Oddworld Forums

Oddworld Forums (http://www.oddworldforums.net/index.php)
-   Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.oddworldforums.net/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Wicca (http://www.oddworldforums.net/showthread.php?t=17715)

stonetooth 01-27-2009 05:46 PM

I personally don't think of religion as what people would consider "the truth". There are to many idiotic things in the bible that are physically impossible to happen. Magically healing people by touching them? Never going to happen. And plus, is there anything from the Roman history that says anything about some guy calling himself Jesus running around and healing people? Overall, i don't beleive religion. I more or less think that some of the explanations of science make more sense then some old great "god" that is NAMED god screaming to himself "Let there be day and night!" and randomly creating creatures on only ONE planet, but creating dozens and thousands of others that possibly have no inhabitants on them. And about the whole lucifier/satan thing, aparently lucifier was a priest that was trying to stop the spread of christianity so they considering him a evil person, and i'm not saying i think this is true, but it does make some sense to the reasoning for the devil.

Oh yeah, and OANST, are you athiest or are you christian? Or any other type of religion?

edit: sorry for being a bit off topic, just felt like talking about my beliefs.

Yet another edit: (part of) my family is christian, but that doesn't mean that I "Rebelled" from them. And yes, I typed this because I know you will say something about rebelling against your parents

mudling 01-27-2009 06:53 PM

I think you can say the same with most non mainstream religeons that are around today, and aithesim
Or for most fads/ trends in general.
My mum's freind claims she is a pagan, but when I question her on it, she reveals that she knows nothing about it, and is only trying to be different, and attends moon circles because she has nothing better to do.

But this is disgusting, to think that people change their own beliefs, and others purley for the sake of attention, popularity, being different, etc.

Yes I'm aware that there are athiests that are athiests bnecause that's what they realy believe in, for example, but there's alot who are purley so for being different and giving an up yours to the God they used to believe in because of how they think their life sucks. It's not about people pondering their world and giving a rational decision on what they believe in anymore, it's about doing what everyone else does, or doesn't do.
And you can say the same for most of the other religeons that aren't mainstream.

Then again, there are people of mainstream religeons (e.g. christianity) purley because they were told to believe it, and that brings up the questions, do they rationally think abotu their beliefs either, or do they believe what they're told? Are they just as bad, but just don't appear so because they're mainstream?

Well, aslong as these religeons don't harm or harrass others, then we shouldn't have to worry.

stonetooth 01-27-2009 06:58 PM

Yeah, that's all true, and the people are told to beleive in it are pretty much brainwashed. But yeah, sense christians are of a mainstream religion it's okay to "Brainwash" people at a young age, or they think it's okay.

But I think that if people beleive in something they should beleive in it because they think it's real, not because they think it's fun.

Bullet Magnet 01-27-2009 07:08 PM

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/beliefs.jpg

Venks 01-27-2009 07:19 PM

:

What the fuck are you even talking about? That's the most retarded half baked vegan shittop bullshit I've ever read.

I'd be vegan, but I'm afraid I find chicken incredibly delicious. I don't get why you can't appreciate the Earth though. It's a home for over 2 million different species, not one. Not to mention there will be many more in the future even after we go extinct. What gives us the right to destroy it?
If I moved into an apartment with some friends you wouldn't find me trashing the place just cus I pay the most rent.

:

()
Yeah, that's all true, and the people are told to beleive in it are pretty much brainwashed. But yeah, sense christians are of a mainstream religion it's okay to "Brainwash" people at a young age, or they think it's okay.

But I think that if people beleive in something they should beleive in it because they think it's real, not because they think it's fun.

Tough cookies stonetooth. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.
From now on I am a devout follower of Cthulhu. Because I find it interesting. I like the idea of complete freedom no longer trapped in the black and white world of laws vs chaos and good vs evil.

I know my religion was made up in a book, but then again which ones haven't?

...okay I'm done with Cthulhu. I have to remember too much stuff. I'm going back to Happy-Happyism.

mitsur 01-27-2009 07:29 PM

Curse you BM. You have enough rep as it is and yet you insist on making me give you more.

Mac Sirloin 01-27-2009 08:04 PM

:

()
I'd be vegan, but I'm afraid I find chicken incredibly delicious. I don't get why you can't appreciate the Earth though. It's a home for over 2 million different species, not one. Not to mention there will be many more in the future even after we go extinct. What gives us the right to destroy it?
If I moved into an apartment with some friends you wouldn't find me trashing the place just cus I pay the most rent.
.

That's not what I mean. Worse than rape? My friend Jordan is going through therapy right now because he was raped by some fucking nutjob from Trenton. I'm not saying that littering isn't bad, but I'd rather drop a bottle cap than be anally violated.

My sister has this friend. His name is Steven, and he's a batshit insane vegan. Seriously, he spews pretentious bullshit all the time and is a huge pain in the ass to talk to (hipster fucktard), but even he wouldnt say something like "LITTERING IS WORSE THAN RAPE!" It's just stupid. Ignorant, even.

Venks 01-27-2009 08:43 PM

:

()
That's not what I mean. Worse than rape? My friend Jordan is going through therapy right now because he was raped by some fucking nutjob from Trenton. I'm not saying that littering isn't bad, but I'd rather drop a bottle cap than be anally violated.

My sister has this friend. His name is Steven, and he's a batshit insane vegan. Seriously, he spews pretentious bullshit all the time and is a huge pain in the ass to talk to (hipster fucktard), but even he wouldnt say something like "LITTERING IS WORSE THAN RAPE!" It's just stupid. Ignorant, even.

True. It definitely is ignorant. I've never been raped before so I wouldn't really know. I really threw in 'littering is worse then rape' just to be controversial. I didn't expect you to be the first one to pick up on it. Guess that changes my perspective of you.

T-nex 01-28-2009 01:51 AM

:

()
I really threw in 'littering is worse then rape' just to be controversial.

Why would you do that? seriously, no offense but I find that extremely retarded.

Also, I honestly think people should be open and let others be. So what if wicca is stupid. At least it's not Scientology. Wicca promotes 'good' behavior I think.. Except the whole believing-in-a-fantasy part.

if they don't become bad people from that, then at least I have no problem with them. Same goes for any religions. As long as people don't judge me, I wont judge them.

But a quick note to Shaman: If you really believed in your stuff, you wouldn't be so defensive about it. Defensiveness is often a sign of one's knowledge being challenged, and that you wanna hold on to what you know.

Strike Witch 01-28-2009 02:47 AM

:

just to be controversial.
See, this right here is the problem with youth today.

Nate 01-28-2009 03:37 AM

:

()
But a quick note to Shaman: If you really believed in your stuff, you wouldn't be so defensive about it. Defensiveness is often a sign of one's knowledge being challenged, and that you wanna hold on to what you know.

I disagree. I find that defensiveness can be a sign that the person is feeling personally slighted, as can happen when someone's strongly held beliefs are insulted.

Chronicler 01-28-2009 03:53 AM

If there's one thing I dislike, it's a preacher trying to knock off religion ....

Why bash someone for their religion? Why would anybody here try and prove Wicca to be stupid or nonexistant? If anything, that makes YOU all stupid for trying to preach like that. While I'm no Wiccan, I will TRY to understand them to some extent. In a way, they are similair to Native American Shamanism (btw, shamanism be my belief as well), they CAN (And usually do) 'pray' and wish peace for others. That's what I know of Wicca. While their ideas of deitys can be physically impossible, that doesn't mean they're all crazy cooks (Same for other religious person for that matter). Of coarse, we should ALL know that every religious person has their own views of their belief and shouldn't make those stereotypes true.

Look at it this way, I appreciate scientists and their work, but the STEREOTYPICAL forms of science makes them out to think anything they don't know is nonexistant case closed. But when you look at someone who follows what they wish to believe, it makes just as much sense as science. Anybody can say "God doesn't exist" and back that sentance up with facts. But anybody can also say "God DOES exist" and back that up with many facts as well. There's no point AT ALL in trying to make another religion look fake because EVERYBODY has opinions on the world. And ANY of these opinions can, in some form, be true. Science is what humans physically know. But beliefs in Gods, Spirits, Totems, those are what humans try to spiritually know. What the Hell am I saying? Science IS a religion! ALL religions are opinionated, just as much as reality is.

Yes. I went off topic for a paragraph. But I'm a person that thinks people that throw rubbish at other religions are all hypocrital jackasses. But .... that's merely my own debatable belief ....

Bullet Magnet 01-28-2009 06:10 AM

There's so much wrong there that I can't even begin to address it without derailing the topic with an overlong essay (and I have stuff to do today), so I'll limit my response (for now) to this little gem:

:

()
Why bash someone for their religion? Why would anybody here try and prove Wicca to be stupid or nonexistant? If anything, that makes YOU all stupid for trying to preach like that. While I'm no Wiccan, I will TRY to understand them to some extent.

You squeeze two major contradictions into just this little snippet. First you say people are bashed, then claim that we're actually going after the belief system. Which is it? This does imply that you see no difference. I, and people like me, always go for the belief system. Bashing people is ad hominem, logically fallacious, spiteful and pointless. But a belief system is composed of ideas, and all ideas exist in the public domain to be criticised and evaluated. If we conclude that the ideas are poor and say so, how are we the bad guys? All we have done is examined these ideas. We didn't come up with them, and we do not find them sufficient to hold ourselves, so however erroneous or flawed we declare them to be is not our fault.

The second contradiction you make is more of a hypocrisy. You claim to try to understand Wiccans (as if examining and criticising a belief system is not doing that), but make no attempt to understand its critics and just call them stupid. Bravo, sir. Bravo.

Wings of Fire 01-28-2009 06:23 AM

:

()
Anybody can say "God doesn't exist" and back that sentance up with facts. But anybody can also say "God DOES exist" and back that up with many facts as well.

Be my guest.

On topic (Hah) I rather like the idea and principle behind pantheism, but going and making a religion out of a nice idea is just daft, I mean not that it hasn't been done before....*Cough* Abraham, *Cough* Constantine *Cough* Muhammed *Cough* Siddhathar Guatama *Cough*

Excuse me, I appear to be rather unwell today.

OANST 01-28-2009 07:08 AM

:

()
The way I see it, about the time that the Christian religion was invented, all other religions were, by the intent of the Christians, doomed to be snuffed out. One of the methods the Christians used to persecute and thus attempt to invalidate all other religions was their persecution of the long standing Wicca, which is largely a nature-based religion. Their depiction of the devil is an intentional distortion of Wicca's Pan.

Christianity has had a long and profitable career of persecution.

Very false. To begin with, the first few hundred years of Christianity saw them as the oppressed and not the oppressors. Oppression has absolutely nothing to do with what religion someone subscribes to. It has a great deal to do with the ruling class imposing their particular beliefs on those with less power. This is perpetrated by almost all religions or political theology that comes into power. Not all, but most.

As for Christianity stealing the appearance of Pan for Lucifer, this is also false (to an extent). Not once in the bible is the devil referred to as being ugly, horned, or cloven-hoofed. He was an angel of the highest order and so beautiful that you could hardly stand to look upon him. The reason that people attribute traits such as a bifurcated tail and red hue derives from peoples need to see things as absolutes. Evil must ugly. Good must be beautiful.

shaman 01-28-2009 07:19 AM

i completely respect your opinions ok.

If i have came across as being defensive i apologise...i do believe it. but have always had a habbit of saying the wrong thing.

Wings of Fire 01-28-2009 07:20 AM

:

()
The reason that people attribute traits such as a bifurcated tail and red hue derives from peoples need to see things as absolutes. Evil must ugly. Good must be beautiful.

I contest that point, Christianity was one of the first widespread western cultures to make absolutes in this sense, in the so called 'noble' cultures of Ancient Greece a good antagonist, rival or enemy is one who possessed similar traits to yourself in order to make him a worthy adversary, one of these traits being beauty, think back to the story of the Fall and you can see this idea of worthy foes between Lucifer and Micheal.

Also, popular theological opinion (of that period certainly) would cite the beast in Revalations as an incarnation of Satan, and that certainly isn't described flatteringly.

Bullet Magnet 01-28-2009 07:20 AM

The Pan/devil thing, like so much else, was probably derived from a socio-political campaign alienating and vilifying pagans.

OANST 01-28-2009 08:29 AM

:

()
I contest that point, Christianity was one of the first widespread western cultures to make absolutes in this sense, in the so called 'noble' cultures of Ancient Greece a good antagonist, rival or enemy is one who possessed similar traits to yourself in order to make him a worthy adversary, one of these traits being beauty, think back to the story of the Fall and you can see this idea of worthy foes between Lucifer and Micheal.

Also, popular theological opinion (of that period certainly) would cite the beast in Revalations as an incarnation of Satan, and that certainly isn't described flatteringly.

Exactly what point are you contesting? I said people. Not people of a certain era. I don't do it so I obviously don't think all people do. Once again, I seem to draw people who wish to debate things I say just to debate them without actually considering what they are saying. Your post has no relevance to mine.

And nothing I have ever read has ever seen the beast from Revelation as being Satan. And I have read quite a bit on the subject.

:

()
The Pan/devil thing, like so much else, was probably derived from a socio-political campaign alienating and vilifying pagans.

Do you really think that they laid out a plan with the intent of "alienating" a people that they were already stoning and burning? Isn't it much more likely (and true) that they merely saw the unattractive as being of the devil and the foolish, frightened people attributed drawings they saw of pagan gods as being the devil manifest?

Bullet Magnet 01-28-2009 09:04 AM

Don't make the mistake of assuming people from history are simple minded caricatures of human beings. They have scandals and politics and commentary and machinations and popular culture just like we do.

OANST 01-28-2009 09:42 AM

:

()
Don't make the mistake of assuming people from history are simple minded caricatures of human beings. They have scandals and politics and commentary and machinations and popular culture just like we do.

I don't think that. I do in this instance think that the answer is far simpler. I am also of the opinion that modern people make the same mistake.

Pilot 01-28-2009 10:16 AM

:

Very false. To begin with, the first few hundred years of Christianity saw them as the oppressed and not the oppressors. Oppression has absolutely nothing to do with what religion someone subscribes to. It has a great deal to do with the ruling class imposing their particular beliefs on those with less power. This is perpetrated by almost all religions or political theology that comes into power. Not all, but most.

As for Christianity stealing the appearance of Pan for Lucifer, this is also false (to an extent). Not once in the bible is the devil referred to as being ugly, horned, or cloven-hoofed. He was an angel of the highest order and so beautiful that you could hardly stand to look upon him. The reason that people attribute traits such as a bifurcated tail and red hue derives from peoples need to see things as absolutes. Evil must ugly. Good must be beautiful.

(I quote the whole thing here just so that nothing's out of context, points are bolded)

Christians did indeed see themselves as the oppressed; and as time-tested tactics tell us, people who are acting in desperation are the easiest to control when a figure of 'stability' or 'leadership' takes the reigns. "Come children, we have exactly what you need." Using the very essential basics of moral conduct that religion teaches at its foundation, and adding in a lot of extra hoo-ha, the whole resulting 'belief system' becomes something that followers cannot only just swallow, but are also more than willing to do so through its veil of 'good intention.'

So can we look at the ruling class on a quest for power? Could we consider that controlling man's mind is indeed absolute power? We look at history and all its accounts of man's 'leaders,' whether they are religious leaders or other social leaders and, exactly as you put it, the 'ideas' and 'beliefs' tend to have a way of working their way down through the ranks either through ways that are directly 'forceful' (believe or die).... or through less direct yet similarly effective ways which are to make the beliefs or ideas a 'social trend' ... so that they overtake the mind/individual by what's been termed 'tyranny of the majority;' the idea that what is commonly accepted/socially acceptable is right.

The Bible does not have to depict Satan. When this idea written of Satan in the Bible is 'elaborated upon' by religious leaders, the follower's minds do all the work in making the association. So then the critical question in response to this is then: why has the stereotype of Satan been the horned devil being that it has been for centuries... and where have we seen this figure before? This goes much deeper than 'black and white' terms of ugly vs beautiful that it may appear to be to you on the surface. Where did the depiction come from? How can absolute power be attained by letting other 'options' or 'belief systems' stay available to those you are trying to control? Look at modern times.... are we still seeing this today?

:

The Pan/devil thing, like so much else, was probably derived from a socio-political campaign alienating and vilifying pagans.

and also,

:

Don't make the mistake of assuming people from history are simple minded caricatures of human beings. They have scandals and politics and commentary and machinations and popular culture just like we do.

I think this fits well into the subject, because it's easy to see historical figures as two dimensional... we may have never known them personally, and without this personal firsthand experience things, in our own perception tend to be unbased, as we have no real 'foundation' to base these people/thoughts/experiences upon. What I'm saying is that anything outside of our own perception and experience is not concrete unless we're willing to take secondhand information as evidence or proof without critical thought and think we then know all about it. :D

OANST 01-28-2009 10:36 AM

:

()
(I quote the whole thing here just so that nothing's out of context, points are bolded)

Christians did indeed see themselves as the oppressed; and as time-tested tactics tell us, people who are acting in desperation are the easiest to control when a figure of 'stability' or 'leadership' takes the reigns. "Come children, we have exactly what you need." Using the very essential basics of moral conduct that religion teaches at its foundation, and adding in a lot of extra hoo-ha, the whole resulting 'belief system' becomes something that followers cannot only just swallow, but are also more than willing to do so through its veil of 'good intention.'

So can we look at the ruling class on a quest for power? Could we consider that controlling man's mind is indeed absolute power? We look at history and all its accounts of man's 'leaders,' whether they are religious leaders or other social leaders and, exactly as you put it, the 'ideas' and 'beliefs' tend to have a way of working their way down through the ranks either through ways that are directly 'forceful' (believe or die).... or through less direct yet similarly effective ways which are to make the beliefs or ideas a 'social trend' ... so that they overtake the mind/individual by what's been termed 'tyranny of the majority;' the idea that what is commonly accepted/socially acceptable is right.

The Bible does not have to depict Satan. When this idea written of Satan in the Bible is 'elaborated upon' by religious leaders, the follower's minds do all the work in making the association. So then the critical question in response to this is then: why has the stereotype of Satan been the horned devil being that it has been for centuries... and where have we seen this figure before? This goes much deeper than 'black and white' terms of ugly vs beautiful that it may appear to be to you on the surface. Where did the depiction come from? How can absolute power be attained by letting other 'options' or 'belief systems' stay available to those you are trying to control? Look at modern times.... are we still seeing this today?



and also,



I think this fits well into the subject, because it's easy to see historical figures as two dimensional... we may have never known them personally, and without this personal firsthand experience things, in our own perception tend to be unbased, as we have no real 'foundation' to base these people/thoughts/experiences upon. What I'm saying is that anything outside of our own perception and experience is not concrete unless we're willing to take secondhand information as evidence or proof without critical thought and think we then know all about it. :D

I can find no fault in this except to say this. I believe that there is very little difference between modern man and ancient man. This leads me to believe that since modern day zealots rarely take the strategy of consciously trying to mislead and instead use their own fear and mistaken translations of text to cow people into believing what they do, the ancient Christians most likely did the same. I'm going to quote myself here.
:

()
Isn't it much more likely (and true) that they merely saw the unattractive as being of the devil and the foolish, frightened people attributed drawings they saw of pagan gods as being the devil manifest?

They did incorporate the pagan appearance of deities (this is how it's spelled Shaman) into their own idea of evil's greatest champion, Satan. What I meant when discussing this is that there is nothing within the Christian texts to back up this appearance and that it was something that people attributed to their faith through the fear that seeing pagan texts produced in them.

However, I think the idea that there was some sort of socio-political plan both gives too little and too much credit to the Christians.

Kimon 01-28-2009 10:47 AM

:

()
You incredible shitcocks. All of you.

Agreed. This is idiocy.

OANST 01-28-2009 10:57 AM

:

()
Agreed. This is idiocy.

Oh, you love it.

Also, Kastere's comment has to be taken with a grain of salt since he decided to join the talks for a bit.

Mac Sirloin 01-28-2009 11:58 AM

:

()
As for Christianity stealing the appearance of Pan for Lucifer, this is also false (to an extent). Not once in the bible is the devil referred to as being ugly, horned, or cloven-hoofed. He was an angel of the highest order and so beautiful that you could hardly stand to look upon him. The reason that people attribute traits such as a bifurcated tail and red hue derives from peoples need to see things as absolutes. Evil must ugly. Good must be beautiful.

One of the many reasons why Neil Gaiman's Sandman graphic novels are a good read.

:

()

Also, Kastere's comment has to be taken with a grain of salt since he decided to join the talks for a bit.

True, but I was being honest about how I feel about this. I can agree that Wicca is currently (in my opinion) "pretentious hipster shit with a following of complete ignoramuses and sheep." But people still believe in it and if it means they have some valid opinions about the state of pollution, I can dig it. Just don't expect me to buy your diatribes on how everything has a soul when you're some trendy shittop.

OANST 01-28-2009 11:59 AM

:

()
One of the many reasons why Neil Gaiman's Sandman graphic novels are a good read.

Fucking agreed.

Pilot 01-28-2009 01:15 PM

:

Oh, you love it.

God, you're turning into me, I would SO say that.

Or GOD forbid I'm turning into you.

:


True, but I was being honest about how I feel about this. I can agree that Wicca is currently (in my opinion) "pretentious hipster shit with a following of complete ignoramuses and sheep." But people still believe in it and if it means they have some valid opinions about the state of pollution, I can dig it. Just don't expect me to buy your diatribes on how everything has a soul when you're some trendy shittop.

You know Kastere, words have the power to cut deep. From what you say you have no real understanding of what we're talking about, and share that in a way that is really immature and senselessly offensive. This puts off people who might want to share their own viewpoints that have real thought behind them for fear of being trashed. If anything I think your attitude shows that of a trendy shittop hipster. :fuzzle:

There's no room for that in the middle of a serious discussion... but then the whole 'venue' here (OWF) is not exactly all that serious; those are the breaks I suppose.

The only thing I can begin to extract from what you said about 'trendiness' is what I refer to 'spiritual fluffiness.' This is the taking of long established traditions and turning them into something 'modern' and 'trendy' for the sake of turning a profit... kind of like the 'new age' movement; go into a 'trendy' new age shop and spend all day buying crystals and incense and other 'fluffy' and practically meaningless things. This is spirituality? No. It's trendy fluffy nonsense with no connection to our past heritage or anything. It's empty.... but the buying makes people think that they are doing something truly 'spiritual' through the action.

Mac Sirloin 01-28-2009 01:49 PM

:

()
God, you're turning into me, I would SO say that.

Or GOD forbid I'm turning into you.



You know Kastere, words have the power to cut deep. From what you say you have no real understanding of what we're talking about, and share that in a way that is really immature and senselessly offensive. This puts off people who might want to share their own viewpoints that have real thought behind them for fear of being trashed. If anything I think your attitude shows that of a trendy shittop hipster. :fuzzle:

There's no room for that in the middle of a serious discussion... but then the whole 'venue' here (OWF) is not exactly all that serious; those are the breaks I suppose.

The only thing I can begin to extract from what you said about 'trendiness' is what I refer to 'spiritual fluffiness.' This is the taking of long established traditions and turning them into something 'modern' and 'trendy' for the sake of turning a profit... kind of like the 'new age' movement; go into a 'trendy' new age shop and spend all day buying crystals and incense and other 'fluffy' and practically meaningless things. This is spirituality? No. It's trendy fluffy nonsense with no connection to our past heritage or anything. It's empty.... but the buying makes people think that they are doing something truly 'spiritual' through the action.

OR, you don't actually understand what I was talking about.

OANST 01-28-2009 01:51 PM

:

()
go into a 'trendy' new age shop and spend all day buying crystals and incense and other 'fluffy' and practically meaningless things. This is spirituality? No. It's trendy fluffy nonsense with no connection to our past heritage or anything. It's empty.... but the buying makes people think that they are doing something truly 'spiritual' through the action.

Don't worry. I'll break them.