The Paranormal and the "Normal"

You are a wonderful force on this Earth. Thank you for you.

"Why would I want to go to a witch's sabbath?"

The Catering, no doubt about it.

I've been to plenty of Church services, all stripes, all denominations.

It's the Wiccan rituals that really ring my bells.

Friend's Meeting is a close second.

Wow, look at all the heat and light over here. Let me just throw a few random things here, see if flame wars break out or dead silence. . . .

I spent a decade as an audio engineer, ran into some serious practitioners with some occult know-how that they were kind enough to pass along. Just in case that word—occult—makes any of you nervous, remember: occult means "hidden." In any case, I know the difference in the "sound" of copper wire vs. silver wire. I know that plenty of "objectivist" writers on sound reproduction will tell you that wire has no "sound" and of course, they are correct. But silver wire—line level interconnect, speaker wire, the gauge doesn't matter—always produces a "sound" brighter than copper wire when replacing copper wire, the subjective and measured output from the speakers has more high-frequency content than plain old copper zip cord. There's plenty of other parameters to monkey with in audio wire. The question is, at what point are we dealing with the repeatable, at what point is it all smoke and mirrors? Something as simple as speaker wire has created a cottage industry of in-print recriminations of the whole concept, increasing sales of Romex in the process.

Now let's get into a really difficult set of beliefs and parameters. Remember LSD? Folks sayin' [initially] that they took the stuff and then "Saw God" or some rough equivalent. We all know that bit of history. Rick Strassman

http://www.rickstrassman.com/

has been researching DMT [N,N-dimethyltryptamine], a compound that is produced within out bodies that as far as anyone can tell consistently produces intense spiritual experiences. Same conundrum as LSD—gnosis received not from prayer or meditation or good works, but from a chemical, like Huxley's SOMA. Timothy Leary once called [in a long litany recorded on a futon at Millbrook] all aspects of life and consciousness "a chemical process." There is a good chance that DMT serves as a necessary regulator of consensus reality and is also the door to heaven and hell. The idea that it is not a a God or Goddess or Saint or Orisha or their names or numbers but a chemical that flows from your pineal gland—right about where that third eye ought to be—that is the true gateway to heaven & hell, well, that's a bit much for any decent half-way religious type to put up with, isn't it? Heresy !

In closing, I'd like to point out that Isaac Newton was an alchemist.

http://www.alchemylab.com/isaac_newton.htm

Athena,

Only if it is Gabriel!!!!! That way, I get to be Christian, Mormon, Noah and Islamic all at the same time. I can feel the power of it all!!! Just think, I could "Crossanize" three religions all at once!!! Such efficiency would make the Singularity quite proud!!!

Nah... I wouldn't make a CCNL voodoo doll. I'd do a spell to turn him into an angel. A Muslim angel.

Look out Arminius, I just found a cheap copy of your doll on e-Bay. The hoodooing and voodoing begin as soon as the FedEx truck arrives tomorrow.

Friends -

Well, I told you so about CCNL....

Dictionary: hoodoo (hū'dū) from answers.com

Sponsored LinksGuarantee Voodoo Spells
Fast Voodoo Spells Active Online Your Free Spell is Onscreen Now

www.Active-Online-Spells.com

n., pl. -doos.

Magic healing and control, especially in African-based folk medicine in the United States and the Caribbean. Also called conjure.

A practitioner of hoodoo.

Voodoo.

Bad luck.

One that brings bad luck.

Geology. A column of eccentrically shaped rock, produced by differential weathering.

tr.v., -dooed, -doo·ing, -doos.
To practice hoodoo on; affect with a charm or curse.

To bring bad luck to.
[Of West African origin, possibly from VOODOO.]

hoodooism hoo'doo·ism n.

Anyone have an Arminius doll I can purchase??? Might want to a little hoodooing!!!!

Friends -

Give it up on CCNL. He will no sooner exchange his bigotry for understanding than Spidey will stop callling us all stupid idiots.

CCNL - I have never in 20 years heard a Pagan refer to magick as "hoodoo". In fact, the only time I've heard the word used was in a discussion of Sid and Marty Krofft's "Lidsville".

Some folks do refer to the syncretic religions of Haiti, New Orleans, and the SC barrier islands as "voodoo", but it will usually be spelled voudou or voudon. And no, people don't stick pins into dolls, either. That's just Hollywood's version.

"But the most important gain we have made through technology is to understand that we as humans have the power to better our lives, and that we are not at the mercy of the gods and their fickle natures."

I actually agree with this. Paganism places a very heavy responsibility on the person taking responsibility for their lives and working to do better. It's why we have the Law of Threefold Return- that whatever we do, good or bad, comes back to us. It forces us to think really hard about what we do and why, and accept the consequences. But think about it- are then we not left with being at the mercy of our fellow man and their 'Fickle natures'?

I've said nothing this whole time about the nature of Deity. I find a flower to be just as divine and perfect in its own way. Honestly, right now that's all the 'Divine' I need and maybe more than I can handle. Nature is thoroughly awe-inspiring. In learning through science, about how this planet works I fell in love with it somewhere along the way. That flower is just as sacred to me as every other living thing on this planet. What we do to others we do to ourselves. We can only take so much without giving something back. When you see the world as sacred, it forces you to treat everything with a certain kind of caution, a lot more respect- and maybe a bit more love.

We do ALSO work with the mind, also independent of the herbal medicine. Not to have power over (which is something we have to constantly watch out for) but to help people empower themselves. Why do we do it? Because it works. Why/how does it work? Don't know. Are such techniques able to be studied empirically? Maybe to a point, but science discounts personal experiences- and that is what many of the results are based on. Meditative techniques have been shown to lower blood pressure and ease stress. We've sorta figured out that there are types of Meditations that can help people come to grips with their emotional baggage and work to change themselves from the inside out. Again this is not IN PLACE of science, or modern medicine, psychology, whatever, but as an adjunct to. But it's hard as hell- but tremendously rewarding.

As far as stories about the God/desses go, for me those stories are about learning lessons about people, not so much about Deity. Maybe that will change later on. I don't know.. and right now that doesn't matter so much to me. I look at the Gods as aspects of us, archetypes. (think Joseph Campbell and Jung) Others feel differently, and that's OK. It's supposed to be that way. No one way is better than any other.. but this is how it works for me.

Discounting someone's experiences though is a mistake. Telling someone what they 'should' do or 'should feel' or calling one another names may make someone feel better in the short run, but doesn't help counteract these overwhelming problems. I absolutely agree that we wouldn't be where we are without science- but I've seen too many people I love broken under our current government systems to put a whole lot of trust in the ability of government to fix things. My grandmother might very well be starving and out of her house before long just struggling to pay for my grandfather's long term health care right now. It breaks my heart to see everything she worked for about to go out the window.

I am not advocating homeopathy OVER regular medical science. What I am saying is that current medicine owes a debt to those first plants that gave birth to many of the drugs we now use. We owe a debt to our ancestors for, if nothing else, surviving so that we have a chance to live. And there are meditative techniques that one can learn to improve their own power and not give so much of it away to other people that they lose themselves in the process.

I think it may be *possible* for the government but very highly unlikely. But when governments like ours take someone I love dearly who desperately needs his medication just to stop vomiting blood on a daily basis, and tries to rip both his Medicare and his Social Security out from under him, I have to ask questions. I can't help but wonder why science is trying to make people live longer. A Pagan might see death as not something to be feared but just another part of life. I'm not scared to die anymore.. just afraid of missing those I care about- and not doing everything I want to before I go. The prospect of an afterlife has no attraction for me- Since the Divine for me is right here on this planet I'll be part of this planet one way or another after my death, whether I'm buried in the ground or scattered ashes to the four winds. And that's enough for me.

Mr. Mark, I'm glad you're a skeptic. Really. We need skepticism and we need science. There will always be a place for scientific exploration. We need government too- but not to the detriment of the individual. I'm actually not about BIG govt, vs. SMALL goverment- I'm about SMARTER government. It's alarming to me that we are the only country to have this gigantic military industrial complex churning out more and more dangerous weapons that will end up in the hands of folks who really want to do us harm.

I think we tend to trust and expect others sometimes a little too much to handle what only we can fix. Especially emotionally- and then we get mad at others when they can't give us what we need because they are in just as much pain as we are.

But politically speaking, I really think we can USE an idealist at this point. Someone with an abundance of imagination and innovation who can try new things and not be afraid to throw away the box altogether. Suppose someone came up with a program that accomplished the same aims as the Social Security program but looked or operated nothing like the original. Even if they fail to accomplish everything, they can inspire us to new achievements. We used to reward innovation in this country. We've gotten away from that in favor of 'my ideology is better than yours' and all about hating people not like ourselves.. even if they are our neighbors. If someone like that who understands the nature of people came along I don't think these days they'd get a national platform. Never mind an election. That's why for me, Obama is the closest that I've seen in my lifetime to that. Is he flawed? you bet your boots. I'm not giving up on government totally yet but I can certainly relate to those who are. But I'd rather have someone shoot for the moon, miss and land among the stars.

There is much that we have in common, you and I. I enjoy our discussions, and really do like reading your challenges to others- so long as there is an understanding that ultimately it is possible to agree to disagree and still respect one another in the morning.

Blessed be. :)

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:
Terra, Terra, Terra,

>>>>>>Might as well lump Wiccans with Christians as you noted considering the "christian" holi/holydays of Thanksgiving and Easter being observed by both groups.

They were Pagan holy days long before Christianity existed. The early church, in its zeal to convert the Pagans, simply overlaid them with Christian symbology.

>>>>>>>>But then there is still the issue of the paranormal pagan traditions of spirits and at least some form of voodoo or hoodoo. Those two names just seem to resonate everytime someone mentions paganism. Strange or is it???

Not really - you won't find many Pagans using those terms.

Terra, Terra, Terra,

Might as well lump Wiccans with Christians as you noted considering the "christian" holi/holydays of Thanksgiving and Easter being observed by both groups.

But then there is still the issue of the paranormal pagan traditions of spirits and at least some form of voodoo or hoodoo. Those two names just seem to resonate everytime someone mentions paganism. Strange or is it???

Dear Priver -

It's becoming clear that we have some major philosophical differences.

I do believe that technology has made things better for humanity. Longer lifespans and a better education of the general populace are singular proofs of that. Indoor plumbing is also up there. But the most important gain we have made through technology is to understand that we as humans have the power to better our lives, and that we are not at the mercy of the gods and their fickle natures. That in and of itself makes technology - from the invention of the wheel to nano-tech - one of man's greatest self-improving factors.

I am at a loss to understand your embrace of placebos. You say that you have to be in the correct mindset for homeopathy to work, or it won't work. Geez. Isn't that a prime example of a placebo? Why bother taking the placebo if you KNOW in advance that it's a placebo? Why not just call on your mind to heal your body? And isn't that the difference between real medicine and imagined medicine? Real medicine has its effect whether you're in the mind set for it to work or not, sometimes with disastrous consequences (like overdosing).

I also wonder why you are so opposed to the government regulating things. There are many success stories that government can trumpet, from the regulation of the drug industry to the interstate highway system to the Social Security and Medicaid systems. The government has been hugely successful in devising and administering many activities in this country, but no one bats a thousand, and there will always be exceptions to the rule, even in the most-successful programs. Concentrating on the exceptions and imagining that such problems are systemic and un-fixable is a favorite mantra of the RW these days, but it's an unrealistic and biased view of the way things actually are. One needs a perspective, and that's easy to get if one simply turns the clock back a few decades and looks at the way things used to be before any number of successful government initiatives were put in place. The days of grandparents starving to death and people losing their life savings in bank runs are rare occurrences these days, even if the RW robber barons of today are doing their damndest to set this country on an every-man-for-himself trajectory.

Perhaps the part of the equation we're forgetting in this matter is that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. That vigilance applies to government programs, which need dedicated maintenance and involvement just like anything else that man devises if they are to continue to run properly.

I'd like to chat more, but I've gotta go.

CCNL,
Because you obviously do not know what a Witches Sabbat is. Stop thinking of the old lies told by the inquisition. We are not a copy of a bad B movie, we are not characters in a Steven King book...

We honor life in all Her aspects...we honor the turning of the Earth with eight "holidays". Do you celebrate Thanksgiving? Well so do we...in my Tradition we call it Harvest Home...it is the Fall Equinox and some Wiccans call it Mabon. We gather and eat, also giving thanks for our blessings.

Do you celebrate Easter? Well so do we...it is called Eostre or Ostara...it is celebrating renewal; the time of warmth coming and the end of cold...it is an agknowledgment of the return of the vegetation. It is the fulfillment of the promise made at Yule.

But those are the types of things we celebrate in our Sabbats.
Etymology: French, literally, sabbath, from Latin sabbatum
Date: 1652
Any of eight neo-pagan religious festivals commemorating phases of the changing seasons.

We do not have "water into wine" we have water that is what it is...water as the Earth gave us...or we have wine also a gift of the Earth and since we believe all things are part of the Divine...wether it is wine or water...it is sacred and a gift. Just like the bread that we use in our rites is a gift of the earth. It is bread...not turned into the flesh of our god...but our God.

What you call "pretty winged things"...ok. I guess you are talking about angels. The word "angel" means messenger. That is it...the wings are man's imagination. The wings are a symbol of the ability of these messengers to go between the place of the divine and the physical plane. Humanity has always used symbols to aid in their understanding of their view of the sacred.

I am Pagan and I do not have angels as in the Christian concept of angels.

I think your problem is that you lump all religions into one pile, when we are all very different, and even people in the same religion have differing views. No Wiccan agrees 100% with any other Wiccan, and we know that Christians will go to war with each other because of differences.

So, I think if you or anyone are going to make assumptions about any religion, you should no something about it. I don't care what faith you are...or of no faith...but you do need to have a basic understanding of what you are talking about.

terra

"What is the evidence that supports such a belief? I'd be interested in hearing it. It might help me understand where you're coming from."

Sorry it took so long to get back. I had schoolwork to do, so I couldn't play. :D

I was actually referring to several things, including the adaptation of medicinal plants into drugs. To the person whose friend died from taking an herbal supplement - I'm sorry for your loss. A bad drug reaction can be fatal, no matter if it's an herbal supplement or something from a pharmaceutical company. (I lost a childhood friend to Rey's Syndrome, which was a bad reaction to aspirin.) Also, check out Fritjof Capra's work as well.

B-man, you said "I don't necessarily disagree with anything in this essay. But that doesn't justify a silly belief in a murderous sky-god who wire-taps our brains and functions as a video surveillance camera in the sky"

Agreed. But divinity to a Pagan is far different. The type of 'sky god' that you describe didn't work for most of us, either. :)

"On the herbal front, an associate of mine (a pretty good cantor) died of a "rain forest" herbal treatment. He was in his early 50s and perfectly healthy. He tried some herbal treatment from who knows where for some insignificant bother he was experiencing, became deathly ill within a day or so and was dead in two weeks. The doctors couldn't help him because they hadn't a clue as to what they were dealing with. Whether it was the herb or some parasite riding the herb, they never figured out."

Obviously you've got to have some idea of what you're doing before jumping in like that. Hence years of study and practice, like anything else.

I actually wouldn't be opposed to government regulation if I had any confidence the government could do anything with any degree of reliability. I don't trust the government to solve anything- since the drug companies have the lobbyists who put those same government officials right in their pockets. If you think government regulation makes anything better, you're even more of a 'magical thinker' than you accuse me of being.

The herbalists who do know what they're doing wouldn't recommend someone just go out and grab something arbitrary. Each medicine would be crafted specifically for each person- so what would work for one person might not necessarily work for another.

It is about respect for an individual's right to live as one wishes to. And to lump all people together is simply dangerous thinking.

I tend to think technology has not made things better, it's gotten really good at making people THINK things have gotten better. I tend to look at the autistic, disabled, and abused kids (and often abused family members) I work with and wonder how much of their ordeals have we created all in the name of 'progress'.
And if there's something I can do to help them, I will- 'placebo effect' or not. We have the ability to heal ourselves- without the need to have someone else say it's ok to do so.

We're already seeing the effects of what shutting out other people with good ideas has done. Cutting off indigenous folks from their way of life to make room for shopping malls? Progress at what cost? Technological advances, sure.. who's got the biggest guns? We talk a good game, sure- but do you honestly think we support individual rights for all? For all our 'government regulation', other countries are WAY ahead of us scientifically and it will get worse before it gets better.

I just am one of those folks who hopes that we can reverse these trends before we are too late.
If that's 'magical thinking', then bring it on.

Terra,

Why would I want to go to a witch's sabbath? There is enough of the paranormal in Christianity!!! e.g. "pretty wingie thingies", demons of the demented, water to wine witchcraft, bodily resurrections, and shining stars guiding wise men.

Mr Mark:
"... I am an equal opportunity abuser of all religions and will continue to disrespect them as I wish."
_____

HAW! Yeah!

Respect is EARNED, not DEMANDED.

And magical thinking has earned NO respect -- not ever.

Dear Terra -

Thanks for the comments.

Re: Alexandria Library - we really don't "know" anything about it, what scrolls it held or what it took to get into the place. That's all the stuff of myth and legend. The giving originals to the library and getting copies in return is part of that myth.

As far as capitalizing the "p" in Pagan - I am an equal opportunity abuser of all religions and will continue to disrespect them as I wish. If a lower case letter does the trick, that's fine with me. In a similar vein, I refuse to capitalized the name of one gw bush - a sign of disrespect that I hope is not too subtle in its intent.

As far as the drug companies v the herbalists: the government regulates the drug companies. The herbalists are free to scam people at will. Here's a thought: have the herbalists voluntarily submit their claims and cures to the same rigors and government approvals the drug companies go through in developing treatments. What, no takers? What's that tell you? Placebos, anyone?

On the herbal front, an associate of mine (a pretty good cantor) died of a "rain forest" herbal treatment. He was in his early 50s and perfectly healthy. He tried some herbal treatment from who knows where for some insignificant bother he was experiencing, became deathly ill within a day or so and was dead in two weeks. The doctors couldn't help him because they hadn't a clue as to what they were dealing with. Whether it was the herb or some parasite riding the herb, they never figured out.

Personally, I rarely see doctors. I walk 4-5 miles every day, eat moderately (high-protein diet...and I used to be a vegetarian! Go figure) and hardly ever drink booze. I take no medications, not even aspirin. I sit in my hot tub for a few minutes every night, do a bunch of stretches before bed and read. I saw a chiropractor for about 3 months who worked out a lower back problem I was having (a recurring pain that recurs more often as I age. Most likely a product of my early years as a hard court tennis player). I've been off the chiro for two months and haven't had the problem, but I am extremely careful about how I position my body as I go about my daily routine. I love the walks as I can get really limber during them - a great asset to keeping my back aligned and pain free.

BTW - my chiro was a Jesus nut, so I had to put up with that aspect of his personality while being treated. Imagine, a religious chiro. That's like having two forms of religious indoctrination going at the same time.

Gotta go.

I don't necessarily disagree with anything in this essay. But that doesn't justify a silly belief in a murderous sky-god who wire-taps our brains and functions as a video surveillance camera in the sky.

Mr. Mark,
As far as Alexandria goes we do know something about it.

We know that no visitor got by without giveing their books to the library and recieving copies in its stead. There were 700,000 volumes, some of which were the collections of Euclid,Euripides and Aristotle.

The burning of the library at Alexandria, the mutalation and murder of Hipatia has been said to have caused what came to be called The Dark Age.

As far as Herbs...so how many deaths do artificial herbs (drugs) cause? There has been a 179% raise in deaths by taking proscribed drugs exactly as they were supposed to be taken.

How many people died because of herbs..I imagine quite a few until the healing properties were discovered. But then how many doctors killed babies and mothers because of going from cadavers to birthing babies, useing the same tools and dirty hands? But then a little lavender or soapwort might have kept that from happening.

The drug companies take what I can grow in my yard, create artificial properties, stick a patent on it and charge hundreds for it. You want something to calm nerves...start takeing St. Johnswort, I have a scades of it. You need to heal a cut of a burn, take the little flowers and soak them in oil, use the oil for healing.

The rain forest is chuck full of healings...and it is being cut down and those plants will be lost. I had some serious surgery on my eyes...thanks to curare...discovered by the Amazon natives. Those darn Pagans...

I can help a child's colicy stomach, a sore throat, a cold, and headache. The first asperin came from the bark of a white willow. Raseberry leaf tea will help a woman in labor have an easier time...raseberry leaves smooth out the muscles. And arsnic is a poison...lol. There are poisons in nature..try to lay in a bed of poison oak or poison ivy. You would not take a seditive before going off to work... you also would not take something to keep you alert before going to bed. Herbs have chemical properties, and can be dangerous...know what you are doing before useing them.

And Mr. Mark, I am a firm believer in science and modern life. I have a computer, I do not use smoke signals...I also am 60 years old, on no meds, work my horses and live quietly with my husband off the beaten path. I also got so excited when I first started hearing about the String Theory and Quantum Machanics...I believe that the dish washer is a gift of the Goddess and one of the best inventions of man is the can opener, umm next to the microwave.

I use what is given to me by the earth for my use...to heal and to gladden the heart. I live as simply as possible as it is my nature. My life style allows me to live spiritually the way I want...

Oh and please...it's a small thing maybe, but I argued with a newspaper reporter also about it...it is Pagan not pagan. It is a proper name of a religion..and should be respected as Christianity or any other.

terra

Dear Priver -

Thanks for the posts. I am getting a clearer picture of where you're coming from.

I wrote:

"Asserting that the knowledge lost was greater or more specific than that which humans have acquired since is baseless."

You wrote:
"I didn't say it was greater or more specific. I said it was a LOT, and it was lost. pretty simple. I said 'we'll never know'. Don't put words in my mouth."

Actually, you said:

"There was SO much that was lost. All the books at the library of Alexandria, so much knowledge, study. Burnt to a crisp. That's why we don't know as much."

I guess I misinterpreted what you meant when you said "that's why we don't know as much." I assumed that "much" was the "much" the ancients knew and that we do not. Perhaps you can clarify what you meant here. At present, I don't see that I am putting words in your mouth. Quite the contrary.

Re: arsenic. I'm surprised at your reaction to my bringing up arsenic. Here, I thought I was logging you a softball as arsenic in proper dosages has been used medicinally for 2400 years. As recently as 2000, the FDA approved arsenic trioxide for relapsed or refractory APL.

As far as homeopathy, this is a pure placebo effect, at best. Do you believe that water has a "memory?" Do you know that homeopathy posits that the LESS active agent you use as cure, the better your chances (ie: Hahnemann's "law of infinitesimals.")? To whit:

"Homeopathic products are made from minerals, botanical substances, and several other sources. If the original substance is soluble, one part is diluted with either nine or ninety-nine parts of distilled water and/or alcohol and shaken vigorously (succussed); if insoluble, it is finely ground and pulverized in similar proportions with powdered lactose (milk sugar). One part of the diluted medicine is then further diluted, and the process is repeated until the desired concentration is reached. Dilutions of 1 to 10 are designated by the Roman numeral X (1X = 1/10, 3X = 1/1,000, 6X = 1/1,000,000). Similarly, dilutions of 1 to 100 are designated by the Roman numeral C (1C = 1/100, 3C = 1/1,000,000, and so on). Most remedies today range from 6X to 30X, but products of 30C or more are marketed.

A 30X dilution means that the original substance has been diluted 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. Assuming that a cubic centimeter of water contains 15 drops, this number is greater than the number of drops of water that would fill a container more than 50 times the size of the Earth. Imagine placing a drop of red dye into such a container so that it disperses evenly. Homeopathy's "law of infinitesimals" is the equivalent of saying that any drop of water subsequently removed from that container will possess an essence of redness. Robert L. Park, Ph.D., a prominent physicist who is executive director of The American Physical Society, has noted that since the least amount of a substance in a solution is one molecule, a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth."

(Source: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/homeo.html )

As far as the *oil discussion:

I wrote:

"No one imagined the situation we would be in today. No one imagined that.."

You wrote:
"Actually, there were people who did 'imagine' such things, but they were shoved aside in the name of 'progress' that they lost what voice they had."

Really? Who, exactly, were the voices who were around at the dawn of the auto age who warned about over-dependence on oil? I'd love to read their bios.

"How many people did they fail to help with their medical guesses? How many people ended up dead due to their treatments? "

'so the ancestors got a few things right on herbal medicines?' why the need for sarcasm? Accept the point and move on. They got a hell of a lot more right than we give them credit for, or else none of US would be here today.

And how many people today do scientists fail to help by their 'experimentation'? I've seen too many of my loved ones suffer through cancer treatments and their horrifying aftereffects to have much faith in doctors. If someone does choose alternative therapies that do provide them some relief when no cures are available, why should we deny them that right to do so? I know of at least one person who shouldn't even be alive right now because the amount of medicines he's on daily would kill and has killed other people. And THOSE are just to counteract the chemical dump that his body had to endure to counteract types (plural) of cancers that nobody had survived before. The cure was worse than the disease.

"No one imagined the situation we would be in today. No one imagined that.."

Actually, there were people who did 'imagine' such things, but they were shoved aside in the name of 'progress' that they lost what voice they had. Therein lies the crux of the problem, though?

It does take imagination to forsee and try to forestall some of those problems. But those who try to exercise it seem to get put down by others who just want to be proven right.

Who is to say that homeopathy doesn't work? I've had many good experiences with homeopathy. If you don't believe in it, it won't work for you. What you think, you create. If you think something will work for you, chances are it will. What is wrong with tapping into some of that? The mind has a much stronger link on the body than it is given credit for in this day and age. And this is being borne out by new studies in the field of neuroscience, especially the field of neuroplasticity. It's about balance.

"There are side effects to the "natural way of doing things" that people tend to overlook. After all, arsenic is quite natural, but ingesting too much of it leads to death by (un?)natural causes."

Who said anything about arsenic? I'm talking about everyday plants. the 'few things that they got right' are summarily dismissed by you- but someone had to have knowledge of a particular plant in order to develop those medicines, do they not? That's my point. And the people who have such knowledge today would be far less likely to give somebody arsenic given what's known about it. Give people some credit.

"Asserting that the knowledge lost was greater or more specific than that which humans have acquired since is baseless."

I didn't say it was greater or more specific. I said it was a LOT, and it was lost. pretty simple. I said 'we'll never know'. Don't put words in my mouth.

You're giving the edge to scientists- I'd consider that, early on- but what happens when the medicines, bandages, and the little pills are gone? Somebody's got to make them again. And if there's no lab, then what?

The healthiest things we can eat are those that grow. If technology broke down, somebody's going to have to learn to grow food, are they not? Can someone live longer with prescription medication with no food? That's an interesting thing to think about.

I actually agree with you about getting folks off of dependency on oil. But we shouldn't have had to get to this point for someone to say 'hey, maybe it's a good idea to use renewable resources.. because it's the right thing to do?' Somebody had to sell the infrastructure for it to work. I'm not that simplistic not to see that.

But please stop putting words in my mouth. I see history as a ripple in a pond. Everything that people do has consequences- and it's up to us to determine what those might be and counteract them as much as we can. But our history tells us that as soon as we start to regain a little bit of technology then those hard fought lessons will not be passed on unless we change our fundamental ways of doing things. It's all cyclical, whether we want to think of it that way or not.

But in the end, it all comes back to Nature. Might as well get with the program now before we're all written out of it.

CCNL,
Hoodoo does not rely on a deity, it consists of a large body of African folkloric practices and beliefs with a considerable admixture of American Indian botanical knowledge and European folklore.It is not a religion.

Vodun has their Orishes or Lwas as do other African/South American religions such as Ifa and Santeria. They are primarily ancestor honoring religions and their gods Orishes are (more like to my way of thinking) the elements, but more. They are the essence of the power of the universe.

All beliefs are strange to those who do not understand them. I find the Pentacostal religion rather scary. I went to one of their churches as a kid and it scared the stuffing out of me. I am afraid we called them Holy Rollers...

See all faiths can be made little of...it is wrong no matter who does it. B ut at least I wentto the Pentacostal church, I know alittle of what I speak...have you been to a Wiccan Sabbat?

terra

Dear Priver -

Thanks for the comments.

You've provided a laundry list of urban legends and apocryphal stories and expect rationalists to discern some truth therein. There is no truth.

So, the ancients got a few things right on herbal medicines. How many people did they fail to help with their medical guesses? How many people ended up dead due to their treatments? I'm going to guess that the documentation from that end is as slender as the documentation that shows their successes. Why would one believe that these remedies were any good to the general population at the time outside of a placebo effect? People today - in the scientific age - still consult horoscopes and trust to homeopathy as alternatives to modern medicine. People are still gullible, they still grasp at straws and they still trust to discredited practices like homeopathy in spite of the evidence against it.

There are side effects to the "natural way of doing things" that people tend to overlook. After all, arsenic is quite natural, but ingesting too much of it leads to death by (un?)natural causes.

Your take on oil as a basis for producing gasoline is an historic and factual mess. There were alternatives to the internal combustion engine, but they lost out because gas was produced cheaply. No one imagined the situation we would be in today. No one imagined that cars would replace horses as quickly as they did. No one imagined the third world developing to the point where they needed gas just like the rest of us. And perhaps no one imagined that fully 55% of the oil we consume in the the USA goes for uses other than producing gasoline. In fact, we could TODAY cut our dependency on oil IN HALF if we simply limited our use of oil to producing gas for cars and stopped using oil to power electric plants, converted home heating away from heating oil and diesel and into natural gas and developed non-oil fueled energy plants to meet our non-gasoline needs.

You seem to be viewing history through a straight-line prism. What if the race to build a better car had concentrated more on fuel sources and less on developing higher octane gas? Those who first cracked carbons and starting refining oil aren't the ones responsible for our world being overly dependent on it as a fuel source. Wind power was in existence long before gasoline came about. Why has wind power only now made a return as a viable alternative energy source? Do you think we'd be talking about wind if gas was still 10¢ a gallon and oil was $9 a barrel?

"There was SO much that was lost. All the books at the library of Alexandria, so much knowledge, study. Burnt to a crisp. That's why we don't know as much."

A nice thought without a shred of evidence. Pure speculation on the part of you and others. No one knows what was in those libraries. It could have been cookbooks, or theatrical plays or tome after tome of religious mumbo jumbo. The date of destruction for this library ranges from 46BC to 642CE. No parchments survive from the library, only a list of titles that supposed resided there. Speculating on the vast knowledge contained in such a place is pure speculation. Asserting that the knowledge lost was greater or more specific than that which humans have acquired since is baseless.

Imaging things about ancient medicine or knowledge is a fun parlor game, but it's no substitute for reality. Where does such speculation end, after all?

And, what if all our technology broke down at once? Do you really think the Earthers would have an easier time of it than the technologically adept? I think we'd all be in about the same boat, but I'd give the edge to the scientifically minded who would at least have the sense to raid the pharmaceutical warehouses to stock up on medicines and bandages while the Earthers busied themselves munching on bark and drinking the juice from aphids in an attempt to find a natural cure for their broken bones (OK, that one was a bit over the top).

Sorry Arminius, my last post was directed towards Mr. Mark. Nothing to do with you. I was trying to gather my thoughts together so that I can pick them up later on. :)

Mr. Mark,

I said nothing about my beliefs of the nature of Diety. Most of my understanding of mythology comes from Joseph Campbell. That's not a reason to throw it away as somehow useless.

Even if my ideas about Divinity are all in my head, if there are concrete things that can be done to assist myself or someone else, I intend to keep right on doing them. As long as nobody is hurt, what is the point of putting someone down for it? What do you get out of it?

Here's one concrete example that Athena refers to.
Maybe this might help, to some degree.

Take modern medicine. Where did it come from? The local apothecaries, some of them later demonized as those 'evil witches' knew the medicinal uses of plants that were native to their communities. They used them to heal people. They knew they worked, but the 'why' came later. Enter Modern science. Someone figured out how to take one small ingredient out of them and eventually mass produce it into drugs that are still used today. But people have gotten so used to the drugs and their side effects that people now are forgetting where those ingredients came from. The answers to many of our health issues are right under our noses.

The ancients used to teach, among other things, the medicinal uses of plants. The old days were about learning to work with what we had that were green and growing.

Someone many years ago had to figure out that it was possible to extract an ingredient from a coca leaf and mix it with other ingredients. This later created cocaine. Why is it that people these days can still chew coca leaves but not have the debilitating effects of an addiction? Why do our drugs have so many side effects? In order to take out the ingredient(s) needed, the whole is destroyed.. and was done so without understanding the entire plant and how the rest of the plant interacted with those that digest it. The ancients understood this instinctively.

That's a small example, but things have still progressed from there. Someone discovered oil can be processed to run our cars so now everything's all about oil without realizing how the whole of the planet is effected. Now we're just starting to come to grips with the aftereffects of our singular focus on oil. We focus on the individual to the detriment of the collective. The pendulum has swung too far the other way. What Pagans do is try to restore the balance, try to walk in harmony with the Earth, because if nobody does, this planet will shake us off like so many fleas on a dog.

What if, one day, all of our technology suddenly failed? No more electricity, no more computers, no more labs to create science.. it will be those who understand the land and how it works who will be able carry on. Every advancement in science or technology has been balanced by Nature. For every disease that we get under control, ten new strains will pop up. These days doctors only take into account symptoms more often than the disease itself because they've been taught to dissect disease into smaller and smaller pieces with total disregard for the whole. The best doctors can learn to step back and take into account the whole picture, but usually not without extensive retraining. These lost perspectives that the ancients had have cost our society dearly.

There was SO much that was lost. All the books at the library of Alexandria, so much knowledge, study. Burnt to a crisp. That's why we don't know as much. Most of the emphasis was on oral traditions, very specifically taught. All we can really do, is study what has been left behind as much as we can and work to make it better in the modern age.

Starhawk says:

"I’m heartened that so many people remain open to the mysteries of what science doesn’t yet know and cannot yet explain."

Science has proven the existence of entities that we normally refer to as ghosts. So science knows but maybe still cannot explain.
Check out the ghosts of Gettysburg in the following link.
http://www.ghoststudy.com/new6/new/gettysburg13.htm

Zqll writes:

It's funny to see how non-believers are always patting themselves on the back for being so "scientific," and such. But the only science they seem to know about is global-change and evolution.

Where were they when the SSC (particle accelerator) was killed by Congress? Not one peep out of them. Probably none of them knew what the SSC was supposed to do or even heard about it."

That's what happens when science gets wrapped up in politics. Personally, I have a dislike of everything Texas, so I'm happy that it didn't get built there, though considering that the Texas Board of Ed just approve holding Bible classes as part of the public school curriculum, I wonder if a huge science project sitting in the middle of the state would have made a difference in that sure-to-be-litigated error.

And what was Congress supposed to do after the disaster that was the Reagan-Bush years? Add to the debt to the tune of $12b for a project whose costs just kept escalating and escalating? For a new president (Clinton) and Congress looking to rein in the profligate spending of their predecessors, that $12b had a huge bull's eye painted right on its nose.

Some of us DID bemoan the killing of the SSC, but our voices went unheard, especially by a society where the majority of people believe that science is all a bunch of conjecture and isn't worth paying for unless it means that Joe SixPak can eat and drink more and more for less and less.

The bottom line is that our country is deeply religious, most Americans view cutting-edge science as "only a theory," and the reason you didn't hear anybody yelping about the SSC being killed was because post-Regan-Bush, the nation was in a bad place economically and big government projects like the SSC had been denounced by Reagan for so long that people didn't bother thinking what, exactly, they were losing. Joe SixPak couldn't afford his beer. Funding some god-bereft science project was out of the question.

Dear Priver -

If I am lumping you in with anybody, it is with those who have the common ability to compartmentalize things. There are many, many religious people who accept science while still holding to their supernatural beliefs. The nuts like Spidey who believe that the Bible has all the answers are the exception to the rule.

I do appreciate those religions that don't have a mandate to convert the world to their belief system, as does Xianity. And I respect your right to be a pagan and to practice your religion as you will. I understand that your religion differs from Xianity in this way, but I do not believe that your supernatural gods/powers need to be understood differently than those of the Xians etal.

Sidebar - Athena wrote: "science is revealing what was known by our Ancestors."

I have a huge disagreement on this point, a point that I have heard from many who call themselves pagans. I don't believe for a second that there was some great knowledge of the world that has been lost in our past, and the Ancients were in touch with powers that have been lost to modern man. The evidence says quite the opposite, that we have been gaining knowledge on a fairly steady uptick - at least until the Dark Ages when the church held full sway and almost beat knowledge into extinction.

What is the evidence that supports such a belief? I'd be interested in hearing it. It might help me understand where you're coming from.

Until then, it's just another nice myth that hangs around for novelists and film makers to exploit for its entertainment value.

Priver,

To whom was your last post directed?

It's funny to see how non-believers are always patting themselves on the back for being so "scientific," and such. But the only science they seem to know about is global-change and evolution.

Where were they when the SSC (particle accelerator) was killed by Congress? Not one peep out of them. Probably none of them knew what the SSC was supposed to do or even heard about it.

And all the fuss these people (environmentalist) made before the Cassini was launched. I would not have been surprised to have seen them attacking the JPL with torches and pitchforks.

Priver, Priver, Priver,

My list of beliefs were noted based on the request of one pagan named Antaeus. I guess you did not get that far in your reading.

Arminius, Arminius, Arminius,

Remind us again, what are your beliefs? Need those in case you have "stepped out of line" and I need to do a rant to stay even with you or just for comic relief. And what kind of degrees do you have that gives you the background to sit in judgement as to "stepping out of line"? Be careful as I will report any offensive commentaries!!!!

Trust me, the things that you're not understanding are quite a few.

You lumped us in with all those folks who try to discount scientific thought. Ours is inclusive of science, not exclusive. Science AND religious practice, not religious practice at the expense of science. One complements the other.

I don't expect you to be more 'compelled to Paganism' than any other religion. I'm not out to convert anyone. This path is not for everyone.

And that's ok- but you accuse us of the same intellectual dishonesty as all the other religions you decry. Which is really unfair.

Any good teacher will say 'don't just take our word for it, learn and find out for yourself.' and if the only thing you take away from that is that it's not for you, we will wish you well and hope you find whatever path is right for you.

There's a huge difference here.

MMA Arminius,

If your children are anything like you they will be wonderful, giving, loving folks. :)

It's been my experience that kids who are not indoctrinated and learn about others' religious beliefs (or lack thereof) are more likely to be more accepting of others around them. I'm not a parent myself but I've heard from Pagan friends who are that it's common in Paganism to have children find their own path, because it's such a personal choice that nobody can make that decision for them. And a child has to be mature enough to make that decision on their own.

I look at somebody's religious beliefs and try to ask not what I think of their theology, but what kind of person is it helping them to become? If the answer is strident, condescending, intolerant, fearful- then that's when I get wary. And clam up. But ask me questions respectfully, I'll answer. Allow me to be who I am.. and I will do the same.. and we'll get along just fine.

Nothing wrong with a few rocks on the road. Sometimes they can be great teachers. ;)

I heard this statement somewhere- that fear conquers understanding.. but understanding conquers fear. I really like that.

One thing I've found in the 20 or so years that I've been a Pagan is that almost all of us are interested in science in some form or another. I don't know if there's a direct correlation. I would imagine that we view science as a confirmation of our faith in the Gods, rather than as antithetical. We know that there are mysteries out there that haven't been solved yet. Or, that the science is revealing what was known by our Ancestors.

Mr Mark,

Nice post.

So far as belief goes, no reason for you to view Paganism any different than you do my belief or Spidey's. Of course. But one thing about Pagans - they never claim to have all the answers, and they never try to force their beliefs on anyone. This is to be commended.

Nobody, repeat nobody, has all the answers. Nor does any book called holy, including the bible.

I agree that the burden of proof is on the believer. We profess something, you say 'prove it'. That is in order. But, of course, we can't. Some, the Spideys of the world, think they can, but are deluded. I know I can't. But I still believe. I wish to hell I could put words to it - not to prove, but just to explain where I'm at.

Arminius

Priver writes:

"this thread is attracting those who are working to put down things they don't understand. I didn't expect you to be one of those."

What is it that I'm not understanding? Paganism? I read the threads written by the pagans and I find their supernatural explanations no more compelling than those written by other supernaturally informed viewpoints. I also find them no less imbued with fantasy than I do those of any other religion.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't view paganism any differently than I do the mainstream religions.

BTW - I agree with you that nobody has all the answers, but I am loathe to accept hearsay and belief as evidence for the questions that are asked. Indeed, it's been my experience that belief systems devoid of the support of objective evidence usually ask the wrong questions.

I'm open to anyone attempting to help me to understand their position, though as a skeptic, I believe that the onus for providing the understanding - especially if supernatural agents are involved - lies not with me but with the person claiming supernatural involvement.

Hi, Priver, Well Met -

You properly said, "Any Pagan worth their salt will tell newer folks to never trust anyone who claims to have all the answers."

Exactly. Other folks, such as myself, say that too. I raised my kids (I was a non-believer at the time) to choose their own path. Now that I do believe, I find my path, well, pretty rocky. But I, and others such as yourself, persist. Yes, we can do without CCNL and Spidey, but they do, on occasion, offer comic relief. And also outrage; I have ranted at both when I felt they stepped out of line.

Keep it up.

Arminius

Mr. Mark,

This is not one of those threads with folks who discount science. In fact, anyone coming to this type of belief system is very strongly encouraged to find out about science, as well as psychology, zoology, botany, archeology, languages, cultures, history and other academia-being that our idea of Divinity is located squarely within Nature.. and anyone worth their salt as a teacher will be the first to tell someone to get their butt to a doc if needs be.

Any Pagan worth their salt will tell newer folks to never trust anyone who claims to have all the answers. We encourage people to seek and find things out for themselves, not relying on any one 'authority' or 'book' to do one's thinking for them. This is a hard enough path to follow without folks like CCNL coming around and claiming to 'know' what we are by printing lists of things that have nothing to do with us. Even the lists of some Organizations that he likes print, his way of trying to prove 'something' (which I can't figure out) doesn't take into account the fact that there are at least as many people doing this on their own who want to be left alone. Which is why no survey taken comes even remotely close to being able to get accurate numbers out of fear of losing jobs, children, or outright abuse from their communities.

Apparently this thread is, however, attracting those who are working to put down things they don't understand. I didn't expect you to be one of those. I hope I'm wrong.

All such loads of hooey on here!

People, get back to your gov't jobs, and do the taxpayers a favor and don't write jibberish to the Post!

Also, to all of us, myself included, pray more, especially the rosary... think less about religion and do more!

"The tools of what our current science can measure only a small fragment of reality."

Funny how people who say such things are perfectly content to embrace the be-all and end-all of science when they're ill and their lives are on the line. Funny how they embrace reality as measured by science whenever they flip on a light switch, drive their cars to work or use the godless computer for work and pleasure.

Funnier still how the "small fragment of reality" that science defines has no problem existing as it is and on its own, while the (supposedly) larger portion of "reality" that lies undefined cannot even exist even as a thought without the prior existence of the "small fragment."

"The tools of what our current science can measure only a small fragment of reality."
_____

Reality, n. -- That which, when you stop BELIEVING in it, does NOT go away.

"What we call ‘normal’ or ‘rational’ is a very narrow band of consciousness, and it simply doesn’t encompass all of who we are. The tools of what our current science can measure only a small fragment of reality."
_____

Sez who? Oh, yeah, you.

OK. We can all make assertions. What we call "religious" or "magical" thought is a very broad band of dum-dum ooga booga.

HOLD IT, keep your shirt on -- that's just an assertion I made. Doesn't mean a thing. OK?

Hmmm, "Hoodoo is a magickal method" as per some Anon somewhere. But is not voodoo/voudun not magic? So therefore "hoodooing with voodoo" is correct? Or is it "voodooing the hoodoo" a better description? Ouch, stop needling that doll!!!

CCNL,
Hoodoo is not a religion...Voudun is.
Hoodoo is a magickal method...those practicioners are often called Root Doctors as they deal with herbs.

My best friend who is also the HP to my group is also a Root Doctor and practices Hoodoo. So no, you do not hoodoo the voodoo.

Do you have to be so disrespectful to those things you really do not understand? are you so insecure that looking down on others makes you feel better?

All you have is what you read in books, mainly written by others that read books.Why not ask those who are practioners, they may just know more then some Christian that wrote the book a hundred years ago.

If you want to read a book read The Malleus Maleficarum, it is free online. Educate yourself on what was written in a book...and what caused so much harm to so many.

terra

This entry seems sensible and to the point. If I didn't know better I'd think Starhawk was Catholic. (BTW from me that's a compliment.)

Antaeus, don't let Concerned turn you off to Crossan's scholarship. He is really very good.

Sorry, this is all nonsense. I don't know why people persist in asserting it is possible to "train" the brain to do things impossible. One cannot know the future through a dream. One has a 50/50 chance of being correct on a hunch. And one can certainly have moments of inspiration. That's the joy of possessing a human brain- not access to "magic", the "supernatural", or "god."

CCNL - you should be so lucky!!

Antaeus,

The beauty and greatness of free will and freedom!!!

That is a very nice list of beliefs, but I don't see anything in that list that would be opposed so strongly to many other religions. Buddhism is a religion that also teaches several of those concepts, and there are "Pagans" who practice a form of Jungian pantheism, believing in an abstract spirit that exists in all of nature but that all god/desses are aspects of the human subconsious, and that all paranormal experiences are the effects of those subconsious archtypes. Indeed, the final line of the Charge of the Goddess says "If that which you seek, you find not within yourselves, you will never find it without--for behold, I have been with you from the beginning, and I am that which is attained at the end of desire". This would indicate that it would be possible to be a type of Wiccan and believe that the deities are all aspects of human subconsious.

Also, is it your belief that those of us who have had paranormal experiences are mistaken in giving them importance, or perhaps mentally disturbed? I actually work in the mental health field, and generally anything that allows a person to function well in society is not seen as a mental disturbance. And while I have known Pagans/Wiccans who were mentally disturbed, it didn't really have anything to do with their faith and usually started long before they came to it. Is is your belief that we should just ignore these events when they happen? As I said earlier, I am much happier and more functional since I began believing in the holiness of nature than I was as a pure atheist.

cont.

o The Old Testament is so full of untruths and embellishments, its content is of little historical relevance but of prime spiritual importance.

o Is Jesus the Son of God? i.e. God- no, but was definitely a Godly representative on earth. He was therefore the biological son of Mary and Joseph.

o God, in my opinion, is responsible for the Big Bang program that got the Ball rolling. He/She is unable to stop or influence it
because it is restricted by the gifts of future and free will. Good and bad, however, are part of the program. There is nothing to prevent the bad from winning as shown by historic events. Was JC an attempt at influence?? Probably not, just a Good part of the program in Run mode. One day lets hope the Good is part of everyone's Favorite
list.

o Miracles do not happen except through a mental desire or faith to be cured since miracles violate God’s gift of natural law. If God were involved in our daily lives, cures would not be needed. You cannot have it both ways.

o For a discourse by elder theologians see http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/miracles.html

o The baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist was historic and important in the development of Christianity but Pilate, the Romans and Constantine played even a greater role. For example if Pilate had simply banished Jesus to Crete where would be today?? Considering Pilate was not predestined to execute Jesus, this could have happened so should we thank Pilate and his free will and abuse of power for our religion?? No, not in my opinion. Jesus on Crete could have completed his mission and wrote the needed singularity Gospel and we would not be in the "limbo" of epistles and gospels and the all the craziness of trying to figure out who said/did what and when and if they said or did it at all.

o From Schillebeeckx, Church: The Human Story of God,
Crossroad, 1993, p.91 (softcover)

"Christians must give up a perverse, unhealthy and inhuman
doctrine of predestination without in so doing making God the great scapegoat of history" . "Nothing is determined in advance: in
nature there is chance and determinism; in the world of human activity there is possibility of free choices. Therefore the
historical future is not known even to God; otherwise we and our history would be merely a puppet show in which God holds the strings. For God, too, history is an adventure, an open history for and of men and women."

o The basic beliefs of good people that are rendered by any theology with or without historic verification makes said theology worthy of following be it Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Judaism, Buddhism, Atheism, etc .

o “Even God could not build Rome in a day! If there is going to be a human community, even God cannot hurry, interfere and short-cut the process.”

o “Grant, the gospels are primarily each Evangelists experience of his community. We know now that they were not so much exact narratives as theology. So they are more theologians than historians and really were storytellers. So one has to inspect various events as to their historicity. The glaring exception is the account of the passion and death of Christ which is very close in all narratives. Definitely more history here. At any rate the Gospels and Epistles have always been accepted as genuine or reflecting the standard (canon). What scripture means is determined by study and prayer and today one cannot exclude historical criticism which has taught us so much after 300 years of exegetes perusing every word of every page. Even with accepted scripture one must be careful in interpretation, particularly in John's use of 'logos' which the Nicene father's truly distorted.”

o “Now Rome which developed the Church of Dogma (rather than metanoia) dared to add things which have scant basis in scripture like the Trinity, Individual priesthood, Auricular Confession, Transubstantiation, Infallibility, Immaculate Conception and the Assumption. None of these are present in scripture not can they be deduced. Matthew 16:18 was discovered to apply to the papacy by Damasus I who had over a hundred of his rival's supporter's killed to gain the bishopric of Rome. It is after this time that the phrase from Matthew is more and more centered on Rome. The bishops of Rome committed many crimes. The biggest one was to ascribe their malfeasance to the Holy Spirit. Still is.”

o Jesus died and suffered. Heracles suffered and died. What made Jesus more important than the Heracles? Jesus had a mission of love and forgiveness --- and Jesus modeled righteous living, righteous conduct. The life of Jesus is a vision that Paul is referring to when he says that "if Jesus is not risen, then all our work is in vain."

o Paul believed that the end of the world was approaching – He was one of the first Y2K prophets of the first century. You might say he was a Y2C prophet. He believed in the resurrection of the dead. Quite literally he did.

o Paul was wrong when the thought the end of the world and the resurrection of the dead were at hand.

cont.

s. Dividing the Singularity into three parts violates common sense.

t. The Holy Spirit is another throwback to the ancients and their "pretty, wingie thingie" mentality.

u. Holy Orders is relevant but not complete without access by females and married members of the various Christian sects.

v. Religions are slowly converging. See James Somerville’s “take” at theosophical.org. (available by purchase).

w. As per Somerville, “Religion is our vehicle for the journey. Once arrived, it will be left at the door” i.e. there is no religion in Heaven (if it exists).

cont.

l. God (if this Singularity exists) does not know the future.

m. Predestination should not be a word. Ditto for the words, "atonement theology".

n. Canonization of the likes of Pio and Juan eliminates any consideration of papal infallibility.

o. Exodus should not be a word.

p. ditto for the Christmas manger.

q. The 24/7 blood sacrifice of the Eucharist is mocks common sense.

r. Confirmation is only symbolic of our adult acceptance of the simple preacher man's (and his biographers) rules for humanity.

Antaeus,

First, no paranormal experiences here. After having no sleep for 30 hrs and no food for 16 hrs during an US Army escape and evasion course, I did have some significant hallucinations. Dreams are also very "paranormal like" especially after watching a Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings movie.

I posted the following beliefs before. The list is large and exceeds the allowable limit so they will be posted in three parts.

Religious Beliefs as per Rational Reality/Common Sense As Influenced by Crossan, Borg, Schillebeeckx, et al.

The Non-God Commandments/Rules Are Great Guides to a Good Life!!!!

plus

a. Communion is a fantastic spirit symbol of our thanksgiving but body and blood do not exist there.

b. Jesus lived and was crucified but did not bodily rise from the dead.

c. The simple preacher man's teachings to include the 70% added by P, M, M, L and J's embellishments serve as the basis for living a good life but there are other teachings of comparable strengths save Islam which is nothing more than a warmongering, plagiarized version of the OT, NT and other ancient rules.

d. Heaven(if it exists) is a Spirit State as per Aquinas and JPII i.e. no bodies to include glorified bodies allowed.

e. The Physical Resurrection, Ascension and Assumption therefore did not take place. (This is also taught in graduate theology classes at many major Catholic universities).

f. The simple preacher man's spirit/soul resides in Heaven (if it exists) with all the souls of deceased good people of any religion or of no religion therefore there will be no second coming.

g. Adam and Eve are myths making original sin mythological and Baptism symbolic.(Also taught in graduate theology classes at many major Catholic universities).

h. There was therefore no Immaculate Conception.

i. Happiness in Heaven (if it exists) is not a gradient but is dependent on the number of souls present.

j. Purgatory is possible but has no Scriptural foundation.

k. Hell is possible but would God tolerate Satan spirits and contaminated souls? (The Singularity would not according to Father Edward Schillebeeckx, the famous contemporary theologian).

Hmmm, yes there is an issue with the definition of paganism. Here is a link to an article that covers a lot of the major issues: http://www.religioustolerance.org/paganism.htm

Of the extensive list that CCNL posted, I would say that Pagan would apply to any of these groups that wish to be associated with that term. This would include most of the groups he classifies as Eclectic/New Age and Wiccan, as well as many of the Reconstructionist faiths. Those of Nordic origin often prefer the term Heathen, and some of the others object to the term of Pagan as being originally a sladerous term. Most Native American groups avoid the use of the term and object to being called it, since it was a word used as an excuse to deny them their human rights not so many years ago. Voodoo and Santeria are syncretic faiths blending Catholicism and various traditions from the African diaspora, and the accuracy of the term Pagan as applied to them, as well as their desire to use it, varies according the the form the blending of traditions has taken.

But I suppose the larger question is, what is your point? If I were to try to post all the various branches of the Christian faith I would have an immpossible time getting that past the posting limits, as there are many many thousands of them. And within those who call themselves Christian, there are many definitions of Christianity, and which of those who call themselves such are "true" Christians. In the small, ultrafundamentalist sect that I was raised in, for example, only those who were members of that specific sect were considered true Christians, all other "Christians" being part of Great Babylon, decieved of Satan and destined for Hell.

As far as which Pagans are considered "us" and which are considered "no, those are not us", since there is no central authority in either Wicca or Paganism, this is generally a person or tradition specific decision. I am happy to claim kinship with the the followers of ancient Greek and Celtic religions, and much less so to some pseudo-Nordic organizations that perpetuate racism in the modern world. Since I am an American, I have the right of freedom of association. I get to choose who I agree with, defend, and claim kinship to and who I do not. I do not let defintions and labels interfere with this too much, as they tend to hide truth as much as illuminate it.

Now, the original point of this thread was belief in the Paranormal. From posts in this thread and in the past, CCNL seems to disbelieve in most forms of the paranormal. So, I have a couple of questions for him. Have you ever had an experence that some would call paranormal? If so, how did you explain it away? If not, would it change your perpective if you did? Myself, I was an atheist for 10 years before having a direct expereicnce of the divine, which I was "gullible" enough to allow to change my life permanently on the spot. And I can assure you, I am a happier, more productive, and in general more useful to society type person that I was as an atheist. I understand you are not an atheist, but a believer in Father Crossan's historical Christianity. I haven't (and doubtless won't) read his books, but if you could just briefly expalin why someone who doesn't believe in angels or the supernatural still believes in Christianity, that would be nice for those who are unclear as to exactly what you believe in, since you seem much more willing to share what you don't believe in. Thanks!

Paganplace,

You pick the definition and the "person" pagan that fits your defense of paganism but paganism covers such a broad cult grouping, your claims go listless in the paranormal winds.

Athena, Athena, Athena,

Really?????? Are you sure????

What pagan group do you belong to??

CCNL... I hate to tell you this, but the show "Supernatural" is NOT a documentary. Nor was "Rosemary's Baby" or "The Wicker Man".

I mean, CCNL, you *do* remember what you were trying to 'prove' with all this, right?

Why don't you read that on back to us. In your own words. Make it fifty or less.

Err, CCNL. You do realize we didn't write the dictionary, but still have faith and heritage? Thanks for playing.

Paganplace and Terra,

The definition of "pagan" covers a lot of territory/"sins"/"paranormals".

pa·gan (pgn)
n.
1. One who is not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, especially a worshiper of a polytheistic religion.
2. One who has no religion.
3. A non-Christian.
4. A hedonist.
5. A Neo-Pagan.
adj.
1. Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.
2. Professing no religion; heathen.
3. Neo-Pagan.

Wiccans fit all the above??

And once again a list of pagan cults: (which ones do the Wiccans claim as their own?)

"Early movements
Pre-World War II Neopagan or Proto-Neopagan groups, growing out of occultism and/or Romanticism (Viking revival, Celtic revival).

The Druid Order (1717)
Ancient Order of Druids (1781)
Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (1888)
Germanic mysticism
Germanische Glaubens-Gemeinschaft (1907)
Guido von List Society (1908)
Church of the Universal Bond (1912)
Crowleyan Thelema (1930s)

Eclectic/New Age
Post-WWII movements emerging in the 1950s to 1960s, and later eclectic or New Age movements out of the Wiccan mainsteam.

Feri Tradition (1950s)
Feraferia (1957)
Church of All Worlds (1962)
Neo-druidism (1960s; members of most Neo-druidic groups practice eclectic spirituality)
Reformed Druids of North America (1963)
Order of Bards, Ovates and Druids (1964)
British Druid Order (1979)
New Reformed Orthodox Order of the Golden Dawn (1968)
Church and School of Wicca (1968)
Circle Sanctuary (1974)
Covenant of the Goddess (1975)
Federation of Damanhur (1975)
Radical Faeries (1979)
Aquarian Tabernacle Church (1979)
Rowan Tree Church (1979)
Arician Tradition (Stregheria) (1981)
Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans (1985)
Contemporary Witchcraft (1992)
Children of Artemis (1995)

Wicca

Wicca originates in 1940s Britain and becomes the mainstream of Neopaganism in the United States in the 1970s. There are two core Traditions of Wicca, which originated in Britain, Gardnerian and Alexandrian. These are sometimes referred to as British Traditional Wicca. From these two Traditions of Wicca arose several other Traditions that are variants of these central two. Wicca has also inspired a great number of other witchcraft traditions in Britain, Europe and the United States, most of which base their beliefs and practices on Wicca.

British Traditional Wicca
Gardnerian Wicca (1948)
Alexandrian Wicca (1967)
Algard Tradition
Seax-Wica (1973)
McFarland Dianic (early 1970s)
Reclaiming (Neopaganism) (1980)

Ethnic
Polytheistic reconstructionism

Germanic
Main article: Germanic neopaganism
Ásatrú (Norse)
Íslenska Ásatrúarfélagið (1972)
Odinic Rite (1973)
Asatru Free Assembly (1974-1986)
Asatru Folk Assembly (1996)
Comunità Odinista (1994)
Swedish AsatruSociety (1994)
Åsatrufellesskapet Bifrost (1996)
Odinist Fellowship (1996)
Odin Brotherhood (unknown)
International Asatru-Odinic Alliance (1997-2002)
Foreningen Forn Sed (1999)
Heathenry
Ring of Troth UK (1993)
Heathens For Progress(2004)
Theodism (1976)
Seax-Wica (1973)
Heidnische Gemeinschaft (1985)
Artgemeinschaft (1951)
Wotanism (1997)
Deutsche Heidnische Front (1998)

Celtic
Main article: Celtic Neopaganism
Neo-druidism (members of most Neo-druidic groups practice eclectic spirituality)
Ár nDraíocht Féin (1983; some individual members and member groves have a Celtic focus)
Celtic Reconstructionist Paganism (1980s)

Other European
Hellenic Neopaganism
Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellenes (1997)
Hellenion (2002)
Roman
Nova Roma (1998)
Movimento Tradizionale Romano
Slavic Neopaganism
RUNVira (1966)
Native Polish Church (1995)
Native Faith Association of Ukraine (1998)
Baltic Neopaganism
Lithuanian (1992)
Latvian
Finnish Neopaganism

[edit] Ancient Near East
Kemetism
Church of the Eternal Source (1970)
Ausar Auset (1973)
Kemetic Orthodoxy (1988)
Judeo-Paganism
Natib Qadish Canaanite Paganism

Native American
Lakota/Dakota religions

Voodoo

Oh, JAC: on your poll:

"If yes, in what direction goes the causality: those who believe in at least one paranormal phenomena tend to believe in God or God’s believers tend to believe in at least one paranormal phenomena?"

The tendency I've observed is that both science and authoritarian religion *tend* to both teach that all 'paranormal/spiritual' things are *the same.* Both if something paranormal happens, it must be God or the Devil, and if something paranormal happens 'Science is an opinion,'

To my experience, it happens all too often. The moment someone has a powerful experience they can't account for, all sense of discernment goes out the window, at least temporarily. Gods know how many times in the course of counsel ing people over things, they'll have inflated the whole experience into a narrative including everything they ever heard or feared about 'The Supernatural.'

They tend to get very impatient with me being, 'No, what did you see. What did you feel. Where did you feel it.'

Oftimes, the real problem is *not* what people leap to assume it is: "Is this real and divine/scary/demonic/supernatural, " is how most unsuspecting people are *trained to think,* so much so that even strident scientific atheists don't stop to think twice about what the important question is to ask right now.

That's just not the real question, though, in practice. It's a *fun* question, and one I think I have some insight into, but it's not the *important* question both 'sides' of the 'monotheists vs atheists' argument casts it as.

It doesn't bring anyone any help to give them a choice between, 'You are insane' and 'You are a victim of unfathomable forces.'

There's another way.

Yes, the Egyptians had a well-known polytheistic Pagan tradition: (Though one in many respects quite different from much of the European and Mesopotamian cultures most modern Pagans hail from, but they did in fact build the pyramids. )

The particular Pharoah Akenaten in fact came up with a monotheist religion based on the Aten, ...the light of the Sun... and tried to obliterate the worship of all other Gods: this move proved unpopular with most Egyptians, and especially the priestly caste, (Probably the attempt to establish a new religion was a move against the priests of Amun, who had a lot of hold on what the Pharoah could do,) and fairly quickly the traditional Egyptian was restored after Akhenaten's excesses didn't work out. But they pyramids had long been built by then: in fact, Akhenaten moved the capital and sacred precincts *away* from all that stuff...it was a very heavy-handed attempt to rewrite the culture to suit his own power.

It seems likely to me these influences actually had to do with the religion of the Hebrews developing a certian form of monotheism as well.

Eratosthenes was obviously a Greek, mind you. Ever hear of Alexandria and the famous library thereof? But that's another history lesson.

And I've told you several times that Voudoun and 'hoodoo' are separate traditions not connected to Wicca. The most I have to do with that stuff when I'm not talking to someone who practices it is this Hendrix song I like to sing along with. :)

As for the word 'Witchcraft,' well... Somehow what *you* think is a better name for us just ain't a prime concern. Personally, I think the word's use outside certain circles just tends to confuse people, even if it can be important to us in other ways. As a *religion,* and how that relates to our existence as a faith group, 'witchcraft' as you'd like to try and define it reall isn't the prime concern. Frankly, people do like to cast us as somehow essentially a 'supernatural' phenomenon, and thus not a 'real' religion, but in actual fact it's just that our religion isn't that *freaked* about what others call 'supernatural.' In general, actually we're quite pragmatic about that sort of thing. It's really other people's beliefs *about* us that bring in all the bubble, bubble, toil and trouble. :)

Hmmm, Anon/terra notes:

"Wicca is an Anglo Saxon word for a religion also called Witchcraft, Druidism, Shamanism, and by some Native American tribes as MedicineMan."

Hmmm, Witchcraft would appear to be the better name. Would "Voodooing the hoodoo" fit under the Wicca "umbrella"??

And Pagans built the pyramids? I thought the Egyptians invented/believed in all kinds of gods to include on occasion a monotheistic type?? " The earliest known instance of monotheism dates to the reign of Akhenaton of Egypt in the 14th century BC." from answers.com.

That 10 percent of the brain thing comes from some old science: I can't recall the story, precisely, but the popular notion became sort of a disembodied 'factoid' that somehow gained a lot of currency, ....likely in large measure cause it allows for a lot of interesting sci-fi. Of course, we in general don't use all the neourons in our brains at *once* unless we're having like a grand mal seizure or somthhing, but it's just one of those sort of 'urban myths' that got some currency, now.

As for the origins of Wicca, I've explained this to you before, CCNL: modern Wicca is a relatively-recent development, as a body of practice and as a modern theology, ...but our Gods and the roots of our faith group go back as far as one cares to reckon they do: Gerald Garner didn't pull it all out of *nowhere,* and set it down to be followed forevermore. It's not a 'revealed tradition' with a prophet and scripture and orthodoxy.

Hardly *can* be as some folks spent a a couple thousand years trying to obliterate and appropriate the traditions of our ancestors.

Only the most literal-minded argument could say that means it's actually impossible to be Pagan. Things and people change, and that's something modern Pagans actually *embrace.* If they burned all the books and killed all the teachers, the Gods would still be there and we'd still be able to find Them. We know this cause it's been tried.

As for whether Eratosthenes was Wiccan, well, that's a silly stipulation to make. Of course he wasn't, in that sense. I'm not claiming him for Wicca, just refuting the notion that Paganism is really about 'backwards superstitions.' In fact, the doctrinal authority-based literalism of monotheism set us back a long time.

"Most people only use 10% of their brain..."

That would explain some of the frequent posters around here...

Terra Gazelle writes:

"Most people only use 10% of their brain..."

It's amazing that people continue to drag out the "we only use 10% of our brains" urban legend. I heard that as a child of the 60s, and it's STILL around, ill informing everyone...who actually use 100% of their brains every day.

Good debunking here:

http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent.asp

CCNL,

Wicca is an Anglo Saxon word for a religion also called Witchcraft, Druidism,Shamanism,and by some Native American tribes as MedicineMan.

I am Wiccan and my tradition honors some of the elder generation pre classical Gods of the Greeks. Most likely some that Eratosthenes or his contempories revered.

The biggest misconception of Wicca is that we were "invented" in the 1950's. Wrong. But even if it were true it does not invalidate who and what we are.

terra

Christian writes:

"Mr. Mark,

Fair enough. Just curious why you're drawn to this "On Faith" site."

Just spreading the good news of atheism and rationality, I guess.

When I first started blogging here, the religionists offered better debates than they now do. There was a lot of back-n-forth with dueling Bible verses and the interpretations thereof.

Now, it's just a bunch of degenerates like Spidey representing the religious side with their screaming screeds. It's not as much fun. But for every Spidey and friends, there's also the occasional Arminius, and many of the columnists here are worth reading.

Considering that atheists like myself would have been unwelcome or heavily censored at such a site, oh, 5 years ago, there's something of an obligation to stay engaged with On Faith. That said, most days that I post here engender a great feeling of futility on my part.

The good news is that the atheists have already won the battles at this site and continue to do so on a daily basis. Victory in the war may not be too far in the offing.

Hi Wiccan, PP, Priver,Lepi,Arminius...etc...

CCNL, I could go into what Wicca was and where it came from, but there is not enough space to go in depth. Mike Nichols a Pagan scholar wrote a wonderful article on where the word came from.

"According to the O.E.D, the oldest extant appearance of the word "wicca" can be found in the Law Codes of Alfred the Great, circa 890 C.E. Alfred was a Christian and zealous about converting everyone under his rule to his faith."

http://www.twpt.com/witchbyanyothername.htm

As what is supernatural...everything in my view. I call it suberbly natural. It all depends on personal preception.

Such as the passage of time.
I have had time change for me...what seems like no more then an hour after the rise of the moon..would come the sun rise. Was I wrong in my perception? I was not alone in that perception...so does that make it more real that there were others agreeing with me?

What makes my personal awareness wrong because only I have experienced it?

When I have seen occurrances that were not ordinary in my life, does that make me wrong in the acknowledge of them?

Most people only use 10% of their brain... some learn to open up windows that others keep shut.

terra

CCNL,

You are, as usual, confused. The term "Pagan" encompasses a wide swath of pre-Christian beliefs, including Wicca, shamanism, Asatru, etc. The generally accepted term "Pagan" is a catchall for "non-Christian" (excluding Jews, Muslims, etc.) You are correct in that Erastothanes was not a Wiccan. That particular religion did not exist in the time of ancient Greece. He was a Hellene, and worshipped the Greek deities. Although by the time of Socrates, Plato, and the other philosophers, worship of the Olympians was pretty much done as public ritual only. The Olympians were less Gods than abstract concepts.

The origin of the word "Pagan" is the Latin "paganus" or "country-dweller". It came to be applied to the rural folks who followed the Old Ways, as opposed to the Christians in the towns. What we would term a "hick" or "hillbilly".

Remember - Stonehenge, the Pyramids, the ziggurats, and (my personal favorite) the Acropolis were all built by what you would term "ignorant Pagans".

The detailed Gallup Poll about this topic shows the percentage of Americans that believe in each of ten paranormal phenomena: ESP, haunted houses, ghosts/spirits of dead people, telepathy, clairvoyance, astrology, witches, reincarnation and channeling (possession by spirits).

Latter it says: “A special analysis of the data shows that 73% of Americans believe in at least one of the 10 items listed above...”

We know that more than 73% of Americans believe in God [no need of citation].

Is there a link between these two statistics?

If yes, in what direction goes the causality: those who believe in at least one paranormal phenomena tend to believe in God or God’s believers tend to believe in at least one paranormal phenomena?

Peace to all,

JAC

Mr. Mark,

Fair enough. Just curious why you're drawn to this "On Faith" site.

Christian writes:

"When I became a Christian, it wasn't through arguments over these small issues, it was because I needed a savior."

Fair enough, but most people - including me - don't need a savior, real or imagined.

As far as having belief: there's belief because of the evidence and belief in spite of the evidence. There's also belief lacking any evidence, and into this category falls religion...though belief in spite of evidence also enters into it.

Paganplace,

But was Eratosthenes a pagan as you claim? References? Since he was not Wiccan, we assume you cannot claim him as one of your own.

Anonymous:
Is there such "a thing" as the numinous?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I use the word to refer to that which is indistinctly perceived, not objectively demonstrable, but perceived nonetheless. Maybe it doesn't exist for everyone.

Mr. Mark & Arminius,

No, I haven't "fled the field," but some of us have a life outside blogs.

And I did read your references, but do you know what, there's no end to people's opinions. What it comes down to is that if you believe the Bible is inerrant, there's plenty of opinions to support you, and likewise if you believe it to be in error, there's plenty of opinions to support you. However, they remain opinions. No one has been able to offer proof of errancy.

Just as one of you wrote:

"BTW - I find articles that drill down into the original meaning of Greek and Hebrew words interesting, but ultimately, one can use such scholarship to support any position one so wishes."

So...it all comes to down to belief, doesn't it? I believe God is real and that His word is true, and you don't. I would like to think there's something I can tell you that would change your opinion, but I was wrong to think that I could. When I became a Christian, it wasn't through arguments over these small issues, it was because I needed a savior. It's when you're ready to cry out to God and need rescued that you will find Him, not through arguments or debate.

However, the more I study the Bible, the more I find it to be accurate.

Oh, and BTW, who said I was a "guy"?

Is there such "a thing" as the numinous?

Can't help smiling at the irony of people arguing for biblical translations one way or another on the one thread on this site led by someone whose religious practice most likely is NOT based on the bible (or any one book, for that matter) at all. :)

Mr Mark,

I've had enough Greek and Latin to know that translation can be a very slippery slope. A very slippery slope indeed...

Well, now, translate the Bible once again? It happens pretty often, actually. Here, I'm afraid your (rather mild) bias is showing through - a moratorium? A hoot? No. But another translation by the best minds in the field - yes, that would be a boon. I would support that. It could be an ecumenical triumph.

Arminius

Dear Arminius -

Christian has fled the field. Perhaps he's actually reading the article you linked to. Wouldn't that be a pleasant change of pace?!

BTW - I find articles that drill down into the original meaning of Greek and Hebrew words interesting, but ultimately, one can use such scholarship to support any position one so wishes.

Maybe what's need is a moratorium on the Xian faith for, say, 20-30 years, as the top Biblical scholars gather, re-translate the Bible from the best sources available, eventually emerging with a new Bible and a Nicea-II model of Xianity that presents a new consensus on what the books actually intended. Christians would be free to study their Bibles in their homes during the re-evaluation, but once the new-n-improved version of Xianity came out, it was time to sign on or get gone.

Wouldn't that be a hoot?

Hi, Paganplace!

Eratosthenes of Cyrene (Greek Ἐρατοσθένης; 276 BCE - 194 BCE).

Re NDE: my sister had one, and I believe it completely. Spooky.

Arminius

Mr Mark,

I actually did catch the 'money quote' too. Should have mentioned it. I'm afraid Christian has bought into some really sorry stuff - so unnecessary for a Christian.

Eratosthenes, that should be spelled, btw, CCNL. My Greek is not of the best, by any measure. :)

As for the notion that the Hebrew or other Scripture doesn't *necessarily* have to be taken to mean that the Earth is supposed to be flat, well, that's very nice.

It doesn't mean that in the past people *didn't* take the Bible 'literally' to mean *just that* with all the intensity they use to say 'God Hates Gays.'

That's just how it is. Not that I'm one to claim when someone improves their understanding, just you can't do it *retroactively* in that manner.

As for NDE's, well, I have to say I was pretty surprised myself, but, anecdotally, the experience really did pretty much fit the much-commented upon pattern, any familiar Christian embellishments aside.

There's really only so much you can say about it, particularly in a Pagan culture where 'witnessing' is a no-no, apart from it being way too personal for me to even want to.

Having experienced it, I could not say whether or not I was clinically brain-dead at the very moment, (No cheap shots, please, but somehow I didn't have an EEG machine handy at the time. ;) ) but I humbly submit that's kind of not the point, anyway, as much as we like to discuss it. I do get a little smile out of what I did see, and, it didn' really change too much about my worldview per se, except that maybe I have less patience with people who try to make death scarier than it has to be.

That and it means I'm here cause I once again *asked* to be, and that saves a certain amount of BS. :)

"Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

Paganplace,

You noted: "Pagans had the circumference of orbis Terrae calculated in like the 1000 BC millenium".

Hmmm, references?"

Don't tell me I have to educate you about Erastosthenes. First Millenium BCE.

"And were these pagans Wiccans?"

That'd be pretty remarkable, conisdering the dude lived in *Egypt* over two thousand years ago, wouldn't it?

Arminius -

Here's the money quote from the article you linked:

"While the writers assert that the Hebrew khug--I shall use chûgh--of Isa. 40:22a means "sphericity," they provide no lexicological support."

The author also points out this ridiculous interpretation of the Hebrew is a mantra for the YEC crowd, of which I assume Christian is a card-carrying member.

Perspective (and company)

As I have said on Jacoby's thread - just because we can not test something does not render it false.

I thought Perspective (and maybe others) would find this a very interesting NDE http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

I think one day we will prove consciousness survives death. Perhaps that will be a stepping stone to proving God exists. Regardless it would profoundly change the way we think about the world and the one after. Empirical study of our consciousness is more within reach than the empirical study of God – unless they turn out to be one and the same.

"In fact, when it is stated that pi is 3.1415, even that is not precise. Pi actually is 3.14159265+ (i.e., indefinitely imprecise). It is hardly consistent, therefore, to frame an imprecise objection against the Bible’s alleged imprecision!"

Actually, Christian, you'd want to round that to 3.1416, and Pi is in fact as precise as you care to calculate it. Unless of course you just round it off and base some Biblical argument thereon. :)

Mr Mark,

Of course, I agree with the professor's argument too. The idea of proving science in the bible is a total non-starter to this believer, right down there with angels dancing on the heads of pins.

Arminius wrote:

Christian and Mr Mark,

Your debate got me interested, and I found this:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html"

Good article. Herr Professor said it better than I could. Of course, I agree with his analysis as he agrees with me (!) and swats down the arguments made here by Christian.

Dear Christian -

Boy, you're really reaching.

Sorry, but I don't know what "Challenge, Vol. 1, #1" is and whether it is reliable as a reference. You'll excuse me if I don't (at this point) find it more reliable and factual than the references I cited (ie: Strong's Concordance, Holladay's A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament and Brown Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon). Perhaps you can provide a link to "Challenge, Vol. 1, #1?"

More tellingly, your "Challenge" reference has to SPECULATE its way into the "sphere" possibility. As I pointed out, there is a perfectly good Hebrew word for a ball (ie: dur) and Isaiah could have used this word to describe the Earth, but he didn't.

Furthermore, you haven't addressed god spreading out his heavens like a tent (canopy) upon the Earth's circle, an everyday occurrence on a FLAT surface like a circle drawn on a basketball court, but an IMPOSSIBLE occurrence if spread out over the surface of a sphere...unless, of course, you are going to limit the area of the sphere you intend to cover with your tent to something that negates the attributes of a sphere...like...a circle.

Sidebar - earlier on, I failed to thank you for making my case for a Biblical circle being a two-dimensional object for me by providing this "tent" verse from Isaiah. So, a belated "thank you."

BTW - if the Bible doesn't postulate a flat Earth, then why did Satan take Jesus to a very high mountain to view all the kingdoms of the Earth at the same time? What would height have to do with it unless the idea is that one gains a different perspective by going higher; that one can see to "the ends of the Earth" and the Earth's "four corners" IF one gets high enough and IF that Earth is flat.

I already know your response: "that's a metaphor"...to which I say, hogwash, for just as you are asking us to INFER that a sphere exists where the Bible clearly says a circle exists, one can ONLY infer that one can see all the kingdoms of Earth at the same time IF and only if the Earth is flat.

Like I said, the Bible is wrong, wrong WRONG on things scientific.

Christian,

The pi=3 thing is a really small tempest in a teapot, and there are better things to worry about. Obviously some scribe somewhere rounded off the numbers. I was curious to read what you thought.

Arminius, about the value of Pi and the accuracy of the Bible ...

If someone were to ask you to state the length of a day, would you reply “twenty-four hours,” or would you be compelled to specify: twenty-three hours, fifty-six minutes, and 4.09054 seconds (the actual measurement)?

In fact, when it is stated that pi is 3.1415, even that is not precise. Pi actually is 3.14159265+ (i.e., indefinitely imprecise). It is hardly consistent, therefore, to frame an imprecise objection against the Bible’s alleged imprecision!

Christian and Mr Mark,

Your debate got me interested, and I found this:
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2001/PSCF9-01Schneider.html

The author is a professor, and seems to know what he is talking about. He concludes that it is a circle, not a sphere. He was teaching a course in Science and Faith, exploring both sides of the question.

Mr. Mark, neither I nor the Bible are "wrong-headed" -- back at ya:

"Whenever, this word is in its masculine form. it means a circle, a sphere. In Isaiah 40:22 the word is used in its masculine form, therefore, it means a circle, a sphere.

Webster says that a circle is, "...formed on the surface of a sphere by the intersection of a plane that passes through it." (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p.200) A circle is formed on the surface of the spherical earth. Is it not reasonable that Isaiah refers to this spherical circle of the earth? Could God not sit above this circle on the spherical earth?

(From Challenge, Vol. 1, #1)

Christian writes:

"Mr. Mark, the Bible has never, NEVER, NEVER been proven wrong.

While a "circle" is indeed 2-dimensional, you have to look at the original Hebrew in which the Old Testament was written for a clear understanding.

In Isaiah 40:22, where it states, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in," the word
circle in the hebrew is "clube," which means an arc or sphere, or a more exact conotation is sphericity, or roundness, clearly teaching that the world is shaped like a globe."

Wow. So wrong-headed.

The Hebrew word used here is khug. That it means circle and not sphere is indisputable. Strong's Concordance (no. 2328 & 2329), Holladay's A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (p97) and Brown Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (p295) gives the verbal form of the word as "to draw a circle". The noun is translated as either "circle" or "vault". A vault, of course, is a semi-circular arch. Other instance of the occurrence of the word khug includes:

Job 26:10
He has described a circle (Hebrew khug) upon the face of the waters ...

Proverbs 8:27
When he established the heavens, I was there, when he drew a circle (Hebrew khug) on the face of the deep

The translations of khug as "circle" in the above instances are correct, for the passages are talking about drawing something on a surface: i.e. a two dimensional representation.

Furthermore there is a word in Hebrew that means sphere: dur. If the author of Isaiah 40 had had this in mind he would surely had used this word instead of khug. Earlier on in Isaiah we see this word being used to describe a ball:

Isaiah 22:17-18
He will seize firm hold on you, and whirl you round and round, and throw you like a ball (Hebrew dur) into a wide land; there you shall die

It comes as no surprise then that all the major, non-paraphrase, Bible translations - the NRSV, RSV, NASB, ASB, KJV, NKJV, and even the fundamentalist NIV - give the translation of khug in Isaiah 40:22 as "circle".

BTW - can one pitch a tent on a sphere? Tell you what - try pitching a tent on the geodesic dome at EPCOT, and let me know how that works out for you. Then, try pitching your tent over the center circle of any basketball court. A bit easier, no?

Back at ya.

Christian, you said to Mr. Mark,

"the Bible has never, NEVER, NEVER been proven wrong."

Gee, does that mean that pi really is equal to 3? See I Kings 7:23.

JYHUME - you probably noted that Peter Fenwick was quoted in numerous places on the website, and he appears to be among the foremost researchers on NDE phenomena currently. He does make note of the fact that the reported NDE occurs among a certain percentage of subjects undergoing full cardiac arrest, with accompanying flat EKG and EEG results, very much contrary to all medical expectations.

It seems clear that it is a transformative event in an emotional sense, and is recalled as being something very much different than a typical dream experience. The subject implicitly believes that they have had a real experience - there are many commonalities among reports, but of course none of this solves the question of that ever-elusive 'survival after death' conundrum.

Of course he has to rely on self-reports, so after-the-fact subjective reporting is perforce 'anecdotal'. And as you say, the very fact that similar medical circumstances (anoxia, et al) do not generate a replication of the NDE experience across a significantly high number of the CAD population remains unexplained. Most recollect nothing.

But it does seem to be thought provoking at the very least - on the other hand, this is not by any means an area of research that generates much research funding, so that makes for very limited research (and limited interest) compared to virtually any other medical issue.

The nature of the experience, being spontaneous and unpredictable, makes for a lack of both experimental control and empirical first-hand observation by the researcher. Although others may witness and substantiate certain of the reported events.

Paranormal activities are stubbornly resistent to experimental control, and this fact has plagued paranormal research since the early days of J.B. Rhine and his telepathy research using playing cards. This is where the cynic (skeptic?) parts company with the enthusiast!

Uri Geller is still bending spoons -- somewhere. Everyone has their own interests, and that's a fact. Admittedly, this is one of mine.....

regards -

Mr. Mark,

Another proof of the accuracy of the Bible...

In 1855, a man named Matthew Maury wrote the first textbook on modern oceanography, The Physical Geography of the Sea and Its Meteorology. In this work, Maury presented oceanography from a delightfully Christian view. He included Biblical passages of meteorological and other scientific importance, such as the Scripture quote from the book of Job (28:25) which refers to God’s making ‘the weight for the winds’.

Maury died in 1873. He was elected to the Hall of Fame for Great Americans. A monument erected in his honour on Monument Avenue, Richmond, Virginia, reads: ‘Matthew Fontaine Maury, Pathfinder of the Seas, the genius who first snatched from the oceans and atmosphere the secret of their laws. His inspiration, Holy Writ, Psalm 8:8; Ecclesiastes 1:6.’

(From Creation Magazine, Vol. 11, Issue 3)

Mr. Mark, the Bible has never, NEVER, NEVER been proven wrong.

While a "circle" is indeed 2-dimensional, you have to look at the original Hebrew in which the Old Testament was written for a clear understanding.

In Isaiah 40:22, where it states, "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in," the word
circle in the hebrew is "clube," which means an arc or sphere, or a more exact conotation is sphericity, or roundness, clearly teaching that the world is shaped like a globe.

Re: the "circle of the Earth" -

a circle is two-dimensional object, ie: a flat object.

A sphere is a three-dimensional object.

Yes, the Greeks figured out that the Earth was sphere centuries before the Bible was written, but the writers of the Bible couldn't be bothered with that knowledge.

Ergo, when the Book of Job speaks about the "circle" of the horizon, it is still speaking of a flat, two-dimensional Earth.

BTW - the Bible often speaks of "the firmament" that sits above the Earth, as well as different levels of heaven above the firmament, concepts that make no sense in a spherical Earth but make plenty of "sense" in a flat-Earth way.

Further BTW - most people believed the Earth was flat well into the age of Columbus. Why not just admit that the writers of the Bible thought like everyone else and wrote about the Earth as if it were a) flat and b) the center of creation? Why attempt to retrofit late-age scientific knowledge onto the Bronze-Aged mindset, especially when the Bible offers NO spherical references to the Earth? Why not? Because to do so would be to admit that the Bible is entirely the creation of the minds of men, and that an omniscient god (who would have known that the Earth was a sphere from the day he "created" it) had nothing to do with it.

Yes, the REAL kicker would have been if the writers of the Bible had actually heard from god that the Earth was a sphere, that marsupials and microbes (and other life forms that would remain unseen by a Middle-eastern nomad sticking his head out of his cave to view "all of creation" before writing the Bible) existed, and that a whole plethora of scientific discoveries made in the past centuries had been predicted in the Bible, rather than having the effect of putting the lie to the Biblical account.

Wouldn't it have been something if the Bible was littered with references to a spherical Earth in contradiction to what men believed throughout the world, relying solely on the evidence in front of their own eyes? Wouldn't it have been something if the Bible had spoken of the stars being suns that were billions of miles from Earth, rather than averring that they were tiny points of light attached to a SOLID firmament that sat a few miles above the Earth? Wouldn't it have been something if the Bible was full of scientific information that contradicted Bronze Aged beliefs, rather than marching lockstep with those error-laden beliefs?

But that's not how it EVER turns out, is it? No, the sorry truth is that the Bible is always wrong, wrong WRONG on things scientific. The only question is how many centuries need to pass between the scientific correction to the Biblical "record" and the lame attempts of the religious to retrofit Biblical error so it aligns with scientific truth.

How long did it take the Catholic Church to apologize to Galileo?

Again, a "circle" is a flat, two-dimensional object. Perhaps we can at least agree on the definition of the word "circle?"

Just to set the record straight, the Bible does not teach that the earth is flat:

A literal translation of Job 26:10 is "He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end." A spherical earth is also described in Isaiah 40:21-22 - "the circle of the earth."

Proverbs 8:27 also suggests a round earth by use of the word circle (e.g., New King James Bible and New American Standard Bible). If you are overlooking the ocean, the horizon appears as a circle. This circle on the horizon is described in Job 26:10. The circle on the face of the waters is one of the proofs that the Greeks used for a spherical earth. Yet here it is recorded in Job, ages before the Greeks discovered it. Job 26:10 indicates that where light terminates, darkness begins. This suggests day and night on a spherical globe. [JSM]

The Hebrew record is the oldest, because Job is one of the oldest books in the Bible. Historians generally [wrongly] credit the Greeks with being the first to suggest a spherical earth. In the sixth century B.C., Pythagoras suggested a spherical earth. [JSM]

I'm not sure if this would be classified under "supernatural" or paranormal:

Has anyone here read Vladimir Vernadsky and Teilhard de Chardin? What do you think about the noosphere?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noosphere

Is emergent evolution possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergent_evolution

PERSPECTIVE – agreed, skepticism is good.

I think this stuff is interesting to ponder, but you’re right that most of the “evidence” for experiences like NDEs is anecdotal. I don’t see much more than that on the IANDS website, and even the notable Lancet study isn’t very convincing. Studies like this aren’t even experimental (quasi-experimental at best?), since the researchers aren’t able to directly manipulate any of the independent variables. They’re just scoring the personal responses of the test subjects who happen to either have NDEs or not.

Aside from serious problems with definition of death, brain death, and their measurement, I notice they made a curious statement:

“Our results show that medical factors cannot account for occurrence of NDE… If purely physiological factors resulting from cerebral anoxia caused NDE, most of our patients’ should have had this experience.”

Well, no, because they weren’t testing for cause, for one thing. The best they could say is that they found no correlation between NDE and any single physiological variable that they happened to look at.

There’s a good response at: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-06-18.html

Sorry to get off track, but the important question still is how to distinguish between true and would-like-it-to-be-true. I have looked into these paranormal issues a bit. Heck, I even lived in rural west africa for a few years, where nearly everything is imbued with “mystical” powers. Maybe we’ll find them someday(?), but the “evidence” for such things just isn’t very convincing yet.

To me, the reality of quantum physics and quantum effects is a sign that the world, as we perceive it, and which we inhabit, the landscape of our daily existnece, is modelled in our minds according to the physical senses that we have to perceive it; but, there may be additional aspects of reality that we are unable to know about, because our senses, and the actual wiring of our brains does not enable us to perceive these additional aspects. (gasp! that was a long sentence).

I do not think we know that the future effects the present, and we don't know that people can read each other's minds, and we don't know that we are surrounded by invisibe spirits and ghosts, and we don't know about God, or Heaven, or any of that stuff.

But, I, at lesat, sense somthing stranger and weirder "going on here" than any of us could ever imagine.

Magic (Paranormal) and Religion are reviewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_(paranormal)

JYHUME - while I agree that the misuse and mis-application of the ideas coming from quantum physics is being exploited to support every hair-brained idea under the sun, there is still plenty of work coming from valid research sources on a wide variety of paranormal phenomena.

I didn't see the movie you refer to, and wouldn't be the least bit interested. I've been studying this stuff for years, so there's nothing new there for me. I do think that it takes some work and some personal interest in order to familiarize yourself with what's out there regarding esoteric traditions, historically speaking - these being the basis for what are generically referred to (somewhat inaccurately) as 'mystical' traditions and practices.

But that is not by any means the orientation of modern paranormal researchers. As an example, take a look at various web sites (e.g. IANDS) that pertain to near-death experiences and read what researchers have to say - first-hand reports prove nothing by themselves, but the consistency in these reports is noteworthy.

Kenneth Ring has done research directly involving NDE reports from congenitally blind subjects that involve visual (out-of-body) experiences. This is quite remarkable, because having worked with blind folks myself for over 20 years, I can tell you that people born blind clearly possess no visual reference points, and do not dream using visual imagery....but employ non-visual sensory impressions instead.

Look at the psychedelic research work with the terminally ill by Stanislov Grof (late of Esalen Institute)and the transpersonal experiences of many of his patients.

I think many people discount the possibility of 'paranormal' experiences that seemingly defy our conventional sense of time and space, because of a rather powerful bias to a strongly materialistic and mechanical view of our very subjective reality. It is fair to say that this also reflects the present-day position of science as well.....and has since Newton.

Even Einstein couldn't shake it off, nor could he buy into the quantum view of things, although his work indirectly inspired the development of the field.

IMO, everyone should be a skeptic, and beliefs should remain provisional - we certainly won't be where we are today scientifically speaking, in even 25 years.... paranormal studies may simply be a wave of the future.

regards -

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Thanks, Arminius, Wiccan, et al. I guess I had a "McCain Moment" there. Too much technology in the old brain, and not enough Shakespeare.

Interesting discussion, but allow me to play the stick-in-the-mud.

There is clearly a great deal of sentiment here similar to the following:

***“Just because we don't currently possess a "scientific" explanation for a thing doesn't make that thing "supernatural" or "paranormal". Ever watch "What the Bleep Do We Know?"?”***

This is true, of course. “Science” doesn’t have complete knowledge or even perfect knowledge of what is known. Nor does anyone I know claim that it does. But that in no way suggests that any and all claims of knowledge are equal. Let’s not go down that mushy-headed road into epistemological relativism.

I have watched the film “What the Bleep Do We Know?”, and found it to be absolutely excruciating (perhaps just as interesting was observing my far less skeptical relatives, with whom I watched the film, view the entire thing with googly-eyed wonder. “Well, would you look at that!”). I saw little more than a long series of ruminations, fantasies, and unfounded claims, all wrapped-up in the fancy-sounding language of “quantum physics.” Imagination is wonderful and necessary, even for physicists, but that doesn’t mean that every imagining is either true or useful. What little actual “research” that was alluded to in the film appeared on its face to be highly dubious. I would love to see the actually studies cited in order to review the research methodology. “Mind power” can influence the formation of ice crystals? Really? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. For some reason, I doubt…

The point is that “science” seems to be the only reliable tool available to us for distinguishing between what is actually true and what we merely wish to be true. Not that science is “perfect,” and not that feelings and intuitions are not useful; it’s just that science is a whole heck of a lot better than any other method we’ve got for investigating the world.

*******
Starhawk made a very interesting comment: “We develop tools for entering—and coming back from—altered states of awareness, and for discerning whether something is a true vision or a paranoid fantasy.”
*******

Really? I’m interested. What are these tools, exactly, and how accurately can they distinguish truth from fantasy? How would we know? Is this a testable claim, and testable against what? I really am interested.

Merry Meet all -

Boy am I glad I came over here. This stuff makes sense, unlike the Rev. Susan K. Smith essay in which she suggests spirits are responsible for a guy winning the lottery based on numbers revealed in a dream by his recently deceased daughter.

I'm going to go back and ask her if these are Christian spirits and if she advocates that her parishioners follow all instructions they receive in dreams.

Hmmm, the poll did not address belief in "pretty/ugly, wingie, talking thingies. Tis strange since one would assume they would be considered in the realm of the paranormal (definition- Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation).

Some background on these "beyond the range of normal experience" thingies:

Joe Smith had his Moroni.

Jehovah Witnesses have their Jesus /Michael the archangel, the first angelic being created by God;

Mohammed had his Gabriel (this "tinkerbell" got around).

Jesus and his family had Michael, Gabriel, and Satan, the latter being a modern day demon of the demented.

The Abraham-Moses myths had their Angel of Death and other "no-namers" to do their dirty work or other assorted duties.

Contemporary biblical and religious scholars have relegated these "pretty/ugly wingie thingies" to the myth pile. We should do the same to include deleting all references to them in our religious operating manuals. Doing this will eliminate the prophet/profit/prophecy status of these founders and put them where they belong as simple humans just like the rest of us.

Some added references to "tinker bells".

"Latter-day Saints also believe that Michael the Archangel was Adam (the first man) when he was mortal, and Gabriel lived on the earth as Noah."

Apparently hallucinations did not stop with Joe Smith.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07049c.htm
"This belief in guardian angels can be traced throughout all antiquity; pagans, like Menander and Plutarch (cf. Euseb., "Praep. Evang.", xii), and Neo-Platonists, like Plotinus, held it. It was also the belief of the Babylonians and Assyrians, as their monuments testify, for a figure of a guardian angel now in the British Museum once decorated an Assyrian palace, and might well serve for a modern representation; while Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, says: "He (Marduk) sent a tutelary deity (cherub) of grace to go at my side; in everything that I did, he made my work to succeed."

Catholic monks and Dark Age theologians also did their share of hallucinating:

"TUBUAS-A member of the group of angels who were removed from the ranks of officially recognized celestial hierarchy in 745 by a council in Rome under Pope Zachary. He was joined by Uriel, Adimus, Sabaoth, Simiel, and Raguel."

And tinkerbells go way, way back:

"In Zoroastrianism there are different angel like creatures. For example each person has a guardian angel caled Fravashi. They patronize human being and other creatures and also manifest god’s energy. Also, the Amesha Spentas have often been regarded as angels, but they don't convey messages, but are rather emanations of Ahura Mazda ("Wise Lord", God); they appear in an abstract fashion in the religious thought of Zarathustra and then later (during the Achaemenid period of Zoroastrianism) became personalized, associated with an aspect of the divine creation (fire, plants, water...)."

"The beginnings of the biblical belief in angels must be sought in very early folklore. The gods of the Hittites and Canaanites had their supernatural messengers, and parallels to the Old Testament stories of angels are found in Near Eastern literature. "

"The 'Magic Papyri' contain many spells to secure just such help and protection of angels. From magic traditions arose the concept of the guardian angel. "

For added information see the review at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angel

Paganplace,

You noted: "Pagans had the circumference of orbis Terrae calculated in like the 1000 BC millenium".

Hmmm, references?

And were these pagans Wiccans?

And Christians burned heretics for not believing the Earth was flat?

References?

And my goodness, atoms being considered in the realm of voodoo? Holy BatMan!!!!

Perspective,

I like your posts very much.

And yours too, PaganPlace.

Regards.

Norrie, I wholeheartedly agree with you. There is in fact no real physical basis for reality - just as Buddhists in general have always maintained. As Zen master Hui Neng said, 'From the first, not a thing is'.

He taught only one truth and had only one recommendation - that a person must see for themselves that nothing whatsoever truly exists, in the way that a common-sense materialistic view would have us believe.

Admittedly, this is a singular accomplishment that is purely intuitive - but an idea that can still be fathomed to a significant degree by viewing the 'character' of everyday reality directly. I have no intention of going into this any further, but am very much in accord with your view.

Just as atoms will one day be revealed as mental constructs with practical value as a projected paradigm for understanding and controlling the mundane world of perceived objects, so will it be proven out that our 'concrete' world is of the same substance as our dream world.

Buddhists go further, and tell us the 'creator' of these worlds is imaginary, and will never be found despite our pragmatic 'ego-based' assumptions to the contrary.

If there are no 'particles' that somehow mysteriously combine to assemble the objects of our material world - of what does that world consist? Given that the views of quantum physics is not yet 100 years old, what can we expect in another 100 years? Vast changes are ahead.

This in no way detracts from enjoying the moment.

HOLYBUSHMAN - to my mind, dark energy is the biggest conundrum. What does it mean? First of all, nobody on the planet knows what 'energy' is, except in terms of 'work that affects change'. So we see the results of energy applied, but otherwise it remains an unknown and unidentified force, even more elusive than gravity. Odd that we speak of it in common parlance as though it's the most obvious tangible reality.

Much like atoms, it's never been seen or directly apprehended. On our gross material level, we speak of 'rationality' and 'common sense' as though these were obvious commodities of intelligence grounded in science and the 'reality' of matter - how can a sane person entertain the notion that there is a non-material reality? Well, because science tells us so, for starters. It's quantum physics, in spades.

I wonder about the dark energy that supposedly composes 70% of the known universe - as something that others refer to as as the quantum vacuum, or the zero point field (a seething energy source with vast potential measured in even the smallest spacial dimensions) - the virtual quantum foam from which our present universe may have arisen.

While truly a non-particle based & unmanifest dimension, does it somehow still exist as part of our present reality? Could that be the residual 70% of our cosmos that's still unidentified? If so, it's only the tip of the quantum energy iceberg.

You have to excuse me - wild speculation is typical for people that are unsatified with the present state of knowledge in the known universe. Some folks just can't get by with 'practical' knowledge alone.

"And, as a Buddhist sympathizer, I've thought for years that there isn't any such thing as "the real world"."

Hey, Norrie, you can call it Maya or not... doesn't change much but the attitude. ;)

I mean, it's kind of the gorilla in the room, but the fact is that most of how this debate is framed is based entirely on the fact that the early Christian Church couldn't get one thing through its collective and holy head:

Aristotle Was Wrong. About a number of things. Like what happens when you take a bowling ball and a softball and *drop em.*

" Concerned The Christian Now Liberated:

"Most of the people of the globe once believed the Earth was flat, that Earth was the center of the Universe, that Eucharistic wafers were "god hosts", that black cats were unlucky"

Actually, the *Christians* teach that people believed the world was flat until the Christians stopped burrning people as heretics for saying it wasn't. Pagans had the circumference of orbis Terrae calculated in like the 1000 BC millenium.

L. Kurt Englehart,

You wrote:

"Norrie, Your authority for making such a statement is ancient. You need to catch up on what is happening in the real world."

Dear Kurt,

Please, tell me what's happening in the real world today. At my age (ancient) I'm not sure I do, or want to, fully understand the present moment.

And, as a Buddhist sympathizer, I've thought for years that there isn't any such thing as "the real world".

Best wishes.

It's true that just because we don't understand something, it doesn't make it supernatural. If find it to be more of a leap of faith to claim that the nominalist or reducationist way of looking at things is actually the way things are. I think Plato and Aristotle are in agreement with me.

Religious experience and paranormal experience are sometimes the same thing. But both are interpreted by world views we've already adhered to. One person's magick is another's demonic activity based on the beliefs they've already formed.

The problem comes when people don't step out of what they are told and experience the wide universe for themself.

Perception creates reality. In the human mind, we know that how we perceive the world is our own reality. Perhaps we will never see things the same as our fellow humans, but we can agree that certain things undoubtably are true. As we discover more of those things, they cease to be mysteries. We can't possibly figure everything out. But as we explore both the outside universe, we can also discover the human potential. I believe these things are inextricably related.

Most of the people of the globe once believed the Earth was flat, that Earth was the center of the Universe, that Eucharistic wafers were "god hosts", that black cats were unlucky, that breaking a mirror would bring seven years of bad luck etc. Throw in all the horror movies, hallucinogenic drugs, alcohol binges, Gypsy con artists, the mumbo jumbo of religion, voodoo and other pagan rituals and "pretty/ugly wingie thingies aka angels, fairies and tinkerbells and it is no wonder that people still believe in:

Extrasensory perception, or ESP
41 %

That houses can be haunted
37 %

Ghosts/that spirits of dead people can come back in certain places/situations
32

Telepathy/communication between minds without using traditional senses
31

Clairvoyance/the power of the mind to know the past and predict the future
26

Astrology, or that the position of the stars and planets can affect people's lives
25

That people can communicate mentally with someone who has died
21

Witches
21

Reincarnation, that is, the rebirth of the soul in a new body after death
20

Channeling/allowing a 'spirit-being' to temporarily assume control of body

9

Conclusion: Such beliefs separate us from the non-human elements of life and gives credence to some sort of life after death.

Headed out for a few hours, friends. Be back.

Hi, Wiccan,

"...who was expelled by his order because of his lack of respect for authority." and "had a great love of good ale"

I resemble that remark. I like mead too.

Arminius

Friar Tuck! It has possiblities:

"He was a former monk of Fountains Abbey (or in some cases, St Mary's Abbey in York, which is also the scene of some other Robin Hood tales) who was expelled by his order because of his lack of respect for authority." and "had a great love of good ale".

He seems to me to be someone with one foot on pratical and the other on possible.

MMA Arminius, Lepi, PP, Wiccan..everyone!

I've not heard of the cool Christian being known as the 'Friar Tuck', PP- but I like it for our Arminius. Maybe he'll bring the sacramental mead. ;)

Paganplace,

In a more serious mode, I am honored to hang out with you folks. I could not hope for a friendlier and more instructive group. Friar Tuck it is, then.

Haha. :)

Actually, in some circles where I have run, a 'Tuck' is slang for 'The cool Christian who hangs out with us for some reason.' :)

Paganplace,

Who the hell ya callin' Friar Tuck?!? (ROTFLHAO!)

I love ya!

Arminius

It just wouldn't be a merrye band of online Pagans without our resident Friar Tuck. :)

Thanks for the update, Holybushman. It illustrates the quote from Hamlet. Gotta open your eyes...

Hi, Arminius! (Waves back!)

I have every hope this week will be more civil. Insults can't get much past "You're crazy!" and "Oh yeah, sez who?"

;-)

Hi, Arminius. There, that's got it. :) I must be getting old, if I can't remember my quotes from Hamlet. :)

Looks like WaPo's given us a busy week. :)

Hi, Everybody!

(waves madly to Lep, PP, Wiccan, et al)

The quotation actually is this:

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Arminius

"With the use of gravitational lensing, scientists are mapping dark matter in the universe, and have begun to discover that the galaxies seem to line up and cluster with highly dense areas of dark matter. Few scientists are now scoffing at the early occult ideas of “aether”."

I've been trying to get the skinny on these developments with great interest, myself, Holybushman. It's a little difficult relying on popularizers for some of it, but I'm trying to figure out if it's possible these observations are an artifact of thinking in too few dimensions or if there's actually indication that it must be exotic matter....

Wiccan, you stated the following:

"Scientists propose with a straight face the existance of "dark energy" and "dark matter". Why? Because the universe won't work without them. They're "dark" because scientists haven't found them yet."

For the sake of edification, and not argument, I’d like to point out that this isn't true. Recent advances in modern cosmology and particle physics has revealed many interesting aspects about the type of matter scientists now call “dark matter”. Scientists know there are two types of matter; matter which interacts with the electromagnetic spectrum (and can, thus, be seen) and matter which doesn’t interact with EM energy. Through several indirect methods, such as gravitational lensing and measuring the rotational speeds of galaxies, scientists now know there exists a form of matter which does not interact with EM energies. More importantly, this newly identified “dark matter” seems to make up the majority of matter in the universe. With the use of gravitational lensing, scientists are mapping dark matter in the universe, and have begun to discover that the galaxies seem to line up and cluster with highly dense areas of dark matter. Few scientists are now scoffing at the early occult ideas of “aether”.

Anywho, I just thought you and anyone reading these posts should know about the most recent advances on the subject of “dark matter”.

Norrie Hoyt: "Religious phenomena can only be scientifically studied as a matter of the biology/psychology of the person who claims to have observed them."

Norrie, Your authority for making such a statement is ancient. You need to catch up on what is happening in the real world.

SOk, Wiccan, I thought it was you. :) I may just be familiar enough with your writing style. :)

Oh, and the quote goes, if I'm not mistaken, 'There are more things in Heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in your science.' It may have been addressed to Polonius.

Sorry- Anonymous was me.

Hee. One of my little rules-to-live-by.

"Truth is cheap. Information costs." :)

"PP:

Healthy skepticism (not so much defensive disbelief) is important, if someone has a problem. It may not be what they think. So if you accept that it's real, you can and must move on to *getting it right.*"

That's the way I think. I have had a few experiences that have really caught my attention, and the best way to deal was to ground what had happened into what was probable.

You just have to be open to seeing all you can see.

"There are more things in this world, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your reality..." - Hamlet

"Merry Meet, PP and all!

"Do you think that people who have experienced the "paranormal" or the "supernatural" can still be called sceptics?"

Sure. Well, I can be skeptical of any given claim, despite all I've seen. The fact is a lot of people experience 'paranormal' things, but often construct big narratives about it and end up in one kind of crisis or another. I've been someone with the rep as 'who to go to when things get weird.' I've been the one that's gotta be professional about it, not overly-credulous. Ninety-eight percent of how people get freaked has nothing to do with the actual experience, after all. What freaks them out is what it *implies* to them, and all the habits of either a religious or mechanistic sense of the world.

So, Skeptic only in the original sense of the phrase, I suppose, not the sense of 'those who make an identity out of trying to debunk experience.' Fact is, we live among a lot of spiritually-illiterate people, ...even a lot of Pagan types who like cutting a circle and containing the interface of the Worlds right there. Good practice, that, but it doesn't always prepare people for how *immersive* some experiences can be.

Healthy skepticism (not so much defensive disbelief) is important, if someone has a problem. It may not be what they think. So if you accept that it's real, you can and must move on to *getting it right.*

A lot of people are trying to 'prove' something, whether religious or scientific. And this can get in the way of dealing with what's before you properly.

" I remember on another question (I think it was the one about books) that someone quoted Asimov as saying "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...'"

Hee, it's so. :)

Merry Meet, PP and all!

Do you think that people who have experienced the "paranormal" or the "supernatural" can still be called sceptics? I remember on another question (I think it was the one about books) that someone quoted Asimov as saying "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny ...' " I say kind of the same thing when something happens that isn't in my usual range of experiences.

Paranormal phenomena are amenable to the scientific study of their actual nature.

Religious phenomena can only be scientifically studied as a matter of the biology/psychology of the person who claims to have observed them.

" wiccan:

"Scientists propose with a straight face the existance of "dark energy" and "dark matter". Why? Because the universe won't work without them. They're "dark" because scientists haven't found them yet. But propose that telepathy or magick might use this dark energy (or something we haven't found yet) and hear them howl!"

But isn't *that* just an exciting bucket of possibilities. I'm still not entirely convinced this 'dark energy' isn't a cosmological mapping error of some kind: like gravity proves to be more of a 'shape' than a force: this gets to where I can't hope to do the math for myself, though. It's kind of exciting as a science fan that we're seeming to get to where just getting a bigger and better detector won't always help. This is really hitting some boundaries, and , frankly, I'm in no real hurry for Rayethon to have patented access to the spirit world. :)

Actually, Ash, you could be a lot of Pagans when you say:

"Just because we don't currently possess an explanation for a thing doesn't make that thing an ineffable mystery. It's a mistake on your part to describe scientific investigation as something limiting, something that closes us off from possibilities. On the contrary, it is science that opens itself to true discovery and that ultimately follows the truth, wherever that leads."

Our ways aren't about credulously believing any given 'paranormal' thing that someone may mention: in general we do not *contradict* science, nor see any need to. In a world largely defined by the artificial dichotomy of blind belief vs mechanistic reality, this is a point often missed.

Frankly, no one's a bigger skeptic than those who've seen the real deal: though it's my observation that the moment some people see something 'paranormal' that they can't explain away, the tendency is for them to believe that everything paranormal that ever appealed to them must be true as well, or else, go directly into denial.

Science is an excellent tool-set, though it is not all-encompassing. Not everything *is* repeatable under laboratory conditions, and this is one place where at times 'Science' asks the wrong questions.

When it comes to stuff like this, sometimes the human desire for 'Truth' or a narrative can get conflated with the practice of verifying 'information.'

If you figure that our brains are the most essential observational tool at all, well, it's hard to study a microscope *with the same microscope.*

Our conscious minds live in the equivalent of 'Flatland,' that famous story of two-dimensional beings encountering creatures from a three-dimensional world.

We Pagans love Mystery, but we aren't so attached to the notion Mystery is or must be 'Ineffable.'

We're more likely to say 'Eff That,' if so inclined to enquire. Which is one of the nobler things about the scientific spirit.

In some ways, it's like a character once said, "There's two kinds of detectives, those who love a mystery, and the process, and those who hate a mystery and try to destroy them."

Mystics love Mysteries. Doesn't mean we won't use as much science or whatever tool we can apply.

People often seek the 'paranormal' either to debunk it or to validate something, or otherwise feel a sense of control.

More rarely do they say, 'OK, what's this good for, and what can we do with it or about it?'

The way I see it, "paranormal" simply refers to that which the average person cannot clearly, consciously, deliberately perceive. Just as some people can hear sounds others can't, and some people can see farther than others can, some people are able to perceive aspects of the world that others cannot.
I believe that those things we call "spiritual" are as much a part of the Natural as a rock, a tree, or a fish in a brook. There is no such thing as "super-natural." An event or phenomenon can be paranormal AND perfectly natural.

Myths, whether from oral family traditions or leather-bound books, tools, whether Tarot cards or gilded crucifixes, and mental exercises, whether prayer or yoga, help us to focus and connect to that numinous aspect of existence.

Scientists propose with a straight face the existance of "dark energy" and "dark matter". Why? Because the universe won't work without them. They're "dark" because scientists haven't found them yet. But propose that telepathy or magick might use this dark energy (or something we haven't found yet) and hear them howl!

Research is proving that many things that are considered "paranormal" all of the time. There is an uncanny relationship between quantum physics and what we term "energy work" or parapsychology. Fritjof Capra ("The Tao of Physics") has done a lot of research into this area. While they're mysteries to us now, they won't be in a few hundred years or so.

Great to see you back, Starhawk!

I agree, anything is possible but there isn't anything that lies solely outside of Nature. What we think of as 'supernatural' is something that science doesn't have an explanation for yet. But they're getting closer all the time. Even if my ideas about God/Dess are all in my head- if someone can benefit, I don't see the harm in it.

Ash- Most Pagans won't deny that science is striving to learn about 'dreams, hunches, intuition.. etc', in fact we enjoy reading about it (at least I do and have been getting into some really interesting physics and neuroscience studies) and learning the scientific basis for these types of experiences. We're not one of those faiths who have no place for science. It informs a lot of what we do. Understanding of scientific processes simply increases the respect for this land we live on- which is generally the source of Divinity for most Pagans. Use of the arcane processes allows us to interact with the spirit of the land.

For me, it's about finding a practical side to the activities. Many of the activities are testable. Do x at such time using a, b and c. (I'm oversimplifying a bit, but you get the idea) See what happens. They are testable.. but NOT empirical because the starting points, the activities themselves as well as the results are based on direct, personal firsthand life experience. And each person's skill level will vary as much as people vary. If my friend is a personal chef, they will most likely get a much better souffle than I would using the same recipe.

Therefore when someone tries to break them down scientifically, objectively, it won't work because the experiences themselves are personal and subjective. Sorta like some of those new experiments in quantum physics where just simply the ACT of observation directly influences the results.

I'm not stating this to tell you you 'should' do the same things as I or anyone else does, either- just know that for some folks there is always more than science can get ahold of.

You make about as much sense as chuck colson :(

Starhawk - I appreciate your post. You've made a point that is often overlooked by the material pragmatists and reductionists among us....while science still entertains a largely 'mechanistic' view of the cosmos, the deep end of the science pool, that of quantum physics is not at all convinced that our material reality is really a material reality in the common, generic sense.

Newton's physics still works pretty well for the macro-world, but not so well for the quantum world where reality seems to consist of both particles and waves - the waves indicating worlds of probability that may or may not exist.

I'm re-reading a book by physicist Fred Alan Wolf entitled 'The Dreaming Universe'. He speaks at great length about the Imaginal world, which he maintains is ontologically real, but of a different nature and consistency compared to our world of gross matter. The laws of time and space are not operational here. He believes that unraveling the mystery of consciousness holds the key to a better understanding of this (perhaps) unlimited world. Physicist Amit Goswami shares these considerations in 'The Self-Aware Universe'. Stan Grof is another researcher that deals at great length with transpersonal experiences in the Imaginal realm among the terminally ill, through the induced therapeutic use of psychogenic drugs.

We can and do access this imaginal world on a regular basis. This realm includes the world of near-death experiences, lucid dreams, out-of-body experiences and the entire panoply of paranormal and psychic pheonomena - the features and facets of this non-material world are united 'non-locally' in relationships that are 'synchronistic' in the Jungian sense - a vast network of acausal relationships that quantum physics is now quite familiar with. Jung himself reported many psychic and dream experiences in the archetypal realm that he called the Collective Unconscious.

Reading a physicist at one time thought to be the natural successor to Einstein, David Bohm's work on the Implicate and Explicate Order and the proposed mechanism of holographic projections from the quantum (virtual) vacuum gives at least one complex theoretical framework from which the material world 'emerges' in a four dimensional universe (with time existing only in relationship to the relative motion among 'projected' material objects). Are objects really real, or only apparently real? There are differing opinions as regards this fundamental quantum quandry.

Individuals must determine for themselves whether these non-local and transpersonal realms are real, are accessed by consciousness, and have influence over our lives - pouring over the materials from the many near-death experiences on file these days, one can see that people are fundamentally changed after such experiences.

These are experiences that should not be occurring in a world where consciousness is brain-based and brain-dependent, if our contemporary brain physiologists are correct. Consciousness and memory should not be functioning when folks show flat EEGs - and yet clinically brain-dead patients have deeply elaborate psychic experiences that remain clearly etched in memory for many years afterward. People adept in deep meditation and contemplation report similar experiences.

As you have pointed out, the world of the Shaman, and the Hermetical Pagan world of ritual and magick have also long demonstrated that these Imaginal realms can be reached intentionally, by means other than the highly risky and typically accidental near-death experience.

"Ash:

Just because we don't currently possess an explanation for a thing doesn't make that thing an ineffable mystery."

Just because we don't currently possess a "scientific" explanation for a thing doesn't make that thing "supernatural" or "paranormal". Ever watch "What the Bleep Do We Know?"?

The reality a child is born into is mostly chaos with certain features that stand out and become the anchors for all that follows. Chaos is dispelled by selectively tuning out aspects of our experience: the evidence of alternative realities. We call the stuff we see the 'natural,' and the stuff we don't see the 'supernatural.' Many people say they believe in the natural but not the supernatural, but the evidence is still there that most of what we experience is not incorporated into our realities. The curse of 'modern' understanding is that we are obsessed with the vain possibility of absolute knowledge, and many powerful people actually believe they have it. Only when we recognize and acknowledge this mistake can we continue to mature as a species.

You are deeply misguided if you believe that science isn't interested in "dreams, intuitions, hunches, flashes of inspiration ...". These are all areas of active investigation in neurobiology, with interesting and steady progress being made.

Just because we don't currently possess an explanation for a thing doesn't make that thing an ineffable mystery. It's a mistake on your part to describe scientific investigation as something limiting, something that closes us off from possibilities. On the contrary, it is science that opens itself to true discovery and that ultimately follows the truth, wherever that leads.