Religion

[St. Jimmy]

So here's a question to other Wiccans and Pagans on the board: what are your plans for Samhain (if you celebrate it), and do you find the Halloween connection problematic?

I don't have any plans as of right now, except that I'll be at Youmacon on the 31st. I'd visit my mother's grave sometime this month, but that's waaay north from here.

 

I'm not too read up on the history of Halloween and its relations to Samhain, so I'm in the don't-give-a-kip side of things. Now it's more of a secular holiday to pig out on candy. As for dressing up as fairy tale witches... hell, I'll join them.

[Riverwillows]

For me, Samhain is closer to midnight. I put out out a dumb feast, and have a small ritual in my patio. But before that, I see nothing wrong with the trick or treating, costumes, and pumpkin carving, all of which have their roots and meanings in ancient pagan practices anyway!

 

It's fun, and I love it. Haunted houses, ghosties and ghoulies, getting scared...it's a riot. I usually have my fun, decorate my house, make my doctor cringe with candy eating, and just love the season. Then, later that night...after all the fun....I have my quiet, private Samhain.

 

This year, I am going to Knott's Berry Farm's Halloween Haunt that night. I will have fun. When I come back, around 2am, I will have it all set up, and spend a quiet hour or two celebrating Samhain and all it's meanings. Then bed. (I always take the day after off.)

 

So, in a nutshell, no, I do not have any conflicts with the two. They are two separate, equally enjoyable events that just happen to be on the same night, and just happen to have related origins.

 

I do the same with Christmas, and Yule too, by the way.

[prairiecrow]

So, in a nutshell, no, I do not have any conflicts with the two. They are two separate, equally enjoyable events that just happen to be on the same night, and just happen to have related origins. =

On a side note, in many Wiccan Trads the actual date of Samhain (at least as I was taught) is determined by an astrological event (when the Sun has reached 15 degrees Scorpio), which means that it falls anywhere between November 6th and November 12th, IIRC. In 2013, that takes place on November 7th at 1:03 a.m EST.

 

Similarly, Yule falls on the Winter Solstice (December 20th or 21st), whereas Christmas falls on December 25th, so in my mind the two don't entirely coincide.

Edited October 4, 2013 by prairiecrow

[Totts]

I am an athiest, but I celebrate christmas and stuff, I mean, who doesn't want presents? :3 I'd also maybe like to try Ramadan next year, but I think I like my snacks too much lol.

[7Deadly$ins]

*faceplam*

First off this thread was not created to criticize other people's religion and secondly, for your sake I hope this is some kind of joke, the website you linked to is a JOKE newspaper just look at some of the articles on the sideline to see what i'm talking about.

Joke or not, this thread is for discussing religion and that can and will include criticism. I don't blame anyone for falling victim to Poe's Law here.

[TikindiDragon]

I am an athiest, but I celebrate christmas and stuff, I mean, who doesn't want presents? :3 I'd also maybe like to try Ramadan next year, but I think I like my snacks too much lol.

Fasting can actually be very good for you (I've done it myself, although being Christian I did it over Lent). I would not, perhaps, advise the avoidance of drinking water during your fast (which is traditional during the Ramadan fast) if you are not accustomed to it. Dehydration can be dangerous, and all religions will emphasise that people should not be fastig to the point of making themselves unwell.

[Awdz]

Fasting can actually be very good for you (I've done it myself, although being Christian I did it over Lent). I would not, perhaps, advise the avoidance of drinking water during your fast (which is traditional during the Ramadan fast) if you are not accustomed to it. Dehydration can be dangerous, and all religions will emphasise that people should not be fastig to the point of making themselves unwell.

My understanding is that Ramadan involved abstaining during the day and having nourishment at night. Is that correct?

 

Good point to be careful about the dehydration, that can hit you fast if you are particularly active in a hot environment.

Edited October 6, 2013 by Awdz Bodkins

[TikindiDragon]

My understanding is that Ramadan involved abstaining during the day and having nourishment at night. Is that correct?

 

Good point to be careful about the dehydration, that can hit you fast if you are particularly active in a hot environment.

To the best of my knowledge, yes. Although their abstaining is total nil-by-mouth. No food, no liquids of any kind. Not until the evening meal taken after sundown (and I believe there are restrictions on what that is too). Also various medical conditions (including menstruating - blood loss can do funny things to you) allow one to delay the fast until a medically more suitable time.

 

Dehydration can be a very serious issue, though, which is why I'd advise being very careful during any long fast.

[TikindiDragon]

Thanks cladus for providing a much more authoritative summary than I can My information has been gleaned from the muslims I've worked with over the years.

 

I was, incidently, working in a predominantly muslim area of a local town on the day of Eid recently - and the warmth and friendliness from everyone was lovely. I know I'm a little delayed, but Eid Mubarak cladus!

Edited October 6, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[Riverwillows]

No one is right. ._. Problem solved.

Actually, it should read: Everyone is right.

 

Religion is personal. Even within the same religion, at the same place of worship, individual people will have a slightly different take on the ideal than their fellow congregants.

 

And because of this personalization, no two beliefs can ever be completely the same. Does that make one of them wrong? Of course not.

 

Your belief/ideal is right for you. Mine is right for me. Be open to another type of interpretation of your belief, not so you can change, but so you can be further enlightened on your path to inner peace.

 

And be open to acknowledging the rights of others to believe how they wish, even if it is radically different from yours, as long as there is no harm done to themselves or others because of it.

 

That's one thing I think should apply to all beliefs, not just paeginism: Do as you wilt, but harm none.

Edited October 7, 2013 by Riverwillows

[philpot123]

Two absolutely contradictory statements cannot both be right. My subjective opinion about the "rightness" of my beliefs does not make it right. If two religions claim exclusivity in salvation (*cough Christianity and Islam cough*), there is no "you're both right" option. Either one is exclusive and right, or the other is exclusive and right, or neither is exclusive and both are wrong. Logical contradictions do not a coherent philosophy make.

[philpot123]

Actually in Islam, scholars have stated that it is possible to for a Christian or anyone for that matter to enter heaven with out being Muslim but there are a lot of conditions and other things needed for that to happen but I understand what you mean.

I don't know if Mohammed would have agreed... But in any case, there are many religions that claim to possess real, objective truth. If two such religions disagree over what that truth is, they cannot logically both be right. To say they are is to give up rationality.

[High Lord November]

Two absolutely contradictory statements cannot both be right. My subjective opinion about the "rightness" of my beliefs does not make it right. If two religions claim exclusivity in salvation (*cough Christianity and Islam cough*), there is no "you're both right" option. Either one is exclusive and right, or the other is exclusive and right, or neither is exclusive and both are wrong. Logical contradictions do not a coherent philosophy make.

I think you missed the 'personal' part. You are comparing two personal views against each other, which is not what River was talking about. Religion is a very personal thing. Your view is right to yourself, while a contradicting view may be right to someone else. That doesn't make it impossible for one view to be right, as it exists uniquely to the person who has that view.

 

When comparing over a large scale though, I don't think you can say that any religion is truly "true" or right.

[philpot123]

I think you missed the 'personal' part. You are comparing two personal views against each other, which is not what River was talking about. Religion is a very personal thing. Your view is right to yourself, while a contradicting view may be right to someone else. That doesn't make it impossible for one view to be right, as it exists uniquely to the person who has that view.

 

When comparing over a large scale though, I don't think you can say that any religion is truly "true" or right.

Then you're misusing the word "right." A better word to use would be "taste" or "preference." X religion suits my tastes, or fits my preference. It isn't "right" for me and "wrong" for someone else. It is either right or it is wrong. Either I am right/correct/accurate in my worldview, or I am wrong/incorrect/inaccurate in my worldview. Yes, the way in which I view the world and things like religion is subjective, but my act of viewing it and forming opinions on it doesn't change its nature of objective rightness or wrongness.

Edited October 7, 2013 by philpot123

[KageSora]

No, you're REALLY not understanding what's being said.

 

River wasn't saying it's right in an objective fact sort of way.

 

River was saying it's right in the view of the holder of the belief. That they both believe they are right, and in each person's eyes they're right.

 

Like the saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in this case "rightness" is in the eye of the beholder--and that's okay, because religion is a personal thing.

[HeatherMarie]

Like the saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in this case "rightness" is in the eye of the beholder--and that's okay, because religion is a personal thing.

This, exactly.

 

I don't think anyone here was saying one belief was "right" for everyone, but a completely contradictory belief is also "right" for everyone. That's not what was being talked about.

 

My church leader has a teenage son who often gets into arguments during Bible study because of the things he doesn't believe, but his mother does. (I, personally, often agree with him). His mother's beliefs are in fact what is RIGHT for her, the right path, the right knowledge, the right teachings. But the son's beliefs are *also* what is RIGHT, for *him*. What will lead him down his own individual path.

[TikindiDragon]

I think, guys, you are looking at the difference between absolute vs relative truth. Relative truth is the one being argued where each person's own spiritual path is true for them. Absolute truth would hold that there *is* (or isn't, depending on which side you are looking at) an all powerful devine being who sets rules and boundaries for behaviour and conduct that are absolute in the same way a civil law would be.

 

For instance:

 

'I like blue' is a relative truth - it is true for me, but other people do not like blue and their 'truth' on blue is as valid as mine is.

 

Now let us say that (for whatever bizzare reason you choose to think of - I blame Nuggan and kudos if you get the reference) the colour blue has been made illegal. I may still like blue, but (legally) I would be wrong for doing so.

 

This is the crux of the difference in conversation, here.

 

Edit to add: Both uses of 'truth' *are* valid, but people do need to understand which is being discussed otherwise there will be miscommunication.

Edited October 8, 2013 by TikindiDragon

[Lila]

Would any of the Wiccans on the forum care to clarify it to me? I'm not asking for a full explanation of everything, obviously, but principles and texts and rituals etc would be nice. I never really understood deeper than what I was told by the media, which I know isn't necessarily accurate

[prairiecrow]

Would any of the Wiccans on the forum care to clarify it to me? I'm not asking for a full explanation of everything, obviously, but principles and texts and rituals etc would be nice. I never really understood deeper than what I was told by the media, which I know isn't necessarily accurate

That's a big broad area to cover in one simple answer, so instead I'll recommend you go check out the Wicca 101/FAQ at "Wicca: For The Rest Of Us", which is geared toward curious non-Wiccans and should answer all your questions.

 

If you have any further specific questions after reading that, feel free to ask.

[philpot123]

Like the saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, in this case "rightness" is in the eye of the beholder--and that's okay, because religion is a personal thing.

 

I don't think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I think beauty is an objective quality that is appreciated differently by different people. Taste is in the eye of the beholder. Preference is in the eye of the beholder. But the nature of beauty does not change by virtue of my observation of it.

 

Does that make one of them wrong? Of course not.

 

This is what I take issue with. If I and someone else both make contradictory statements about the nature of the supernatural, one of us or both of us must, by logical necessity, be wrong. Might my statement SEEM right to me? Yes. Might my statement make me happy? Yes. In that sense, it's subjectively "right" for me, but in that case, you're defining "rightness" according to taste and preference. But regardless of what feels right to me, either my claims about the supernatural are accurate or they are not. So yes, that DOES make one (or both) of them wrong.

 

I think, guys, you are looking at the difference between absolute vs relative truth. Relative truth is the one being argued where each person's own spiritual path is true for them. Absolute truth would hold that there *is* (or isn't, depending on which side you are looking at) an all powerful devine being who sets rules and boundaries for behaviour and conduct that are absolute in the same way a civil law would be.

 

I would still be fussy about effectively saying "neither of you is wrong," without clarifying that you mean that neither of you is violating your own preference and taste. I would think if you're using the word "wrong" in that sense, then it should be self evident. Of COURSE I hold X belief because I believe it's true. None of us is wrong, based on that definition. So yes, in a subjective sense, everybody is right. Doesn't that give you the warm fuzzies? But because opinions about religion are by nature assertions (or denials) relating to things that are external, outside of ourselves, either our opinion is an accurate assessment of reality, or it is not. Simply saying "everybody is right in their own head, so nobody is wrong" is overly simplistic, and does nothing to advance reasonable discussion.

[HeatherMarie]

Simply saying "everybody is right in their own head, so nobody is wrong" is overly simplistic, and does nothing to advance reasonable discussion.

I 100% believe that we can *acknowledge* that contradictory opinions aren't automatically wrong, that contradictory opinions may be completely right to the other person and *that is okay*..... And STILL have a completely reasonable, interesting, advancing discussion.

 

I do it every single day. In fact, a lot of people do, without even thinking about it. Acknowledging that someone's opinion, which is contradictory to your own, is just as valid and real as yours is? Common courtesy. Certainly doesn't mean the two of you can't *talk* about the subject and discuss your different beliefs.

[philpot123]

I 100% believe that we can *acknowledge* that contradictory opinions aren't automatically wrong, that contradictory opinions may be completely right to the other person and *that is okay*..... And STILL have a completely reasonable, interesting, advancing discussion.

 

I do it every single day. In fact, a lot of people do, without even thinking about it. Acknowledging that someone's opinion, which is contradictory to your own, is just as valid and real as yours is? Common courtesy. Certainly doesn't mean the two of you can't *talk* about the subject and discuss your different beliefs.

I can discuss what you believe and be informed about what you think is right, sure. But the instant someone who says "everyone is right" tries to convince me, who disagrees with that proposition, that their opinion is preferable to mine (which they do by virtue of making the previous statement), they're being inconsistent.

 

Essentially, you have two options here.

"Everyone is right, and if you think differently, you're wrong." (self-defeating)

"Everyone is right. Therefore, you who think everyone is NOT right is actually right, too." (also self-defeating)

 

Do you see the problem here?

[Darien]

One of the active posters here probably knows this. I was reading through Genesis and came across the story of Lot's wife. The one that turned into a pillar of salt. The bible doesn't appear to name her and a quick google search is fruitless. Does she have a name?

Yes she does have a name!...

[7Deadly$ins]

Yes she does have a name!...

...Okay, what is it?

[Ælex]

I used to be religious, but the whole thing started to smell to high heaven when I hit my teens. You could say I grew out of it.

Still, I keep my atheism to myself most of the time, and still have religious friends who I wouldn't give up for anything.