(February 11, 2012 at 7:17 pm)Rhythm Wrote: That's actually a very common form of Wicca.

That's why I feel that I have a "Green Light" to claim that it's "Wicca".

But there are also many Wiccans who demand that the God and Goddess of Wicca are very much personified God's not unlike the God of Abraham or Zeus was thought to be.

So the term "Wicca" is a really huge umbrella.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that.

It's basically a totally useless term actually. (ha ha)

But it's fun to use anyway.

Sure, but we shouldn't just use terms because they're fun. Case in point, in the future, would it be possible for you to avoid using magical words to describe things for which more appropriate and well accepted terms already exist? If for no other reason than to make communication clearer and less likely to be lost in translation?

(February 11, 2012 at 7:33 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Sure, but we shouldn't just use terms because they're fun.

Why not? What are you? A prude?

What's wrong with having a little fun?

No, I'm just kidding.

Of course, we should use words as best we can when writing serious documents and so forth. But gee whiz when it comes to goofing around on an internet forum things should be a little looser doncha think?

Actually I feel that I am using the term correctly, based on what we've already discussed, and you even agreed that there are many people who think of "Wicca" in animistic or psychological terms like I do and that this is not unique.

I'm actually interested in the concept of "emergent thought-forms" for this very reason. There are actually books and papers written by people who address the concept of "invoking spirits" as "thought-forms".

They claim that if you can use your imagination to create a powerful enough thought-form, that thought-form will indeed take on a spirit of its own.

This is kind of interesting to me because that's precisely what secular atheists claim we are. They claim that we are nothing more than an emergent thought-form.

Well, gee wiz, if we are nothing more than a thought-form that has emerged from our brain, then the idea that spirits can be invoked to arise as thought-forms within that same brain actually makes some secular sense.

This brings my attention to the concept of schizophrenia. What exactly is it? Is it a situation where two thought-forms arise within a single brain and neither of them is sure which one the brain belongs to?

And who would the brain truly "belong" to if it actually gave rise to two entirely different POVs who both thought of themselves as being the "real you".

Seems to me that it would make for some interesting conversations within that single brain.

So I have an interest in trying to invoke "spirits" via thought-forms in this way. I confess that I haven't succeeded yet. Maybe it requires a brain that is on the edge of schizophrenia?

Maybe this explains why for some people the concept of 'spirits' seem far more real than for other people.

As much as a spiritual essence to reality interests me, I must confess that I haven't yet been able to invoke a convincingly 'independent spirit'.

I do find myself referring to myself as "we" though.

Sometimes I'll think to myself, "What are we going to do now?"

Then I ask myself "What do you mean by we?"

And I'll answer, "I have no idea, I thought you said that".

RW_9 Wrote:In the OT, the Hebrew word "Sheol" is used, and in modern English versions of the Bible it is translated as hell. The word Sheol means "land of the dead" or "resting place." In the NT, the modern concept of hell was introduced via the Arabic word "Gehenna," which was a fiery resting place for the dead. The modern concept of hell as a lake of fire and punishment for the dead was not introduced until the NT.

true, however the fact that they didn't use the word hell does not mean it did not exist. in the bible "Sheol" consisted of 2 compartments. there was the "Bosom of Abraham" and "Gehenna" in hebrew and "Hades" in greek. it was a place of eternal tourment. christians believe after christ, those in Abraham's bosom were brought to heaven.

and tell me, what facts are there to prove athiestic cosmology? what tests? i don't want to hear dating methods unless you have some evidence of them proving 100% that they have accurately dated something they already knew the date of that was over 2000 years old. if not, it's not a proven test.

(February 12, 2012 at 3:43 am)chipan Wrote: and tell me, what facts are there to prove athiestic cosmology?

Is there a Christian Cosmology? Maybe there is an answer here to why we see no evidence of God these days.

The known, visible universe contains about 200 billion galaxies. We don't know what is beyond that because the light hasn't reached us yet. Given the speed of light, I wonder why!?!? It should have got here in the few thousand years since creation, shouldn't it An estimate of the average number of stars in each galaxy is also 200 billion. That is 4,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars that we can (almost) see. If we assume that only 50% of these stars had only planet supporting life and that life was as prolific as earth we need to multiply by 7 billion souls and by 50% - but lets assume that there are an equal number of galaxies beyond our vision. That is 28,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 souls that God needs to keep track of and know our every thought and listen to our every prayer! Of course Einstein postulated that the universe was infinite so maybe these numbers are a tiny fraction of the real numbers.

That's it! That's why God isn't here any more, he is so incredibly busy touring the universe trying to find a species to worship him without killing each other over differing beliefs! On the other hand maybe he made all that unimaginably vast universe just for us.

Which do you think is the right answer Chipan?

More ideas borrowed from older and wiser cultures.

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

Quote:The Greek underworld was made up of various realms believed to lie beneath the earth or at its farthest reaches.

This includes:

The great pit of Tartarus, originally the exclusive prison of the old Titan gods, it later came to be the dungeon home of damned souls.
The land of the dead ruled by the god Hades, which is variously called the house or domain of Hades (domos Aidaou), Hades, Erebus, the Asphodel Meadows (where the neutral souls are sent), Stygia and Acheron.
The Isles of the Blessed or Elysian Fields ruled by Cronus (According to Pindar in his descriptions), where the great heroes of myth resided after death.
The Elysian Fields ruled by Rhadamanthys, where the virtuous dead and initiates in the ancient Mysteries were sent to dwell.

The five rivers of Hades are Acheron (the river of sorrow), Cocytus (the river of lamentation), Phlegethon (the river of fire), Lethe (the river of forgetfulness) and Styx (the river of hate), which forms the boundary between upper and lower worlds.

The ancient Greek concept of the underworld evolved considerably over time.

Hades was not exclusively a realm of torment. This is just more xtian garbage for their bastardized religion of terror.

(February 12, 2012 at 3:43 am)chipan Wrote: true, however the fact that they didn't use the word hell does not mean it did not exist. in the bible "Sheol" consisted of 2 compartments. there was the "Bosom of Abraham" and "Gehenna" in hebrew and "Hades" in greek. it was a place of eternal tourment. christians believe after christ, those in Abraham's bosom were brought to heaven.

I'm not sure if you actually read my response. "Gehenna" is from the New Testament, not the OT. The OT used Sheol and Hades, both resting places for the dead. The concept of hell as eternal torture did not exist until the New Testament.

I really don't care if you believe it existed back then in reality or some such. I was purely referring to when the concept came about in Christianity and the Bible - not reality.

(February 12, 2012 at 3:43 am)chipan Wrote: and tell me, what facts are there to prove athiestic cosmology? what tests? i don't want to hear dating methods unless you have some evidence of them proving 100% that they have accurately dated something they already knew the date of that was over 2000 years old. if not, it's not a proven test.

The scientific knowledge of cosmology has absolutely nothing at all to do with atheism. Other than the fact that it doesn't support the myths of the ancient Hebrews that have been collected into a cannon and labeled "the bible".

The is no question that the universe is very close to 13.7 billion years old and the earth is very close to 4.5 billion years old. Those are as factual as anything we know to be factual.

It is also a fact beyond question that life evolved on planet Earth from very simply lifeforms into more complex lifeforms over billions of years.

In other words, the evolution of life on Earth is known to be true without a doubt. The fact that dinosaurs lived for about 300 million years alone is a well-understood fact.

If you require that all of this scientific knowledge of the universe needs to be wrong in order for Hebrew mythology to be true, then you are truly wasting your time pursuing this religion. In that respect Hebrew Mythology has been proven to be as false as Greek Mythology. There are no Gods on Mt. Olympus and the Earth was not created in 6 days, nor is it only a mere 6000 years old. So you can dismiss Greek Mythology and Hebrew Mythology with equal confidence.

Besides, what is your motivation for wishing that it could be true?

The story proclaims that we are at odds with our creator and that he is threatening to be exceedingly cruel to us if we don't do something to repair the situation.

Moreover, the story is demanding that you have personally chosen to reject God, and that this is precisely why you are in dire need of repentance.

Is that true? Did you personally choose to reject God at any point in your life? Is this why you feel that you must make amends?

That was one of the things I asked myself. Have I willfully and knowingly rejecting God?

The answer was simply. No, not only have I not willfully rejected God, but just the opposite is true. I was deeply sincere about actually embracing any "all-benevolent" God and totally siding with all that's "GOOD".

There is no question in my mind that this is indeed all that I have ever wanted my entire life.

Therefore it's totally asinine to suggest that I had rejected my creator and that I'm in dire need of seeking his forgiveness. Thus any religion that proclaims that this must necessarily be the case must necessarily be totally false. It's a lie, and I can know for certain that it's a lie because there was never a time in my entire life when I would knowingly reject a truly benevolent all-wise divine God.

The only way that this religion can possibly be true for you is if you have indeed rejected an all-wise benevolent God and flatly refused to obey him.

If that's where you're coming from then I can't help you. I've never been there myself so I have no idea what to tell you on that one.

But for me the religion can't possibly be true because it basically demands things things be true, that I know for certain are not true.

I don't need science or anything else to know that I have never rejected all that is GOOD and refused to obey a truly benevolent God.

In fact, the very reasons that I reject the Hebrew fables is precisely because they are not benevolent. They are disgustingly demented and sick. They support things like male-chauvinism. They claim that this God was going around instructing people to judge one another and stone sinners to death, even their unruly children!

I don't about you, but I don't personally believe that an all-wise God would instruct anyone to stone an unruly child to death. All that demonstrates is total impatience, lack of good parenting skills, and basically instills a very negative pessimistic view that unruly children are beyond hope.

The bottom line is quite simple. The God portrayed by the ancient Hebrews isn't even a loving just God to begin with. It's a picture of a moronic demon. So there's nothing in the fables worthy of belief anyway.

And like I say, unless you have personally rejected the notion of a truly good God, and you have flatly rebelled against goodness, and have arrogantly rejected goodness in favor of evil, then how it be said that you have turned against God and are in dire need of repentance?

So the only way the story could be true for you is if you did reject all that is good in favor of evil, and now you have had a change of heart and wish to repent.

Since that scenario isn't true for me personally, then neither can the religion be true for me. It's clearly a lie. It's a false mythology.

There can be no question about it. At least not for me.

I can't speak for you. Only you can know whether or not you knowingly and willfully rejected all that is good and refused to embrace goodness at some point in your life.

If that's was true for you, then I can see where you might fall for the idea that you are in dire need of repentance.

But it was never true for me at any point in my entire life. So I can know confidently that the religion is a false fable riddled with lies.

The earliest Greek representations of Hades are Homeric.

http://www.theoi.com/Kosmos/Haides.html

Quote:In ancient Greek mythology and religion the DOMOS HAIDOU or "realm of Haides" was the land of the dead, the final resting place for departed souls. It was a dark and dismal realm in which bodiless ghosts flitted across grey fields of asphodel. The Homeric poets knew of no Islands of the Blessed or Elysian fields, or for that matter a Tartarean hell, instead all the spirits, including those of the great heroes, descended into Haides.

Hades was a warehouse for the dead. Presumably they sat around jerking off.

It took centuries for this bullshit to develop and one cannot discount the influence of Zoroastrianism on Greek thought.

http://www.hell-on-line.org/AboutZOR.html

Quote:Few texts describe Zoroastrian hell — a gloomy and fiery place full of stench.

It isn't really so hard to see where xtian bullshit artists got their ideas from, is it?

(February 11, 2012 at 9:58 pm)Abracadabra Wrote: So I have an interest in trying to invoke "spirits" via thought-forms in this way. I confess that I haven't succeeded yet. Maybe it requires a brain that is on the edge of schizophrenia?

Maybe this explains why for some people the concept of 'spirits' seem far more real than for other people.

As much as a spiritual essence to reality interests me, I must confess that I haven't yet been able to invoke a convincingly 'independent spirit'.

Maybe one day it'll occur to you that spirits aren't real and that's why you can't invoke one. I live in hope.

Quote:I do find myself referring to myself as "we" though.

Sometimes I'll think to myself, "What are we going to do now?"

Then I ask myself "What do you mean by we?"

And I'll answer, "I have no idea, I thought you said that".

Oh dear.

I think you need to seek psychiatric help.