buy the idea that we were created for no other reason than to be pets. Even the animals I keep as pets have their own agendas. Entertaining me is not their reason for living.

My reply:

Nice one, Lep, but John actually has a point - Heaven should be defined as being with God, and hell as being separated from him. Seeking union with the One, the Deity, or whatever, is common to many religions. Where a lot of Christians go wrong is pushing the concept of getting to Heaven, being issued a harp and a cloud, and singing hymns forever. Which is a grand definition of 'boring', and will not appeal to adults who possess the ability to think and wonder.

I am not with God, here on spaceship earth, but I know that He is with me.

JOHN M:
**I can't believe you would think so little of an eternal garden where you could have God with you, in person, all the time. Isn't that the definition of heaven? What more could we want? What more were we created for?**

I don't buy the idea that we were created for no other reason than to be pets. Even the animals I keep as pets have their own agendas. Entertaining me is not their reason for living.

Post to John, Terra, And Anon was me -

Anon:

You, also, are buying the lie that being like God is much better than being obedient to Him. You also have a limited view of Sin. You are limiting it to wrongdoings against other people. You are ignoring the big sin of rejecting God and living life for yourself. You, like all of us, have set yourself up as your own master, so it is no surprise that you applaud Adam and Eve for liberating you from the control of your Creator.

JOHN M:
**The original sin thing is uniquely Catholic. It is not biblical. You will not be punished for Eve's sin of rebellion, but for your own. We've all done it. We've all rebelled against God's presence in our lives, and we have all sought to be our own gods, as she did. So, if we want to live without God, He respects that and He will let us do so eternally.

That's where Jesus comes in. That's where John 3:16 kicks in. God wasn't happy with that result, so He came as a man to suffer and die for that sin of rebellion. If we accept it and come back to Him, He will forgive us and restore us into a proper relationship with Him. But, it's our choice.**

I cannot accept the idea that an innocent being punished for the sins of the guilty (eg Jesus being crucified for the sons of all people past, present, and future) absolves the guilty. have I done wrong? Of course. And when I do wrong, I go to the person I wronged, apologize, and make what restitution I can. I don't ask the gods to forgive me, I ask the person I wronged to forgive me. And they have the option of forgiving me or not.

TERRA:
**I am glad she Dared and ate that apple..I am glad she had the Will to take her life in her own hands..Can you imagine what would happen if Adam and Eve had stayed in that garden...ignorant. There would be no humanity. Why do people blame Eve for the fall of man? Where would man be without her. It was after the apple that Eve and Adam Knew each other...just where would we be if they had stayed blind to their instincts?

Where would we be without Eve's couriousity. Eve, meaning life...life is for living, not for sitting in a garden. Living is joy and sorrow...it is for learning and striving and I thank the Gods for it all. All the whining about blaming Eve for the loss of the garden...is that really what would have created all that we have? Eve should be blessed by all mankind...

And really when God said that if they ate of the tree they would die...the snake said no, their eyes would be opened...so who lied?**

I heard a guest peaker at the UU church talk on this topic once - I wish I could recall his name. He said that the way he saw it, eating the fruit was not Original Sin, but Original Blessing. Eating of the fruit, acquiring the Knowledge of Good and Evil, was the birth of Consciousness, of self-actualization. Without having done so, Adam humanity would have remained basically a race of infants.

ANON:
**Eve died right?**

Just curious. If Adam and Eve had never eaten the fruit, and human beings were never meant to die, but had obeyed the command to be fruitful and multiply, where would God have put all those people? Even if you subscribe to the young Earth theory, if all the people who were born and died in the last 6000 years were still alive, where would they all live? How would we feed them all? Would God just keep adding acreage to the planet?Would bodies stop aging after puberty, or would they continue to age indefinitely?

And if God never intended for people to die, then why, after they ate of the Tree of Knowledge, was he so worried that they would also eat of the Tree of Life?
"22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." 23 So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken." Genesis 3:22-23

**Who do you think lied? Probably the same snake that's lying to you telling you there are many gods.**

None of the snakes I've ever encountered have vocal cords, and I don't speak Parseltongue.

The Bible says ADAM sinned, and the Bible says Eve was deceived. I'm not sure why the distinction, but that's what it says. If you read it closely, though, her husband was 'with her' when she ate it and he followed soon after. So, this is not only about Eve.

Tara, you are buying the same lie they bought, that disobeying God is actually good for you. That was my point - that we deserve to be punished for our OWN rebellion against God, not because someone else sinned. Your comments show that you are doing the same as Eve. I can't believe you would think so little of an eternal garden where you could have God with you, in person, all the time. Isn't that the definition of heaven? What more could we want? What more were we created for?

Eve died right? Who do you think lied? Probably the same snake that's lying to you telling you there are many gods.

May be I have a different take on Eve.
I am glad she Dared and ate that apple..I am glad she had the Will to take her life in her own hands..Can you imagine what would happen if Adam and Eve had stayed in that garden...ignorant. There would be no humanity. Why do people blame Eve for the fall of man? Where would man be without her. It was after the apple that Eve and Adam Knew each other...just where would we be if they had stayed blind to their instincts?

Where would we be without Eve's couriousity. Eve, meaning life...life is for living, not for sitting in a garden. Living is joy and sorrow...it is for learning and striving and I thank the Gods for it all. All the whining about blaming Eve for the loss of the garden...is that really what would have created all that we have? Eve should be blessed by all mankind...

And really when God said that if they ate of the tree they would die...the snake said no, their eyes would be opened...so who lied?

Lepid:

The original sin thing is uniquely Catholic. It is not biblical. You will not be punished for Eve's sin of rebellion, but for your own. We've all done it. We've all rebelled against God's presence in our lives, and we have all sought to be our own gods, as she did. So, if we want to live without God, He respects that and He will let us do so eternally.

That's where Jesus comes in. That's where John 3:16 kicks in. God wasn't happy with that result, so He came as a man to suffer and die for that sin of rebellion. If we accept it and come back to Him, He will forgive us and restore us into a proper relationship with Him. But, it's our choice.

Now, Brambleton:

I really think you SHOULD be losing sleep over every soul that is being lost. I think Christians are losing their sensitivity to the things that are important to God, and this is just one of many indications that the Church in America is wandering WAY off course.

If Jesus were a quarterback His favorite play would be the "Hail Mary".

Butterfly,

I'll bring the wine! Looking forward to it!

Arminius,

It's not my intention to bash. As I have said before, your faith has mnuch to recommend it. My problem is those who ARE huung up on the Abam/Eve/snake/apple bit. Those were the kinds of churches I grew up in.

I think you and I could have quite an interesting conversation over a bottle of wine.

Nice post, Thomas Baum!

Isn't it kind of amazing how the bible can really upset people that don't believe in it at all. What upsets me is that so many people that know God's Name but don't know didly about God go and speak about Him as if they did. TO BGONE and the rest of humanity: Just what wealth did the old testament Moses get, it seems to me all he got was a lot of bad-mouthing and contrary people on his case. You can believe anything you want about Jesus, who is God-Incarnate by the way, but if satan himself came here on earth he would be treated a lot better, also satan has no son, ask the god of islam about that. You can put words in my mouth if you want but they are not mine, they are yours. God is not the mean cop in the sky that so many people that call themselves christians would have you believe but is not only a Loving Father but He is Pure Love. A lot of people seem to be upset that they are going to be held responsible for their actions, and a lot of people seem to think that it doesn't matter what they do. It does matter what you do and why you do it and what you know, we do have free will whether you like it or not. God's Plan is for ALL HUMANITY and that is what upsets a lot of people that call themselves christians, but only God knows their hearts. God is a searcher of hearts and minds not of religious affiliations or lack thereof, in case it might seem that I repeat some things in different posts maybe you should check out the bible and see that a lot of things are repeated and repeated for the simple fact that we need to keep hearing it, it is not for God's benefit but for ours. God wins, satan loses, a tie is unacceptable. If the Kingdom, the new heavens and the new earth, were only for the repentent than God could have yelled that out of heaven rather than going thru everything that He did and asking us to follow Him. See you all in the Kingdom, take care. Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Hoo-boy, everybody's beating up on us Christians again! Dangit, not all of us are hung up on the Adam and Eve and snake and apple bit. Admittedly, I came back to the Church, after 30+ years of not believing, from the spiritual direction. Went straight to the Gospels, and to me they are the heart and soul of Christianity:

"You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”
-- my favorite

Trying to work my way outward in the Bible, but I have a lot of trouble with a lot of the Old Testament.

What I see in my church, though, is love and joy and beauty.

Oh, yeah - that sign shows up at baseball games too. (I am NOT a football fan.)

When Joe Gibbs came back to the Redskins, you would have thought he WAS Jesus by the reaction. ;-)

Anonymous:, You talking about the same Jesus that got hung on a cross and died? Now we know what the Raider's problem is, relying on a God that got what they're getting. Raiders need a new personnel manager, for sure not you.

Beware of sissified Gods. They'll have you flying airplanes into tall buildings because they can't get their way without you killing yourself. Maybe a little tootie fruity too, huh. That's the Raider's problem.

Ahhh...football and Jesus. My favorite subjects. I love Jesus and the Raiders. But Jesus is way better. I wish Jesus would play for the Raiders, maybe we could win a game this year with Him.

Wiccan:

Thanks for the sports trivia. I watch one, sometimes two football games a year - the Sugar Bowl (sometimes) and the Super Bowl, and to be honest, the only reason I watch the Super Bowl is for the half-time show. I just never really developed a taste for football. I enjoyed watching soccer during the recent World Cup, but even then, I didn't really care who won - I enjoyed watching the ball handling.
I've never noticed the John 3:16 signs before during either the Sugar Bowl or the Super Bowl, but I don't pay that much attention to the game.

Brambleton,

"And maybe, just maybe, if we made the Song of Solomon required reading before marriage, we wouldn't see as many divorces."

Maybe I need to check my facts again, and do correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the Christian religion have one of the highest divorce rates in America?

Lep-

My father passed the family curse onto me, that no football game will go unwatched if at all possible. When the TV sweeps the crowd (when there's nothing happening on the field) there is always someone holding up a sign with "JOHN 3:16" on it. God knows the best time to get our attention is during a football game. ;-)

Is anyone besides me curious as to what Cal's choice of verse has to do with football?

Brambleton

The devoutly religious young men who changed the New York landscape on 9/11 were charged
to do so by Allah. Is that the same fella who charged you to share the gospel with others?
Could it be,that they were deluded,and you are not?
Or could it be that you are deluded,and they were not?
Or could it be that both you and the suicide bombers are equally deluded?
I tend to think that God is in the mind
of the believer,and nowhere but the mind.
When I reflect on 9/11,and religious comments from yourself,Thomas Baum and others,I see God as the great delusion;without which the world would be a saner,better place.

Lepid,

How you can extract your thoughts on Anon from his threads is beyond my comprehension.

Yoyo,

I can only pray that you will someday feel His love. Sometimes I feel it in music, other times through word. What I can tell you is that I didn't always feel this way. I thought my life was just fine in high school and college. I couldn't begin to understand the fellowship and unity that I was missing. "Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!" (Psalm 133:1)

And maybe, just maybe, if we made the Song of Solomon required reading before marriage, we wouldn't see as many divorces. Maybe not. But I can pray and hope!

Brambleton:
**What appears illogical to me is someone spending time on a site devoted to faith who has nothing intelligent to offer the community.**

Christianity isn't the only faith out there. Anon sounds like someone who has faith in humanity's ability to take care of its own soul.

Awesome thought

So God created us and loves us.What's awesome about that?
If there is a God,that's awesome enough.
If he also loves us,His creatures,well,that is only to be expected,and not at all awesome.
It would be surprising if He created us,and hated us afterwards.
What I find awesome is the ability of the indoctrinated to make heart warming sense of pure unadulterated gibberish.

Anon,

My charge from God is to share the Gospel with you. If you choose to reject it, that's your choice. I certainly won't lose any sleep over it. What appears illogical to me is someone spending time on a site devoted to faith who has nothing intelligent to offer the community. Not a sermon, just a thought.

Lepidopteryx has it right.

The Bible is a storybook written by men to control the masses. There never was a garden of Eden, not was there any original sin. Those stories were man-made to establish a moral code and control people through fear.

The god of the bible supposedly talked to people in the old testament all the time. To Adam, to Noah, to Moses, etc.

Then he supposedly birthes himself in the form of Jesus, overwrites the old testament with the new testament, and never has talked to anyone else in 2000 years, unless of course you believe in Mormonism.

I'd rather read the brothers Grimm and Hans-Christian Andersen.

I am a spiritual person, albeit not a mainstream one. I believe there is a higher power, a cosmic conciousness so to speak, but it has never and will never interact with humans. It is incapable of doing so. I am also convinced that we will become part of that power after death, but surely not in the biblical sense.

It will be interesting to see who is right.

Wiccan: "Isn't it part of Christian dogma that every human comes under the doctrine of Original Sin?"

Original sin is NOT being the firstborn son of Pharaoh. That's everyone except "the son of God." Baptism addressed the situation where there was no firstborn son.

The Bible version comes from a PP translation of events surrounding a baptism, the anointing of Amenophis IV as co Pharaoh, (technically co regent). That was complicated by the fact that A4 was female, not a son, but masqueraded as a male, (blasphemy).

The high priest allowed "her" to be anointed with the plan to capture the throne for himself later. A better than average best guess. He did and his name was Ramses I. Jesus was prosecuted by the high priest, not high Rabbi. Details, details, details.

The original stories of the Bible are probably the product of ignorance. But then someone saw fit to "edit" the originals.

Hoax authors are usually not identifiable for obvious reasons. The best guess is a Jew named Josephus who may well have created a history for Jews that never happened. The territory of Judah was occupied by a foreign power throughout recorded history. The first independent nation there is today's Israel, 1948.

The key to the origin of the Bible is Egypt and not Palestine. That explains why Biblical archaeologists have come up completely empty.

**By His death and resurrection, Jesus paid for our salvation. He broke the power of sin and death.**

Which, according to your book, he set the conditions for in the first place.
If your god didn't want humanity to have the knowledge of good and evil or eternal life, then why not simply not put those things within his reach?
Why deliberately place them within his reach, POINT THEM OUT TO HIM, and then tell him not to touch?

I could never actually see the connection between God sending his only son to die,so that others who believe in him don't die. I mean how does that work?
Does it mean I can now sin because Jesus paid the bill already,in some bizarre way? And I go to heaven anyway?
Is 'life everlasting' now inevitable because Jesus died?
It really sounds awfully stupid and illogical.
How can anybody actually believe this drivel?

Brambleton-

EVE rebelled against God. It was she who ate the apple. Hold her responsible. And I still find the slaughter of the "innocent other" for someone else's sins illogical in the least, and repulsive in the most.

Yes, Eve's actions created a condition of rebellion against God. God created man to be like Him, but our pride and rebellion make us fall short of that purpose. But if we continue reading the Word, we arrive at the importance of Cal's verse, John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

By His death and resurrection, Jesus paid for our salvation. He broke the power of sin and death.

John 3:16.....

AUSTIN 3:16 just whooped your A$$!

"Brambleton:
Lepid,

Not sure how your response relates back to your earlier post. How does the Bible hold you responsible for events that took place before you were born?"

Isn't it part of Christian dogma that every human comes under the doctrine of Original Sin? That because Eve ate the apple, all humanity was cursed with death for her offense? Sure sounds like being held responsible for events that took place before we were born.

Bible = hoax A good hoax allows it's users to prove anything to the satisfaction of the victims. That includes being responsible for things that happened before one was born to say nothing of being responsible for the actions of others in general.

Now take the case of the crucifixion. Were you in on that? Are you a beneficiary? Tell that to the REAL God. Good luck.

**How does the Bible hold you responsible for events that took place before you were born?**

According to Christian theology, we are all sinners from the moment we enter the world naked, bloody, and screaming, all because Eve ate a freaking piece of fruit.

Brambleton=Thick

Lepid,

Not sure how your response relates back to your earlier post. How does the Bible hold you responsible for events that took place before you were born?

Brambleton,

Actually, Terra's view of the world makes a lot of sense to me. We are responsible for what we do - right here, right now. But I am not responsible for something that happened long before I was alive.

Holding me responsible for what Eve supposedly did is every bit as asinine as expecting me to pony up funds for reparations for slavery simply because I am white. I never owned a slave. My ancestors came here as exiles, not aristocrats. My dad can recall being beaten at school for speaking French - should he file assault and battery charges against the descendants of the teacher who beat him? Should that teacher's family pay my family reparations for as long as both genetic lines continue?

If my teenage daughter breaks a household rule, she loses privileges based on what rule she broke - the consequence varies depending on the infraction - driving, her cell phone, her internet connection, etc. - and neither disinheritance nor death is ever on the table. But I don't take the tags off her car and confiscate her keys because her great-grandmother got a DWI twenty years ago.

Lepid,

You're having trouble seeing the love because you're suffering from the "Terra Gazelle's". You're reading the last chapter of a story before the first. God didn't wake up one day and decide to flood the earth. Nor did he suddenly find displeasure in someone before striking them down. Every single instance reverts back to choice. God simply holds people accountable - something today's society refuses to do. It's sad, really.

One of the scriptures that inspires me the most is 1 Timothy 6:6. "But Godliness with contentment is great gain." I am simply awed by those words and find great comfort from them in today's world.

Thomas Baum: posted

John 3:16, "For God so loved humanity, whom He had created that He became one of us" pretty awesome thought is it not? Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

Here's a pretty awesome thought too.

1)Suppose the being in the ball of fire Moses made the deal with to gain the greatest wealth ever on earth, *****leader of God's chosen people***** was Devil and not God. That in reality Moses was the *****leader of Devil's chosen people*****

2) Jesus, as advertised is/was the son of that being, Devil.

3)Thomas Paul Moses Baum now stands before the REAL God and says something like, I'm born again, saved, have declared the glory of the being in the ball of fire, have followed all IT's teachings, the works. That's pretty awesome.

Prove http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul is wrong before it's too late.

The road to hell is paved with the best of intentions. Is there a better intention than a ticket to heaven? Is there a greater terror than hell? Sheep are herded into the slaughter house with threats of violence,, by the good shepherd.

For God so loved humanity that he showed them the fruit of knowledge of good and evil and forbade them to eat it.

For God so loved humanity that after they ate of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, he became afraid that they would also eat of the tree of life and become like him, so he not only punished them, but their entire species until the end of time.

For God so loved humanity that he flooded the earth, killing all but one family.

For God so loved humanity that he turned a woman into a pillar of salt for looking back at what had been her home as she fled.

For God so loved humanity that he caused a person to be born for the sole purpose of being tortured to death.

I'm having a bit of difficulty seeing the love.

The one I like is 2 Thess 1:6-9:

"6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"

Gives a nice feeling in your tummy doesn't it?

The one I like is 2 Thess 1:6-9:

"6 since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with tribulation those who trouble you, 7 and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,"

Gives a nice feeling in your tummy doesn't it?

John 3:16, "For God so loved humanity, whom He had created that He became one of us" pretty awesome thought is it not? Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

"God loves us so much He sent his only Son to be tortured excruciatingly and horribly done to death, so that whoever believes in The Religion of the Tormented Jew will most probably suffer a similar fate in this demonic world of His creation."

The True Perceiver (1203-1295)