The Sea Cat
|
Edited Sep 23, 2010, 18:30
Re: The Pagan 'problem'
Sep 23, 2010, 18:16
|
We have no shared point of reference to start with, unfortunately, as I am not referring to organised religion re. God/Godesses. That is not where I'm coming from at all, with all due respect to Dawkins and his all too easy barrel fishing. That's the Limit Horizon as far as he is concerned.Anything else re. these matters is beyond his capability. It's a completely different area of knowledge and research. Intuitive, as well as symbolic. He is unqualified to speak of such matters and should stick to interviewing his usual targets, well meaning but daft deluded hormonal 'new agers', pillory them in the process, and thus wrap it all up in his self satisfied rightist grin. I'd like to see him contain his temper and collaborate in a serious unbiased philosphical/spiritual/scientific discussion with some intellectual heavy weights from every other spectrum.
Richard Dawkins is Proud.
Shiva is Quantum.
Right. I'm off to levitate over the cesspit!
:-)
Aum.
|
dee
|
Re: The Pagan 'problem'
Sep 23, 2010, 18:47
|
|
Dawkins vs Watts ....ding ding....round 1 !!
|
The Sea Cat
|
Edited Sep 23, 2010, 18:51
Re: The Pagan 'problem'
Sep 23, 2010, 18:51
|
|
Hee Hee! I reckon Carl on gumshield and Aldous on sponge duties.
|
dee
|
Re: The Pagan 'problem'
Sep 23, 2010, 19:03
|
|
KNOCKOUT !!!!!! lol
|
Littlestone
|
Re: The Pagan 'problem'
Sep 23, 2010, 19:42
|
|
Happily, I was not in the UK when Pope Ratzinger visited, so I didn't have to breathe the same air as him.
tsk... shouldn't the 'P' in Pope Ratzinger not be in lower case Jane ; -)
|
The Eternal
|
Re: The Pagan 'problem'
Sep 23, 2010, 21:20
|
Jane,
I think that your quote below says everything perfectly.
Jane wrote:
The reason he is so strident about it is because he (like me and millions of others) are FED UP to the back teeth with those who assert religious privilege. By pussy-footing around the believers in c
ause offence, we prolong their unfair privilege.
[/quote]
Totally agree,
Regards,
TE.
|
nigelswift
|
Edited Sep 24, 2010, 08:11
Re: The Pagan 'problem'
Sep 24, 2010, 07:06
|
FED UP to the back teeth with those who assert religious privilege. By pussy-footing around the believers in cause offence, we prolong their unfair privilege.
Interesting that because (and I'm not anti-Pagan, far from it, being the author of the HA article that attacked the pope for attacking them) but in my opinion EH and NT pussy-foot around FAR too much, allowing pagans unfair privilege. They're a tiny minority, as are the Avebury residents. Good luck to them. But the vast majority of stakeholders (everyone else in the world that has an equal interest and equal stake in ancient sites) gets short shrift in terms of a say, or a share in information or decision making. The authorities seem to think they've ticked all the necessary boxes if they've outreached to locals and pagans. Well they haven't. They are everyone's monuments.
What we need is a Federation of Secular Non-Residents....(membership: X million)
Let NT and EH report to THEM, hold Round Table and site meetings to keep THEM informed and allow one of their representatives to climb Silbury annually to proclaim "There is no God!" It's all about democracy, not misinterpreting some nancy advice in Conservation Guidelines that says always involve the locals and those for whom the places are special. It's the 21st century, we all have the internet and transport so we're ALL local and we ALL have very, very special interest in the places so how about outreaching to and flattering and fully informing US?! And FIRST - since we vastly outnumber the others and we're paying the bills!
;) :) :)
|
juamei
|
Re: The Pagan 'problem'
Sep 24, 2010, 07:44
|
|
tjj wrote:
The I Ching for example might be described as a spiritual philosophy with no 'god' involved. It has survived for thousands of years in many different forms; neither is there anything superstitious about the hexagrams - each one gives sound advice about how respond/react to life's crises and can be applied to any situation.
(Edited)
Belief in the I Ching is just that though, blind faith with no logical basis.
|
tjj
|
Re: The Pagan 'problem'
Sep 24, 2010, 08:04
|
|
juamei wrote: tjj wrote:
The I Ching for example might be described as a spiritual philosophy with no 'god' involved. It has survived for thousands of years in many different forms; neither is there anything superstitious about the hexagrams - each one gives sound advice about how respond/react to life's crises and can be applied to any situation.
(Edited)
Belief in the I Ching is just that though, blind faith with no logical basis.
I didn't say I 'believed' in it. I edited my original post because it spoke of a particular time in my life when I was knocked somewhat off balance. Quietly spending 15 minutes a day reading I Ching and taking guidance from it helped me to set the 'chattering ego' aside and regain equilibrium and acceptance. I was then able to go off to work and deal with the stresses and strains of the day; I believe meditation has a similar effect.
Having shaken off the shackles of a Roman Catholic education, 'blind faith' is a label I do not accept; however, learning to know yourself is something everyone could benefit from otherwise we go through life thinking we are always right and everyone else is wrong ... which is the basis of fundamentalism whatever label you choose to put on it.
|
juamei
|
Re: The Pagan 'problem'
Sep 24, 2010, 08:15
|
Sorry I was a touch blunter than I intended.
To clarify, I'm saying nothing about the beneficial effects of the I Ching, on yours or anyones life. Just that to follow its guidance one must take a leap of faith that the path the I Ching shows you is going to be a beneficial one.
I understand and appreciate the role faith plays in many lives, for the vast majority it gives them hope and guidance, and who am I to take that away.
|
