Welcome to Gaia! ::

I feel that when we provide information to others in an attempt to help them, we take a certain amount of responsibility and that would include an attempt to provide accurate information.

For example, if someone took what was said at face value, and later was admonished or even expelled for misrepresenting a goddess in a ritual, how much of that as the person who provided the misinformation would someone be responsible for? If your words cause harm to others because of generalizations, what integrity would we hold if we washed our hands of it and said "Not my problem"?

I feel that if you had said there is magic in nature and left it at that, we would not be having this discussion. This was not what was stated- since to add you stated "it is in the elements and our deities."

Since there are very specific attitudes in certain faiths regarding magic, some of which consider it impious or sinful- even though they are pagan, by implying a generalization the influence you could have on someone could end in them being denied access to their spiritual calling. Someone could, because of your words, offend their gods.

I agree, we cannot always prove everything, but we can choose what we say, and opt for caution when what we say can harm others.

I feel personal responsibility for the way our words can effect others is more important than the ability to say whatever we want. I feel that this is echoed in numerous spiritual traditions, including To Dare, To Know, To Will and To Keep Silent, as well as texts such as the Havamal, the Maxims and Fables that imply part of wisdom is knowing when not to speak.

To add: Do you feel there are any drawbacks to being cautious about making generalizations that involve other's spirituality?

By my term general, what I am saying is several paths have one ormore deities that are associated with the craft or some sort of magic. If not specifically to a craft than to an element, which by your own words you understand the idea that the elements can be magical in their own right. I think most intelligent people will understand not to always take others words at face value and to instead weigh others opinions and make their own decision. It is to each individual person to realize where the deities value lie.
Yes, I do feel there are drawbacks to being cautious because than you are not helping people think for themselves.

I feel it is not the people who would be called to those practices who generalizations put at risk, but instead those who are called to other traditions. Because we cannot control who receives the information, we would need to use caution and make the statements suitable for everyone. Would you agree?


I feel it is important to make a distinction here: my ability to understand something isn't the same as it holding a universal truth. There are a number of things I understand and yet disagree with.




I think that more often than not people looking to fit in will be influenced by the opinions of others. In psychology and sociology we hear terms like "Group Think", "Peer Pressure" and similar terms. Then there is the actual ability to reason through another's opinion. Not everyone is able to critically examine a position in full, looking for flawed reasoning or testing the veracity of a source.

The ability to systematically go through an entire text, combing for historical accuracy and valid references takes time and often money- so instead less then truthful positions will be presented time and again with the same errors.

I also do not feel that this has anything to do with a person's intelligence. Intelligence as a concept was transformed into statistic described in tests initially designed to demonstrate which children needed extra help in French schools. The problem with this is that it then became a tool used to abuse others by generating a scale which touts the virtues of those who score highly while debases those who score poorly.



I strongly disagree with this, as I feel it is up to the deities to develop a relationship with their followers which clearly demonstrates their interpersonal dynamic.



I feel that this is actually the drawback to not being cautious- because there is no exploration present in a generalization, nor encouragement for fact checking. Instead a generalization is at it's heart an encouragement to not think.

Allow me to explain:
Generalizations are phrased so that even if they are factually correct for the majority, they do not encourage people to seek out either the specific context that makes them correct, nor the numerous exceptions that exist for the minority. And this is the best case situation- the generalization being accurate.

The worst case scenario is that the generalization is not accurate, but with a lack of any specifics- there is no starting point to be able to evaluate the quality of what is said.

If we wish to tout the virtues of teaching others to think for themselves, we need to provide accurate information, help them to understand why a claim has merit or why it would be flawed, and even encourage them to understand how to check the validity of the information presented before them. If we substitute generalized statements for this process, I feel we would encourage the very thoughtlessness that is considered a hindrance.

I am sorry if I offended you. I did my very best specifically not to pick you apart and I feel I was successful.

I attempted to avoid any reference to you as a person. Instead, I spoke of ideas, of what does or does not work in society and the hows and whys behind my conclusions.


My one criticism of you personally would be that I find calling people judgmental to be little more than hypocritical name calling- school yard tactics. This kind of behavior doesn't actually seek a solution with people who disagree with you. It doesn't serve to show that the position being espoused by those who disagree with you is flawed nor does it demonstrate that your position is correct, let alone thoughtful. In the future, if you wish to end a discussion with someone,I recommend not posting a response rather than telling someone they are "judgmental" After all, for you to come to that conclusion you must stand in judgment yourself, and it is highly insulting to have someone stand on their soapbox judging others to be judgmental and talking down to them.


To add: I feel the hypocrisy is being laid on doubly thick when, as someone who is saying we should encourage others to think ends a discussion simply because someone who is thinking does not think that you are correct. In truth, it underpins an attitude I have seen all too often: "Think! But only if you agree with me, otherwise you're not worth talking to." This is fundamentally at odds with your support of people thinking.

Discussion, questioning and conversation that develops ideas is a benefit to thinking, not a detriment and it shows the kind of person that you are when you turn a perfectly peaceful discussion into an attack on a person simply because they don't agree with you and won't mindlessly accept what you have to say. Your words and actions suggest you don't want people to think, it seems you want people to act as sheep and tell you how right you are.

In conclusion, I would like an apology for your dishonesty, hypocrisy and the personal attack.

Calelith is not speaking of your family lineage, but one of initatory lineage. It is a useful question when speaking of some forms of Wicca, mostly Traditional Lines, though some of these traditional groups and their leaders make a distinction between themselves and those who practice the more popular forms of Wicca found in books.

Ok.... Well I don't study or practice any of that new age fluffy bunny s**t... My Sis and I actually are in a coven... one in which our high priestess has been a practitioner for 50 odd years... That new age s**t is not the true pagan or wiccan or whatever.... it's bull