| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Philosophy & Science > First The Episcopalians |
| Posted by: MacEoghainn 01-May-2004, 06:39 PM |
| I found this news report on the web. Where will it all end? Methodists Order Review of Lesbian Case Updated 8:04 PM ET May 1, 2004 By JOE MANDAK PITTSBURGH (AP) - United Methodists ordered their top court to review the case of a lesbian pastor after the court ruled Saturday that gay sex violates Christian teaching. The denomination's General Conference voted 551-345 to direct the Judicial Council to review the case of the Rev. Karen Dammann, whose avowed homosexuality led to church charges of committing practices "incompatible with Christian teaching." In March, a jury of 13 pastors in Bothell, Wash., acquitted Dammann. But the Judicial Council, in a 6-3 vote Saturday, said being a practicing homosexual clearly violates Methodist law, and that such a violation could be cause for removal from church office. The Rev. Maxie Dunnam, president of Asbury Theological Seminary in Kentucky, asked for the General Conference vote in light of the judicial panel's ruling. It was unclear what action the high court could take in Dammann's case. Methodist law does not allow for an appeal in church trials. However, the council had retained jurisdiction over Dammann's case when it ordered Dammann to be tried, and traditionalists hope that will allow the council to revisit the case. "There's nothing in (church law) that physically outlines what their options could be but there's nothing that specifically prohibits them either," said Mark Tooley, a conservative with the Institute on Religion and Democracy. "Regardless of the jury verdict, she should still not be appointed as a pastor." Dammann, reached by phone in Washington, said she would consult with her lawyer Lindsay Thompson to learn what actions the Judicial Council could take. "This thing just never ends," she said. "I'm disappointed. I can't believe it." Thompson said asking for the review was an effort "to rewrite the rules." "The people who are upset about this clearly are inclined to stop at little if anything to undo it and prevent it from ever happening again," he said. The Judicial Council is expected to rule sometime during the conference, which next convenes on Monday. Dammann was put on trial after she told her bishop she was in a committed relationship with a woman. She married her partner in Portland, Ore., in March, after county officials there began allowing same-sex marriages. Damman is now on family leave. The debate over homosexuality is expected to dominate the agenda of the conference, which is held every four years and runs through May 7. No one believes that the 8.3 million-member denomination is about to break apart. Delegates have rejected proposals more accepting of sexually active gays by about 60 percent to 40 percent over the years. That voting trend is expected to continue among this year's 1,000 delegates. ___ AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll contributed to this report. |
| Posted by: deckers 21-Sep-2004, 01:25 PM |
| The Bible also says that people who divorce and then remarry are committing adultery and should be stoned (Old Testament). Obviously we don't do that anymore (thankfully!), but no one seems to bring that particular issue up. However, some extremely conservative -- and twice-married -- friends of my in-laws' believe that the Bible should be followed strictly and completely. I was physically restrained by my wife from asking these two people if they thought they should be stoned.  Erik Deckers |
| Posted by: Shadows 21-Sep-2004, 02:39 PM |
| I haven't been stoned since the late 60's... oops wrong stone! If homsexuality were normal your bible would have had Adam and Steve in the garden! What do you think Sodom and Gamorah where all about!?! AS for divorce, the christian religions are the most harsh, the others understand that mistakes can be made and learned from. If we are taught to weigh our choices against the outcomes our decissions will not come back to haunt us. Most failed marrages were based on lust not inner love! |
| Posted by: Tassiecelt 21-Sep-2004, 06:55 PM |
| Jesus taught that while divorce was not God's ideal, yet for "the hardness of (their) hearts" he permitted divorce and remarraige where adultery was involved. Read John 8, it's a touching story of God's love and forgiveness toward the "woman in adultery". This is a masterpiece in combining adherence to the law of God, and yet showing compassion. This should be taken as an accurate guide to the Bible and Adultery for us today, rather than the OT law. Christ supercedes that law. Both OT and NT indicate that homosexuality is sin and needs to be repented of. Those that think they can combine Christian obedience with a sinful lifestyle deceive themselves. |
| Posted by: Sekhmet 21-Sep-2004, 08:02 PM |
| Loving another human is not a sin. To address the "normalcy" of homosexuality, start looking in nature. It occurs in quite a high number of other species on this planet. It happens. Humans didn't invent it. While we're on that same line of thought they didn't invent masturbation either. The stigma attached to homosexuality in ancient cultures is to discourage non-fertile couplings. That's it. Religion picked up the ball and ran with it. Honestly people. If God made these people just like they made the rest of us, he knew damned good and well he was making them the way they are. This isn't a choice to be "sinful", it's just the way they are. That's who they fell in love with. Just like you couldn't help who you lost your heart to. ...good Gods, I get tired of this argument... |
| Posted by: deckers 22-Sep-2004, 03:19 PM | ||
I've seen those signs that say "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Actually, God made Steve too. God made each of us. To say that someone is wrong because they're gay, they're a different color (the Bible was used to support racism in this country many years ago), non-male (it's still used to keep women down in some of the more radical denominations), etc. casts aspersions on God's creation. It's saying that God got it wrong. |
| Posted by: Tassiecelt 24-Sep-2004, 08:04 AM | ||
Yes it can be, adultery, paedophilia, and fornication are examples of what those involved may interpret as "love" but are in fact sinful, ie, they cause pain and suffering to others, they are selfish and hurtful relationships. If we a speaking about love in the sense of caring -of course that is always a good thing, but when it becomes physical I would argue that the line between love and lust become blurred. Since you use the word 'sin' I will say that if the Creator deems a relationship to be wrong, then it is wrong. God knows best. Homosexuality is wrong, it is sinful, it is unhealthy, unproductive and against nature. The God of the Bible make His position clear on this. If any church decides otherwise then they are acting contrary to the laws of God. Now is one is not a Christian then i guess it's not going to be a concern, but if we profess to follow the teaching of Christ, then we should obey what He says, otherwise we are hypocrites. |
| Posted by: deckers 24-Sep-2004, 10:33 AM | ||
I thought "loving" in this sense meant emotional love, not the physical act. And since Jesus recognized three types of love -- phyllos, eros, and agape -- the statement could be true. Sorry, just being a smartaleck.  The Bible has also made other positions clear -- positions that we don't follow anymore. So are we sinning when: - we eat a cheeseburger? (OT) - we wear linen and cotton? (OT) - women speak in church? (NT) - wives don't submit to their husbands? (NT) Erik Deckers |
| Posted by: Shamalama 24-Sep-2004, 11:33 AM |
| Ah, such a subject. Normally I just lurk around here quietly. I learned that you can no sooner convince another person of "what is a sin" than you can teach a pig to fly. It's a complete waste of time. That said I'm not going to get into the "homosexuality is a sin" arguement: I have my opinions, and they will remain my opinions. Tassiecelt is exactly correct when he says that there is "bad love", and as such "all love" cannot be considered good for the people. He mentions adultery, for example. The "if it's love then it's OK" arguement is therefore incorrect. He is also correct when he states that the God of the Bible make His position clear on this. The Judeo-Christian texts leave no room for discussion: homosexuality is against God's will, not matter now fervent an arguement you make for it. Get over it. The "the Bible has also made other positions clear..." statement in no way takes anything away from what the Bible says about this. BUT... Christians are to be disciples of Christ, following in his example. Christ never turned away a sinner. There was no sin too great for Jesus. Jesus was a man of compassion and grace, and all who call themselves Christians are to act the same way. Christ made it clear to the woman at the well that she was living a life of sin, and that He still loved her and wanted her to spend eternity with Him in heaven, but also that she should sin no more. There is not one of us that will "sin no more" until after death, but does that give us reason to stop trying? Nope. And does that mean any one of us deserves to be in church more than another? Nope. A church is supposed to be a hospital, not a members-only club. I'm certainly not going to judge anyone else until I sin no more. Is homosexuality a choice or is it something you're born with? Is it genetically encoded, and therefore cannot be helped? I don't know, and I don't care. The major issue in my life is not whether I'm going to let a homo into my church, but rather what can I do to make myself more worthy of Christ's grace. My job is not to spend too much time argueing about it but rather to spend the time giving the gospel message to people that need to hear it. I'm going to let the Holy Spirit do all the work of convicting someone of their sins - I'm way too full of sin myself to tell them what they either can or cannot do. I know what is printed in the scripture, and I know what the Holy Spirit has impressed in me. Should a lesbian be a pastor? Should a woman be a pastor? Should a un-married man be a pastor? Should a married man be a pastor? Should a divorced man be a pastor? Should a black man be a pastor? These are all struggles the church has had to deal with over the recent years. I say that there are plenty of churches out there - find one that you like and don't worry about what another congregation is doing. There won't be such problems in heaven. Remember that the Word of God is not the Bible - it's Jesus Christ Himself. Through the convictions of the Holy Spirit you will hear the true Word of God. |
| Posted by: Tassiecelt 24-Sep-2004, 06:07 PM |
| Shamalama, I agree wholeheartedly to all you've said. As you suggest, there are lots of issues here, they cannot possible all be fully addressed in one or even twenty posts here. Thank you for adding a little more to truth. |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 11-Dec-2007, 10:08 PM |
| It seems that Christianity is a buffet, in the early days they did all in the name of Jesus Christ then along came the Catholics and the use of the titles Fath3er, Son, and Holy Ghost, a trinity if you will. But the Old Testament says that there is One God not 3 in 1 however a Schizophrenic God would explain how women are not supposed to preach then suddenly it is politically correct for them to preach in some circles. I am not a Christian but a Druid so I watch such things with amused interest. The Christians will eventually fulfill one of the fears of Jesus that he would not find the faith on earth, Christians are changing it daily. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 11-Dec-2007, 10:24 PM |
| Well there are a few things here that seem calculated to make at least a few people angry -- not for the opinions themselves, but for the way it is said. For my part I will just mildly observe one thing, although if you were in my Intro to Psych class I would take points off your final exam for it: Schizophrenia has nothing to do with multiple personality, whch is what you seem to be assuming when you refer to the trinity in the way you have. That's a mistake millions of people make every day, and it makes life miserable for schizophrenics everywhere, who are feared, disliked and maltreated enough without some erroneous idea that they have multiple personalities. What used to be called multiple personality is called Dissociative Identity Disorder, and it is a completely different problem. Also much, much rarer. Do the world of mental health a favor -- don't think about schizophrenics as people who are sublet into a load of different people who don't agree and argue among themselves a lot. That is not what the "talking to themselves" behavior is about at all, for one thing. A really badly afflicted schizophrenic has all he can do to pull together one integrated personality and live in it with any reliability, so much less than having more than one.  |
| Posted by: Robert Phoenix 12-Dec-2007, 12:23 AM |
| Wow. Second time today I've seen this discussion on an internet forum. Ok so here is my minor input. Shamalama I like what you say. And I think you had it when you use the example of the adulterous woman. Some of us believe that according to scripture, and the oral traditions of the church if you are an RC like me, that homosexuality is a sin. So was the adultery, and stealing, and murder, and a multitude of other things. As you said, I'm not one to throw the first stone-otherwise I would have to hit myself several times first. Okay, alot of times. Some do not believe homosexuality to be a sin. What's seems to be the main question that surrounds this issue is what should we, the church, do with people who by our definition continually and fragrantly commit what we believe to be a sin of any sin, and then accuse us Christians of not being loving enough like Jesus to let them get away with anything. The first church council of Nicea address these questions. That had to do with what they should do with people who took an oath to the emperor to stay alive during the early persecutions and then still wanted to be members of the early church when Christianity was not outlawed. They chose to let them back in with conditions-aka sin no more. Druid I have to agree and disagree with you. Yes the church is a huge buffet now. Shouldn't be but the early church was no picnic despite what the tv preachers say. Read the gospels and you will see that they were fighting among themselves before and after Jesus death and resurrection. And it wasn't the Catholics that ruined everything-I really wish that someone would put up that on mythbusters or snopes. The early church fathers-the ones trained by the disciples themselves. They had very many of what we would call modern Roman Catholic beliefs. Want to know when was the early church really ruined-When the goverment (Constantine) stepped in and made it the religion of the empire. That is why I am, to a degree, for separation of church and state. Also, we RC's believe that the church is slowly working toward perfection and I do mean slowly. We make huge mistakes-sometimes we learn from them, sometimes we don't and really screw things up. The church is not God-unfortuately this is the standard people hold us up too and one image the that the RC church in some times and places has mistakenly tried to put itself off as. We are merely tyring to be as close to him as possible but we are not God. But back to the original question. Some OT laws are used today and some are not even used among the Jewish people themselves. Besides the Jewish OT is different than the Roman Catholic OT which is different than the Protest OT. How much of the OT should be followed was debated from the beginning of the church and will always be debated. Point is -its hard but not impossible to pull out OT laws that most of us don't even follow literally or even agree on. I think we need to ask ourselves what Jesus and his followers define as sin and were do we draw the line with repeat offenders. What did he do? Forgave and sin no more is what he told the woman. Could a person slowly work on getting rid ofa sin or did it have to be instanteous conversion. I think the scriptual answer about how many times we have to forgive someone answers that. How about the money changers, the thief on the cross? Because were we believe Jesus drew the line is were we should draw it before we lose those things that mark us and identifiy us as Christians. |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 12-Dec-2007, 09:55 AM |
| I meant no disrespect to anyone. But it seems to me that the Christianity of today is largely disassociated from that which was taught by Jesus and the Apostles. I mean even the mode of Baptism has been changed by many of the Sects of the Religion. In the Biblical accounts found in the book of Acts it was always done by immersion and in the Name of Jesus Christ, not in the titles Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It seems to me that those that came after the first ones that were taught by Jesus have taken liberties and created a NEW religion that has little if anything to do with New Testament Christianity. At least the Modern Druids have the intellectual and spiritual candor to admit that our current form of Druidism is not the original since the D cases lost Druids of old kept no written records, and the oral tradition was distorted and in many ways oerverted by the Christian Romans who invaded. They reduced Druid gods and goddesses and dressed them up as Christian Saints, (Brigid of Kilcardin comes to mind, she was a Druidic Goddess of the hearth, of healing, and of Blacksmiths long before the Romans made her into one of their Saints. I guess what I am really saying is will the real Bible following Christians stand up since the fakes are giving them a bad reputation! |
| Posted by: Robert Phoenix 12-Dec-2007, 05:00 PM |
| Quote: I guess what I am really saying is will the real Bible following Christians stand up since the fakes are giving them a bad reputation! Trying to, its just that there are so many of them!!! |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 12-Dec-2007, 05:21 PM |
True enough and then I find it sad that many so-called Christians try to come against other so-called Christians. I mean if you are not an Episcopalian what difference does it make what you think of their decisions, or if you are not a Methodist, what difference do the decisions they maake have on you? If every so called Christian would busy themselves getting their own denomination in order they would have far less time for getting upset at what the others are doing. Don't you agree?  |
| Posted by: Robert Phoenix 12-Dec-2007, 09:41 PM |
| I agree that its a sad thing that at times that we can't find agreement even in or own religions. It would be nice if we could get everything in order but in a world that is constantly changing we cannot be stationary either. Yes, there can be core set of beliefs for a faith. For the Protestants its the Scripture alone and their individual interpretation. For Catholics its Scripture and tradition communicating with each other. But within each group dialog, self reflection, and opposing viewpoints are necessary to help us grow in knowledge and help bring about God's kingdom here on earth. A set guidelines that ones faith can go by is nice but those guidelines cannot cover everything and even they have to be in dialog with new information. I still can't find anything in the Bible on how to change a muffler pipe so it. And unfortunately the decisions of other people do affect us wether we like or not. Usually one faith will look to the others to see if their hands get burnt in the fire or not. We also learn about new ways or meanings about our own faith from looking at other peoples faith and knowledge. We as Catholics believe that one of the major sources of information about God is in nature itself and as a result the Catholic church is currently really jumping on the enviromental bandwagon. If you ever get the chance read "The Dream of the Earth" by Thomas Berry. I think you would like it So its quite necessary for us to disagree. Part of the learning process is to question. What is really sad about disagreements is the violent or negative ways that we sometimes feel we have to go about in showing that disagreement. So keep searching for the truth. Always ask the hard questions. |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 12-Dec-2007, 09:47 PM |
| To learn mechanics you must abandon the Bible and turn to Buddhism and the Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance. If you go within you will hear the Zoom zoom. |
| Posted by: Robert Phoenix 12-Dec-2007, 10:04 PM |
Thanks Druid, I needed that!  |
| Posted by: John Clements 12-Dec-2007, 10:14 PM |
| Wow! What a hysterical discussion. Oh…excuse me…I should have said…“historical”… discussion. As you probably know by now, for my money, give or take a few changes. The Druids/Pagans/Savages, (look who’s calling us, non believers, savage) had it right to begin with, being one with the nature world. For me, that’s all there is. |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 13-Dec-2007, 12:30 PM |
| So true John so true, btw Heathen means one that lives by the hearth. The hearth represents home and the fires of warmth so when a Christian calls me Heathen I thank them profusely and they go away puzzled...poor unenlightened clones. |
| Posted by: tsargent62 13-Dec-2007, 12:57 PM | ||
To refer to Christians as "unenlightened clones" is a bit unfair. Outside of Pagan or Druid circles the term heathen means something completely different than the way it's commonly used. I think you have to go back to the roots of the Catholic church. While adopting many Pagan holidays and customs, the church was trying to make paganism seem evil. Much the same way that they made Mary Magdeline out to be a prostitute, although there is no scriptural evidence to support the claim. In short, the term heathen was redefined by the early Catholic church to mean someone who is without God, savage, etc. So if most Christians use that definition, it is through centuries of the church's influence to do so. BTW: I seem to remember you being upset about Christians coming to the grove and cast aspersions on Pagans and Druids. |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 13-Dec-2007, 01:04 PM |
| I have a friend that was in the US Army and served with honor, he was a Druid but had to fight to get the Government to allow his Dog Tags to list his religion as DRUID but he won and became the first to be recognized as a DRUID in the US Army. His name is Keith Pigg of Mulberry Arkansas. And yes you are right that the Christian Church borrowed from Pagans, even their Christmas is a fake since Jesus was not born in December but in all probability was born in March. That re-enforces my assertion that Christians believe lies told them by so called Tradition. |
| Posted by: tsargent62 13-Dec-2007, 01:28 PM |
| I understand that people have had to fight for religious rights. That's nothing new. I know that Wiccans, Pagans and Druids have all had to struggle to get their religions to be seen as legitimate. I'm not trying to downplay any of that. Believe me, I'm one of the most open minded, free thinking Christians you will ever meet. But please don't make us out to me mindless dolts who can't make up our own minds about what to believe. What do you care about when we celebrate the birth of Jesus? The date is unimportant. It's the celebration that we care about. Just because some Pope decided to have the celebration on a Pagan holiday to mollify newly converted (or soon to be converted) Pagans centuries ago doesn't give you the right to look down on millions of people. What would you have us do? Rework the timetable of society to have Christmas on a day that may or may not be closer to his actual date of birth? A date we have no way of knowing is correct? We really need to try to keep this a friendly discussion. I'm all for that. But the minute you start denigrating someone for their beliefs, something you yourself are sensitive to, the friendliness goes right out the window and we're reduced to sniping at each other. |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 13-Dec-2007, 01:40 PM |
| I simply meant that if you take out the things borrowed from Paganism there would be nothing left of the Christian Religion, your Holidays were Pagan, your method of Worship is pagan, your concept of the Trinity is Pagan, so in essence the Christians are Pagan but they refuse to admit it, Christianity died out shortly after the last of the Apostles because since they died their teachings have been replaced with Paganism in order to promote the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church, which has spent more on its grand and expensive buildings and statues than many nations can spend on feeding the poor, ah wait didn't Jesus condemn the Jews for the extravagance of the Temple and commend the people feeding the poor...just a thought. But this will be my last post on the topic. I am an outsider looking in, and see things that perhaps you miss on the inside looking out. I believe we should all walk in respect and that too is something Jesus taught and one of the Popes countermanded, after all how can you respect people and torture them to death at the same time? The Pope could not answer that so he said "Kill them all...let God sort them out." Thus we had the Inquisition! Courtesy of the Roman Catholic Church in the name of their Trinity. |
| Posted by: tsargent62 13-Dec-2007, 02:00 PM |
| The past is the past. You keep referring to things that happened hundreds of years ago. You are putting all Christians in a nice, neat little bundle and seem to think that none of us have ever considered what you are saying. Certainly the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials are dark spotches in Christian history that all of us wish have never happened. But they did. There is nothing we can do about it except learn from it. Your line of reasoning towards saying Christians are Pagans is on a slippery slope. "Many Christian holidays and traditions are based on Pagan holidays and traditions, therefor Christians are Pagans." Way to simplistic. You are ignoring the basic tenets of both religions. Let me say one more thing. Yes I'm a Christian, but I'm not a big fan of organized religion. I'm not a member of the Roman Catholic church, I've only used it as an example because it's the oldest surviving Christian church. I have my own beliefs, have had some very profound religious experiences and do not need anyone to believe in what I do or approve of it. If you really believe what you've been writing, I suggest you do a little more research and find out what Christianity is really about. I think you'd find they we are far more tolerant of you, than you seem to be of us. |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 13-Dec-2007, 02:17 PM |
| No history of the Druids ever giving people a choice of convert to our way or be killed by slow torture because our Gods and Goddesses love you enough that if you do not give us your gold and your souls we are commanded by God to torture you to death. Yep the Roman Catholic Church is very tolerant and follows the command to build impressive sanctuaries and neglect the needs of the people. If the Pope sold even one of his rings he could feed an African village for a year or more. Of course not only the Pope but look at Oral Roberts and his brand of monetary Christianity. Or a host of other Get rich on Jesus, the man that never had even a home to call his own if the Scriptures are right, face it the real call of religion (Druid or Christian or whatever) is to care for the earth and all the inhabitants of it. I believe that there are some real believers in Jesus but by and large the majority of so called Christians are as blind as bats by choosing not to see the truth btu to accept blindly what they are fed from the pulpit. To me a Chrisitan should follow the example of Jesus not the example of a man that is richer than many countries, a man that lives in a Palace and eats from expensive plates and uses gold utensils to eat with and thinks himself above those he shepherds. Jesus I believe washed the feet of the Disciples, when was the last time you saw the Pope even wash his own feet (he has people to do that for him!) I am not trying to offend any here but it seems that if the Post about the Methodist letting women preach was made by a Methodist that is one thing and keeps it internal, btu if the Christians want to have open forum debate of one of their sects they open the floor for truth they man not want to face. Even one "Christmas song" Speaks of the Yule-tide, a Pagan celebration they borrowed! |
| Posted by: tsargent62 13-Dec-2007, 02:35 PM |
| By and large I agree with what you have said. And believe me, I'm not condoning the riches of the Catholic church or any televangelist who got rich preaching on TV. And yes, there are many Christians who believe what they are told and adhere strictly to the Bible. Was the Methodist church right to censure a female minister for being a lesbian? Hell no! Churches in general are man made institutions. Even the Bible was assembled according to the dictates of the Roman Catholic church. Yes, assembled. There are many texts that were left out because it did not fit their view or purpose. (Mary Magdeline, the wife of Jesus? Gasp!) Don't get me wrong, what's there is for the most part, I believe, divinely inspired, but I can't trust that it hasn't at least been tainted in part by men with purposes of their own. The only holy book that I know of that was written from start to finish and still exists in its original for is the Quran. I don't believe that Christianity is corrupt in general. However, I do agree that the way it is run is more to suit the designs of man than to serve man. |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 13-Dec-2007, 02:38 PM |
| Amen |
| Posted by: Robert Phoenix 13-Dec-2007, 10:20 PM |
| "These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own." -G.K. Chesterson |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 13-Dec-2007, 11:46 PM |
| Not to praise but to treat as equal to but different, I mean if the Native Americans had had the mentality that Christians exhibit toward the Missionaries that came to America they would have all been killed. But the Pagan Native Americans were merciful and aided the Christians to survive. Then before long the Native Americans were forbidden to speak their own language and were forced to accept the new religion or die, same as the Europeans were. In the movie the Matrix there is a line that compares humans to a virus, and I am compelled to wonder if it may in fact be true of the Christians, they move into an area and use up the resources there then move on, exactly like a virus. Whereas the Earth based religions try to minimize their abuse of nature. For they consider the natural world to be sacred. Christianity teaches that Jesus will soon return and take those that believe in him out of here to a new heaven and a new earth. I wonder if the Christians will destroy that one too? I hereby promise not to post further in this matter, but please remember Christians that it was a Christian that was questioning the right of the Methodist to make a ruling that had effect only on the members of the Methodist Church. Btu when I as a Druid come and express things about how Christianity in general is perceived then he comes at me for that. I wish to point out that Christians need to be tolerant of their fellow Christians, and that humans need to be tolerant of our fellow humans. Live your life in such way that others may seek to learn the wisdom you live by. But please remember that if you throw stones you may get hit. The Christians are the only known Army that delight in shooting their own wounded! |
| Posted by: John Clements 14-Dec-2007, 12:18 AM | ||
Here Here, Robert. |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 14-Dec-2007, 10:34 AM |
| We can all learn from Forrest Gump. Religion is like a box of chocolates if you don't care for one piece don't gripe just grab a different one, and remember there is a chart in the top of the box! |
| Posted by: tsargent62 14-Dec-2007, 04:37 PM |
| So true. I tried a few things out before I finally settled into where I am. Actually, I'm still doing a lot of questioning and searching. To me the important thing is this: Do what gives you peace. I've explored many different Christian denominations and even Islam. I've taken things from each that strike a spark in my soul. And Druid_of_Ark, you'll be happy to know that I do have a very healthy love and respect for nature and her wonders. As long as we live peacefully, don't judge each other's life style and help each other as we can, whomever you decide to worship will be content. |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 14-Dec-2007, 04:50 PM |
| Philosophy, Science, and Religion! Now my face is quite red I had been posting as if I were in the Grove. I go to both sites and got my diodes crossed. My sincere apologies to those here, as I admit that my comments were out of place I thought I was among fellow Pagans only then when I realized today that this is a Ecumenical site I felt bad for my blatant comments! Forgive me as I slip behind the smoke and re-enter the Grove to be among my own kind! Blessed Be! |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 14-Dec-2007, 05:28 PM | ||
There's a lot of thematic crossover; I think anyone on this site is welcome (and likely) sometimes to look in just about anywhere to see what's cooking. So you'll want what you say in one place to be as respectful as you'd say anywhere else. There are a few forums that are unmoderated -- like this one -- so that people can speak frankly about what's on their minds, but it's still going to be fairly civilized. (Well -- politics threads can get kind of feisty . . . ) This is kind of an unusual site actually, because of the strong mix of evangelical and other Christians, and people who profess the old religions. It blew me away when I first stumbled on this site myself and discovered this aspect of the constituency -- but in a very good way, when I realized that it's the celtic music and traditions that are the common deep love of people here from both persuasions. The binding power of the music, the history and the lore is what makes it work -- and it DOES work. |
| Posted by: Leyland 14-Dec-2007, 08:00 PM | ||
I'm slightly confused about the evolution of druids from a social class to a religion. Is druidism as a modern religion based on actual historical druids, a separate and higher class of ancient Celtic society? Is neo-druid is a more appropriate title for the present day religion that appears on the dog tag as quoted above? According to Britannia.com: Although since Christian times Druids have been identified as wizards and soothsayers, in pre-Christian Celtic society they formed an intellectual class comprising philosophers, judges, educators, historians, doctors, seers, astronomers, and astrologers. The earliest surviving Classical references to Druids date to the 2nd century B.C. The word "Druidae" is of Celtic origin. The Roman writer Pliny the Elder (Gaius Plinius Secundus, 23/24-79 A.D.) believed it to be a cognate with the Greek work "drus," meaning "an oak." "Dru-wid" combines the word roots "oak" and "knowledge" ("wid" means "to know" or "to see" - as in the Sanskrit "vid"). The oak (together with the rowan and hazel) was an important sacred tree to the Druids. In the Celtic social system, Druid was a title given to learned men and women possessing "oak knowledge" (or "oak wisdom"). I've read that the ancient historians were primary sources and stated that druids were a class of well-educated Celtic people, but were not an organized religion. Is the modern DRUID religion an invention inspired by a portion of the historical druid class? |
| Posted by: Druid_of_Ark 14-Dec-2007, 08:13 PM |
| Modern Druidism is a reflection of many parts of the Ancient Traditional beliefs of the Celtic People, and you must also bear in mind that the Romans were the enemies of the Celts and as such their perceptions are at best flawed. Since the best they offer is a slanted view. That would be somewhat akin to reading Himmler's Accounts of the Jews and taking it as source material for the Jews in Germany during the 1930's and 40's. But I will grant you that Druidism today is a combination of the Intellectualism and the Mysticism of our Ancient Predecessors. A modern Druid strives for excellence in all areas of his life. I am an Astrologer/Astronomer, and also a Naturalist and Herbalist, all of these are paths that would have no doubt fallen into the scope of the Druids of old. I also am an Accomplished Musician and Poet, as well as doing a great deal of Counseling. Most in the local grove will tell you that when it comes to the beliefs in deities I am one of the ones that is a strict adherent to the old ways, and that my advice is given with that in mind that the Old Ways are the proper guidelines for people who seek the Celtic Wisdom path. May you be blessed in the areas of your life that you walk in balance and may you be balanced in the ways that you are currently not in balance. Blessed Be! |