No, the point of a debate is not to tell someone that their ideas are just wrong. The point is to try to show that they are wrong by using evidence and examples.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
[Pagans/Polytheists] Whitewashing the Gods
- Thread starter Quintessence
- Start date
No, the point of debating is to figure out what's correct. Doesn't matter who's correct; figuring that out is what arguing (or if you wanna be more poetic about it, flyting) is for.
I don't believe in "this is the only way" scenarios for starters. Considering I've never fired a pistol in my life, my default reaction would certainly not be to draw a gun that I don't know how to use correctly and try to shoot something. My default reaction is to pull out a phone, dial 911, and not get involved in things I know nothing about. Foolishness is drawing a gun and making oneself an armed combatant and a target when one has zero firearms training. Where are you going with this?
All things come with costs and benefits, the tallies of which depend much on point of view and values. I already suggested as much in the previous response: "worship the way you want, bearing in mind the ramifications of one's personal style."
Cassandra
Active Member
My view:
First: I am probably the last person on this forum to be accused of love for things Christian, but even then I think it would be rather dogmatic to renounce something only because Christians do the same.
Second: I think the analogy is overbearing. I think it is quite naturally human to warn people for danger one perceives. In Christianity it becomes something of doctrinal dogmatic duty to save peoples "soul" from equally abstract fantasy dangers. And such can be the belief that they would kill and torture people to save this abstract entity they call soul.
I have no intention to go anywhere near that. Nor do I care about abstract dangers. Would you not warn a person you think is moving into a dangerous area? Would you find that to "Christian" to do that? That way you almost make Christianity sound like a humane ideology, which it certainly is not. On the contrary Pagans rejected early Christianity because they found it inhumane.
This rather creates the picture of Paganism as inhumane religion where people only bother about their own affairs. You could not be more wrong.
Last edited:
Cassandra
Active Member
My view,
Well I am establishing the differences between us. You Quintessence would not hesitate to give someone a gun for his birthday, but are not willing to shoot someone to save someone else life. I would not give someone a gun, but I am willing to shoot someone to save someone else life. Both are perfectly in line with my ethics, which is to minimize suffering. That does not mean I am walking around with a gun, but the very fact that one carries a gun, even unintended, changes the equation for me.
Last edited:
That's not what I said, nor what I think. I said I'd give someone an airsoft pistol. You run from there and claim I'd get someone an actual gun without hesitation. Nonsense. I said I wouldn't try to shoot anything given I lack firearms training, and call the police. You run from there and claim I am unwilling to shoot someone to save a life. Which is also nonsense.
Next time, I'm not going to play these games of yours with scenarios so you can misrepresent and strawperson my perspectives. You're either going to ask me the question directly or I'm not going to play. Though quite honestly, after this mind game, I'm not sure I'll to respond to direct questions either.
Last edited:
It's not about love, it's about conditioning. Everyone who was raised in Western Civilization, with those values, was conditioned with Christocentric thinking, even if in non-Christian settings.
So would I, and I didn't suggest such a thing. (To be fair, I almost did, before realizing how ... well, "dogmatic" is probably a rather "diplomatic" way of putting it.) We certainly need to recognize them, but only discard the ones that might cause ourselves or others unnecessary harm. We absolutely should hold on to the aspects that are generally positive.
I'm not entirely sure you understood what I was saying. I didn't condemn you for warning people from going into something you perceived to be a danger. I was pointing out something that I, myself, perceived to be a contradiction in your statement. Even now, much of your rhetoric is exactly the same that I've seen some Christians use to justify their version of Hell, which I've actually seen more often than the punishing God version (which I've honestly seen far more of in fantasy... yes, I'm quite sheltered). I'm being far more descriptive than prescriptive, if you follow me.
What I would caution against, however, is warning against merely a "perceived" danger, because, well, everything is dangerous in the right context. Something I've come to realize is that, good and evil being defined by the degree of harm or help they bring, the exact same thing can be either good or evil depending on who's being asked about its effect.
There are some Pagans (particularly certain Heathen groups) that promote only caring about their own affairs, forget about the rest of the world. I am not one of them, nor do I condone such a blind, almost naive, attitude.
Therefore, YOU could not be more wrong about what I (and Quint, it would seem) believe.
Beware the Straw Man.
Last edited:
I think this is the only time I've ever defended Christianity, but how is it inhumane? We may not agree with the teachings and may even think that it is a force that does more harm than good, but it is not inhumane (at least not anymore)!
It has nothing to do with being inhumane and everything to do with already having a faith and not wanting to convert because someone told them to.
I've never seen this word before, I like it.
I have not read the article, throwing that out now. But based on what's provided I agree with both of you. Or, perhaps I disagree and think it depends on the person. If my hillbilly neighbor converted to Asartru and started collecting weapons for a shrine (sorry, I know a crazy asatru...), I'd be more inclined to think he was a second amendment guy rather than a religious guy. That being said, look at my religious identification for the form. Dark gods are something I'm not exactly opposed to, and I definitely see a fear towards darkness in modern polytheism. This is because solar ideology has seemed into the very foundations. Even aggressively occult pagan religions, such as Thelema, just end up being about solar worship, Horus defeating Set, stuff like that.
That's a rambling mess, so to sum up I can see both sides.
That's a rambling mess, so to sum up I can see both sides.
Cassandra
Active Member
My view:
I think it is the opposite, I think you are victim of a suspicious mind.
Your unwillingness to give clear answers makes our debate tiresome. I simply ask about your willingness to do things, not about practical objections. If did not ask: are you going to shoot the guy, but would you be willing to shoot a guy that is about to shoot someone after he has already shot someone else (I made the case as clear as possible). But you flee from the question once again.
To determine the limits, in response to your argument that we should give what people want to receive, rather than what we want to give, I asked you if you would give a gun to an 18 year old friend who loves to have a real gun. You specially mentioned that you would be willing to give people things you hate yourself, if they really want that (An elevated point of view). You then reply:
I'd get them an airsoft pistol. Mainly because: (1) "real" pistols cost several hundred dollars and I never buy a gift that expensive for anyone, and (2) I've never bought a gun, so have no idea how that works... LOL.
If you say your concerns are mainly practical, than that suggests/implies they are not ethically motivated. A smooth lawyer may talk himself out of this, but I find that deceptive. If people are afraid to take ethical positions and keep dodging the ethical questions by hiding behind conjured up practical objections, and continuously change their suggested positions without ever taking a real stand, then they try to present others with a moving target. Why are you so scared to take a position? I think this in itself is interesting and shows we may share some ideas, but on a deeper level we greatly differ, which is quite okay.
You want a more direct question? I will give you one: Your signature before was:
Why do you believe that? (Please a clear answer)
Last edited:
Cassandra
Active Member
Thanks, that was a very interesting, well written text. And I took some time to ponder about it. I totally respect it if people choose such path for themselves. (Witch is different than advocating it to others).
My view on this is.
It is true that we find the light-dark theme in all cultures, but we should not overemphasize that and be very careful to extend it too much. That we find it in all cultures has a lot to do with Sun worship, that plays a (varying) role in all cultures: (Day and night, Summer - Winter, Light - Darkness). But in few religions it is so prominent as in Christianity where it becomes a real life battle between good/light against dark/evil (for some even "white" people against "black" people).
Most Pagan cultures simply do not have this strong debilitating dichotomy. And most of the things attributed to this dichotomy are simply false. For instance the left-right brain opposition has been disproved by science. In Western culture darkness is associated with Death, but that is typically Christian. For instance in German and Celtic culture Darkness was not seen as evil or death (rather beginning of life). In Celtic culture darkness is where everything begins as plants grow under the surface before they come out in spring. That is why for the Celts the new year starts in autumn and the day at sunset.
Later Pagans worshiped both earthly Gods as heavenly Gods. Originally all spirits were nature based spirits. There was no dichotomy and frankly there should not be one. Here is where I think new religions like Left hand Path and Satanism make a mistake. By seeking opposition they are locked in to the same dichotomy.
It is very inviting to do so as Christianity seeks constant battle and itself is such a dark cult. Yes, their God is presented as beam of light, but only in painting a pitch dark world. Yes they bring a cure, but only after the patient accepts he is dead sick and gives up all hope in life. It is a pessimistic dark thinking dressed up as a happy tiding. In its more extreme form it is like a Mafia that tells shops owners. Do not be afraid, I have come to bring you protection!
Christianity is indeed so dark that you can turn it around and have a religion that makes life feel lighter. But the light/dark thinking also leads to similar idiocies we find in Christianity.
Why is it dangerous to honor the "Dark side"? Because it is strongly associated in our culture with death. (In the far East white is associated with death). You gave examples and touched the heroic aspect. And sure heroism is based on flirtation with death that by the way Christianity is totally absorbed with. It is part of Christian culture and a logical result of repression. In traditional cultures they rarely have these dark fears surrounding death. Fear is deeply instated in our culture to accept salvation and suffering (You do not want your slaves to revolt or commit suicide, do you)
And it is dangerous (as you already conceded). Let me tell you about a writer and poet. His father had committed suicide when he was young and he was intrigued by the subject. In trying to understand it, he wrote extensively about it in the deepest way. And he would stress the joy of life and how foolish it is to end ones life. He was successful in his career and had recently found new love. And then he committed suicide...
Really there are other better ways to overcome one's fears.
Last edited:
Cassandra
Active Member
You are not Lovesong. I do not understand why you should take it personal.
I find it hard and do not feel the need to defend against repeated vague accusations of using the same rhetoric as Christians. After I explained how I see that, you either accept that or call me liar. When you then repeat the same accusations, you are more interested in bringing down the person than his arguments. You can do that, but it brings a debate to a level I am not interested in. I take you serious in what you say, and I like to be taken seriously too. I am not interested in splitting hairs either. Sorry, I think I am not interested in this kind of discussion.
Last edited:
Cassandra
Active Member
We do not have to agree. Rather not if we want to have a debate.
My view:
I regard Christianity as inhumane as it is more concerned about peoples eternal soul than real life happiness. Christianity accepts suffering in life as a path to Heaven. It even went to so far as to kill people to convert them. Because the salvation of the soul is all that matters.
Contrary to the widespread belief Mother Theresa did little substantial for the poor in her care. She was more concerned with their "spiritual health". She basically let them die and gave the dying the last sacraments, so they could go to heaven. This often against their explicit will as many were Hindus. Hindus want to join their own Gods, not Jesus. These people hoped to find medical treatment, but they mostly got soul salvation. Of the tens of millions donated to her cause very little was passed on by the church to relieve the needs of the poor. They are not interested in that.
The Vatican does not give money to communities, Communities give the gifts/contributions they raise to her. It is basically an extension of the Roman tax system. Yes they do things, but only through the communities, who pay everything. They only give money to create new communities so they can expand their business (Sales cost), but even for this "missionary work" they collect extra money. It takes some time before one starts to realize that the charity too is a profitable business. Christianity is basically preying on the suffering of others and making a profit on it.
You like examples? When an ancestor of mine who was a manufacturer decided to continue to pay his sick workers, he was quickly summoned by the church. They were enraged by such a thing and wanted to know if he had become mad. Because people that run church are deeply connected to the people that run the economy. Churches underpay their employees/servants by making them believe it is good for their soul to work for nothing. And it is all tax free on top! But the people in power live lavishly themselves. It is basically a business but believed to be good by common people who refuse to accept the reality that they are being fooled. That would make them fools and nobody likes to admit he is a fool. And they do not want to lose their heaven as they are made to scared of death.
When I wrote about Pagans seeing it as inhumane, I meant the educated people in the times of early Christianity. The philosophers rejected it as profoundly inhumane. But they closed their schools, burned their writings, and started to kill all that dared to question their teachings, which became the norm thereafter. Basically Christianity was spread by conquest, severe repression, torture and genocide. We should not confuse their advertisements with their actions. If one really thinks that their inhumane methods grow on humane thinking, then nothing is likely to convince one otherwise.
One only has to read the sayings of Jesus about slaves too understand how profoundly inhumane it is. It basically forbids them to revolt under any circumstance, and commands them to accept beatings and other abuse. Here another example of Lord Jesus great humane thinking:
Try to let sink in what this person is saying here.
Last edited:
Cassandra
Active Member
I think you take "point of" (not point in) for something else than I do.
For me "the point of .. is. " means "the essence is ...". There can be no debate without stating a clear difference in opinion. I quote wikipedia:
My view:
It should not be confused with truth-finding, and the methods used are not to be confused with scientific methods. They comprise things like emotional appeal. And the use of examples/likenesses is a popular religious way of debating that is considered fundamentally unscientific and is easily misleading.
An example is the American elections. But even scientific debates are far from attempts to establish truth. The ideal debate would demand that all participants are totally devoted to sincerity, honor and have great knowledge and self-knowledge and can distance themselves from their viewpoints. In our culture such people are hard to find, because Westerners totally identify with their beliefs. Thus they easily feel an attack on their viewpoints as personal attack, which they easily answer emotionally with personal counter attacks.
For me debate is not about overcoming differences. That is typical western thinking (these -> antitheses -> syntheses) that is not mine. I very much like to keep up differences. I like to disagree more than to agree. I will not please you and you do not have to please me. All you have to do is tell what you think about the same things and why. And I will tell you again why I do not share that and why. That way we understand each other better and that is good. You want to fight my ideas, fine! I greatly welcome that. I rather dislike people (not you) that attack with out putting up their own ideas, not to be attacked themselves. Then you behave more like a sniper. That is the way of the coward. Tell me what you stand for and I will respect you, even though I will question it. I do not question it to prove it wrong, but to invite you to better explain it.
Last edited:
And I'd appreciate it if you'd knock it off with these kinds of off-base psychoanalytical statements.
I gave you a clear answer. I gave you my honest answer. Gods forbid I interpret a hypothetical scenario in a more realistic fashion that is truer to how I would actually behave in that situation!
I don't see how the two can realistically be separated.
This is not what I said nor argued. This is what I actually said:
This is not a prescription of behavior. It is not saying what someone should or should not do, nor what I do. It is pointing out that giving a gift doesn't mean you have to condone what the gift may represent. Offering a bullet to The Morrigan doesn't mean one condones shooting people any more than giving a football fan tickets to a game means one likes football. Do what you want with gift giving and offerings. And in doing, this doesn't have to be an either-or proposition, it can strike a happy-medium.
Another thing that I didn't actually say. What I actually said was re-quoted above. Not responding to any of the additional off-base strawpersons that misrepresent what I've said, nor the completely irrelevant leading question at the end that has nothing to do with the subject of offerings to the gods.
Why would not being one other person have any bearing on whether or not I share a trait in common with said person?
In any case, it's hard not to take it personally to see one's argument ignored in favor of one that's easier to debunk and criticize, which then replaces the original argument. ...if you follow. (It's kinda early.) I don't think you're doing that deliberately; the Straw Man's power of deception is great, and is probably affecting my own perception of your argument, too.
Honestly, I think we're talking right past each other, hitting on matters that are close to home for both of us. I don't think you're lying; I think you're mistaken in what I, and others, believe and what we're trying to say.
I'm not interested in bringing you, personally, down; that's NEVER my intention. I'm making observations solely on what you're saying. I'm not trying to be accusatory, at all; I apologize for coming off like that.
In linguistics, there's a dichotomy known as "prescriptivism vs. descriptivism." The former is about how a language should be (it "prescribes" language conventions form a position of presumed authority), while the latter is about how a language is (it "describes" language conventions from a position of detached observation). While I've only really seen this dichotomy in linguistics, I think it applies to other things, as well.
I'm being descriptive, or at least I'm trying to be, when it comes to your general argument. I'm trying to point out what I perceived to be a contradiction. The word is pretty loaded these days, so allow me to clarify that when I say "rhetoric", I'm using the word solely to mean "choice of words." My own rhetoric seems to have reminded you of that employed by people who've actually argued the things you thought I was arguing, just like yours reminded me of certain Christians trying to get me to accept Christianity.
Where I've been prescriptive has been in being aware. Even if your belief in this regard has nothing to do with Christianity, at least be aware that if it reminded me of that, it's going to remind others, as well. You shouldn't discard it for that reason, nor should you refrain from bringing it up, but be aware of the effect it might have on others.
Hm... if nothing else, this is a dialogue I'll be thinking about for a while, yet. I think going forward, I'll try to be more tactful when pointing out such things from other Pagans that remind me of Christianity.
Cassandra
Active Member
You answer to questions I did not pose, and do not answer to the ones I did.And I'd appreciate it if you'd knock it off with these kinds of off-base psychoanalytical statements.
I gave you a clear answer. I gave you my honest answer. Gods forbid I interpret a hypothetical scenario in a more realistic fashion that is truer to how I would actually behave in that situation!
I don't see how the two can realistically be separated.
This is not what I said nor argued. This is what I actually said:
This is not a prescription of behavior. It is not saying what someone should or should not do, nor what I do. It is pointing out that giving a gift doesn't mean you have to condone what the gift may represent. Offering a bullet to The Morrigan doesn't mean one condones shooting people any more than giving a football fan tickets to a game means one likes football. Do what you want with gift giving and offerings. And in doing, this doesn't have to be an either-or proposition, it can strike a happy-medium.
Another thing that I didn't actually say. What I actually said was re-quoted above. Not responding to any of the additional off-base strawpersons that misrepresent what I've said, nor the completely irrelevant leading question at the end that has nothing to do with the subject of offerings to the gods.
You did not answer my direct question as well, so I will ask it again. Your signature before was:
Three things it is everyone's duty to do: listen humbly, answer discreetly, and judge kindly
Why do you believe that?
Last edited:
Many others don't seem to have a problem with it.
No, I'm giving you my honest answers. Which, for whatever reason, you don't like or accept. I can't help you with that.
Then what's all this I posted, then?
Did you miss this again? Is this not a "position?" Are you simply not listening to what I'm saying? I'm really starting to get that impression. Do you want to actually respond to my "position" that I've copied up here again for you?
Cassandra
Active Member
Yes a straw man because I never claimed that people who give a gun or a bullet condone shooting someone. So again it is an evasive answer.
You did not answer my direct question l, so I will ask it again (third time). Your signature before was:
Three things it is everyone's duty to do: listen humbly, answer discreetly, and judge kindly
Why do you believe that?
Going to back track here a second. In an earlier post, you said:
To which I said:
In response to which you said:
To which I said:
I'd get them an airsoft pistol.
There's something to be said for doing gift-giving that is in accord with one's own values, though. I do that myself when buying gifts for people. Great thing about polytheism is that there's no rule saying you have to worship a particular god. If you don't like a particular god's proclivities don't worship them. Or worship the way you want, bearing in mind the ramifications of one's personal style. It is good to do that check in and ask "what am I looking for in this?"
After which point, the conversation derailed into ludicrous land, and in spite of my attempts to steer the conversation back on track, you again ask me to respond to a question that has nothing to do with the subject of making offerings to the gods.
No. I'm not playing. I get that miscommunications happen. Perhaps that's what's happened here. But no, I'm not going to answer a question that not only has nothing to do with the topic of the thread, but is a leading question. Feel free to make contributions that are back on topic. I and others may respond to those.