Neopaganism Is The Worst

[Sheilbh]

I know you are trying very hard, but to those of us outside the flock, these sheep look pretty much identical.  From where I sit, this spitting on neopaganism by people who believe in other, equally-goofy-appearing concepts is nothing short of amusing.

Neopagans dancing naked around a fire is indistinguishable in silliness, to me, from Catholics in Sunday-best pretending to be cannibals.

I'm not in a flock

But the entire point is neopagans don't have anything to believe in.  Being religious means believing in something external that's greater than yourself.  Neopagans don't have that.  They feel good in a forest, which is fine, but it's not a religion.  When they move beyond themselves then I'll think of them as a religion rather than self-involvement in a robe.

[garbon]

But the entire point is neopagans don't have anything to believe in.  Being religious means believing in something external that's greater than yourself.  Neopagans don't have that.  They feel good in a forest, which is fine, but it's not a religion.  When they move beyond themselves then I'll think of them as a religion rather than self-involvement in a robe.

How do you know? The author of the article in the first post seems to think about powers beyond her, namely nature and generations of ancestors.

[Sheilbh]

How do you know? The author of the article in the first post seems to think about powers beyond her, namely nature and generations of ancestors.

I said earlier I think a religion has enough thinking that there could be no believers and we'd be able to have a strong idea of what the system was.  That's the difference between a religion and inane, individualised beliefs about nature.  One's a belief system, the other's just a belief.

[garbon]

How do you know? The author of the article in the first post seems to think about powers beyond her, namely nature and generations of ancestors.

I said earlier I think a religion has enough thinking that there could be no believers and we'd be able to have a strong idea of what the system was.  That's the difference between a religion and inane, individualised beliefs about nature.  One's a belief system, the other's just a belief.

Isn't a belief system just multiple supporting beliefs?

[Maximus]

How odd.  Religion is a bit like law.  You don't personally interpret the law.  Well not if you intend to stay out of jail.  Why would the divine law change person to person?

Religion is not at all like the law. There is a fairly transparent system by which laws are made and those that are made are clearly spelled out. When a god shows up in person and tells us what his law is then perhaps we can treat it like law. Perhaps a god has appeared to you. If so that's great. You don't have to interpret. The rest of the world is not so lucky and has to go on faith.

[Maximus]

Religion is a communal activity. Mysticism can be individual but you need an organized system to make it a religion.

Some religions have a communal component and that's part of their appeal. Others specifically do not, and that's part of their appeal.

[The Minsky Moment]

Who is Rabbi Shemp? 

[garbon]

Religion is a communal activity. Mysticism can be individual but you need an organized system to make it a religion.

Some religions have a communal component and that's part of their appeal. Others specifically do not, and that's part of their appeal.

I'd also argue that Marti's suggestion kinda of puts a damper on the notion of being a hermit.

[fhdz]

Yours sounds a lot like "Making it up as you go", in which the temptation to do what is easy or simply beneficial well quickly be rationalized as right.

You're back to saying it is a cost-benefit analysis again. I think grumbler's right; if that's the way it sounds to you, I'm not going to have a lot of luck explaining it.

[fhdz]

I'm not in a flock

I thought you were Catholic, Sheilbh?

[Sheilbh]

I thought you were Catholic, Sheilbh?

Well I am, culturally.  But I've not been to Church in years.  I've not really been a believer in a long time, if ever, properly.

Last service was probably my niece's Anglican christening.  But I've got a lot of respect and, I think, understanding for the Church and generally find most religions pretty interesting.  But I'm not at all a spiritual person.  I have no yearning towards God or the infinite or anything like that.

[Valmy]

I thought you were Catholic, Sheilbh?

Well I am, culturally.  But I've not been to Church in years.  I've not really been a believer in a long time, if ever, properly.

Last service was probably my niece's Anglican christening.  But I've got a lot of respect and, I think, understanding for the Church and generally find most religions pretty interesting.  But I'm not at all a spiritual person.  I have no yearning towards God or the infinite or anything like that.

Oh I do as well.  In fact I am listening to a great podcast by this Canadian professor on religion in the late Roman Empire here: http://www.archive.org/details/Religions_of_the_Ancient_Mediterranean if you are unfamiliar with it listen a bit it is pretty interesting.

But I also sort of like new agey bullshit because it is so wonderfully post-modern.  Everybody involved usually knows it is bullshit but it fulfills them on some level they have a hard time vocalizing.  I find it pretty interesting really.

[fhdz]

I was presuming Fahdiz had some form of morality.

Your presumption is correct.

[Valmy]

I was presuming Fahdiz had some form of morality.

Your presumption is correct.

Is it: the Categorical Imperative? :kant:

[Eddie Teach]

I was presuming Fahdiz had some form of morality.

Your presumption is correct.

What's that like?