General Music Chat

G.A.,
I've been aware of John McCain long before you were born. I still regard him as a hero, and a true statesman. Do I believe he is the best choice for President of the United States? ...I honestly don't know. I will be listening to opinion and debates more carefully in the upcoming months. I would like to believe that age is not a factor, but I do have concerns. On the other hand , Obama has an incredibly week "resume" for the job , in my opinion. It looks like there is a good possibility that we'll be choosing between these two individuals. Do your own research, vote with your heart, mind, or "gut feeling", but don't take it too seriously when someone tells you your voice isn't important. I still "take to heart" what Sir Winston Churchill said about the "United States form of government being the worst,... next to all the others".
I cast a vote for Bill Clinton once. I thought it was a good choice at the time . I thought he was of stronger character and I was hoping his rhetoric about a good national health care plan had merit. I was disappointed with my choice , but I still don't regret the fact that I voted.
I really think you should at least get yourself registered, Jonathan, if your not already. You have the right , and you will be in an even greater group then "Metallica"
Uncle Howlin'

This is one of those topics that may turn to be the longest post ever about absolute drivel.

funny thing howlin...im fully legal..ive got my work permit and my permanent resident card but i cant vote for two years.....
im on whats called the "fiancee visa" ...it used to be that once you married a u.s. citizen you got your green card straight away...but now it takes two years before i recieve my full green card...in other words i have to remain married and not get into trouble with the law for two years if i want my full green card...on the other hand my wife(if and when we return to ireland) we have full irish citizenship due to the fact she married an irish citizen....

its not exactly what we call a "square deal" back home in ireland but thats the way it is....

all you yanks who have been very vocal on the subject better get out and vote...its the only way(bar revolution) you can change the political climate...and sitting around sayin "it doesnt matter" will only compound the problem.

Uncle Howlin, I have not registered yet. The reason is because I am not keen on any of the candidates, I do not like any of them. I mean if I had to then I would vote Obama, I do not trust McCain as a leader. I want to see how the following months go before the election before I choose who to vote for, and if I want to vote.

I know it is important to vote, but I do not want to get up there and just choose for the Hell of it. I want to be able to go there with conviction in who I am voting for.

Peace out, GuitarAnatomy.

Stay with logic? o.k. lets do that for a minute. There are numerous saviours through out history with THE SAME EXACT CHARACTARISTICS as Jesus. You choose Jesus as your saviour, why not any of the others?

Well, there is one major difference. Jesus is the ONLY "savior" that claimed to be Creator. Not just a divine being, or a deity, but Creator God. That's unique to Jesus alone. I grew up surrounded by fairly traditional Christianity, but even in that, my grandmother attended a Charismatic church, other relatives took me to Baptist churches, still others were Methodists, and some are Catholic. I had experience with quite varied Christian denominations that spanned the gamut. Then in teenage years, I had a step father than turned out to be a cultist, one of the earliest members of The Moonies. He had left that cult, but continued believing in it. He began teaching us their philosophies, which is probably one of the most "intelligent" philosophies I have ever come across, believe it or not. They incorporate alot of science in their theology, as well as attempting to prove the symmetry of all major religions, and showing that God functions through certain "principles" and "proving" this by showing a very convincing almost exacting parallel between the history of Judaism with the history of Christianity leading up to their religion as the "conclusion" of God bringing the Kingdon of Heaven to Earth, as the "final" level of His providence. They believe for example that all existence moves through three major stages, formation, growth and maturity (or completion). Following this, Judaism = formation, Christianity = growth and The Unification Church = maturity. For purposes of messiah, they believe that the messiah should be a man AND a woman, not just a man, but the True Parents of mankind. A very modern spin on salvation or the role of messiah. Adam and Eve, were the original True Parents, Jesus was the growth level True Parents, but he was killed before he could marry, so the Holy Spirit assumed the role of Eve, which brought spiritual salvation, but not physical salvation, until now, Moon and his wife as the completion level messiah or True Parents, bringing both spiritual AND physical salvation to mankind and establishing the beginnings of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Their teachings cannot be explained quickly here, that is a few basics, but it is MUCH more evolved and complex, very modern, and appealing to intellectuals as well as adherents to pretty much all religions, since they incorporate all of them as inspired or divine, coming from God.

Through my own searching and prayers, and witnessing the Moon family up close, I came to realize they were a destructive cult, using control and deception, to bring their followers under absolute obedience to Moon.

I came to realize it was a dangerous and destructive organization, and I began exposing what I knew of them personally, being a favored disciple of Moon himself. In exposing their methods and harmful nature, I ended up being interviewed by the major media worldwide, as an expert on this group, by media outlets such as FoxNews, The Washington Post, The Guardian in U.K., National television in Japan, media in France, several television stations in America, etc... a rather large list. I was pretty famous in this area for awhile. In fact, a book coming out sometime soon, talks about my experiences in some detail as part of their expose on Moon and his political ambitions, his control of the Washington Times newspaper, and his ties to world leaders as well as dubious figures with criminal pasts.

So, sorry for the book, but as you can see, I had alot of sh*t to work out, going from fairly traditional religion, to modern cults, and back again. So, I've prayed and studied for many years to weed out fallacy from truth. Studied many religions, studied the Bible extensively, and apologetic books on the Bible, as well as Christian history, other religions and cults, etc...

My conclusions are that The Moonies still are a destructive cult, they manipulate scripture for their own agenda, but many religions are indeed inspired by God, that Christianity is the highest revelation of God's nature, that salvation encompases God mingling with our own souls in inseperable oneness or unity, that this comes from accepting God into our hearts, that this is available to all people of any religion, because it is a uniquely personal experience between the Creator and the created, and transcends mere theological issues, that the Bible is inspired of God, but most Christians follow church father's interpretations of scripture, rather than what scripture itself truly reveals. That God is love, and the highest expression of God is loving one another, and if intellectually you are a Pagan, that practices more love for your fellow man, than a Christian who follows orthodoxy more than he practices love in action, I would conclude that the Pagan has more God in him, than that particular professing Christian does.

In any event, through prayer and study, I found that the Bible is truly inspired and almost magical (no jokes please LOL) in it's spiritually inspired nature. You would have to study it thoroughly to understand this. That it is unique among all spiritually inspired texts, and while not inerrant, it is trustworthy as inspired, as a revelation of God and his desires for man, etc...

Jesus as God? For years I could not accept this. It prevented me from attending Christian churches, though I felt God calling me back to Christianity. I knew all the Bible verses that "indicated" that Jesus was Creator God made flesh. But they were never clear enough for me. They could, as I saw it, be interpreted in other ways. This became so excrutiating eventually, that I began praying every single night, literally in tears, for God himself to clear this matter up for me. Is Jesus God? Is he truly God? Prove it to me. I am seeking. Answer me!!!

But this time, I prayed in a different way. I told God that I no longer cared what the truth turned out to be, I just needed to KNOW the truth, and that it was truth coming from God himself. What this means, is that I had no more vested interest in the outcome. If Jesus is God fine. If he his NOT God fine. If Christianity is a lie. fine. I needed to know the truth now, NO MATTER WHAT the truth was. And that if I KNEW it was coming from God himself, even if I was the only person in the world who believed, I would accept this truth, whatever it was. In tears, that literally covered me, I prayed like this one night.

Praying in that way, it happened...I felt something. An inspiration to let the Bible fall open, and begin reading wherever it opened to. When I did this, it spoke of Jesus, having resurrected and speaking with his disciples. He gave them the gift of the Holy Spirit the bible explained. But he didn't just "give" it to them. The Bible says he "breathed" it upon them. He breathed it on them? This means he contained the Holy Spirit. That it flowed from him. He was the source of it. Then I almost heard in words, God tell me to compare this verse with Genesis. I opened to Genesis... "And God BREATHED the BREATH OF LIFE into man, making him a living soul!!!!"

God spoke to my soul "This is the same breath of life as Creation.... Only God can breathe life into dead things."

I immediately accepted the truth of this, because it was a unique and profound revelation to ME from God himself. I knew it was from God, because NO MINISTER would have ever used such a connection to prove Jesus' divinity to me. He would have rattled off all the verses I already knew, and had already found room for doubt in. This was an incredibly unique and personal way, to PROVE to me who Jesus was, and to answer the burning question, which I had asked of God in tears.

THAT is why I believe.

Jesus Christ is indeed the "Son of God".

The thing that many people don't understand is "so are all the rest of us, children of God.

For the record, I was baptised Lutheran . In fact , my philosophical beliefs lean toward "Agnostic". I believe that mankind has the potential to know "fundamental truths". I don't believe we know the fundamentals as yet.
I try to keep up on advances in physics(as best as my limited knowledge allows). It is my belief that modern science is on the threshold of a basic understanding of what it's all about. (Theory Of Everything) It's proving to be "not very easy".

Loop Quantum Gravity vs. String theory?

L.i.G.O. ( gravity wave detector. )?

the physical structure of Space-time.?

What is Mass?...Higgs bosons?

Incredible questions , and we may soon know the answers.

then .... will we still care about religious metaphors?

Disregarding it's latin roots, the English definition pretty much means one who is not Christian (Or sometimes Muslim or Jewish) and is a polytheist, or irreligious or a hedonist. It's connotation absolutely is pejorative. Of course I realize that you don't accept that connotation, and the meaning of words change over time (gay - for example) but it's English usage is as a pejorative originally. You can research it's etymology to see that this is true.

It's just a MUCH older pejorative than the "N" word is, so you haven't recognized this, as it's modern usage has been accepted to mean something more positive and even cool. LOL

Religions like Wicca, for example, have made paganism the "in" thing these days. There has generally been a resurgence (popularly speaking, as many such religions have never disappeared completely) of ancient religions in the past several decades especially, as a rejection of mainstream religions, and seeking something different.

What is old is new again, kind of thing.

Mmm, not exactly.

"Pagan" did not start out as a slur. It is merely a Latin word meaning "country dweller", and was used to differentiate those who dwelt in the cities. Now later on, of course, it became a bit of slur to talk down to the "old believers" who tended to live in the countrside because in Rome Christianity spread from the city outward - in fact one book I just finished (The Road To Rome) claims that Christianity took the greatest hold with the Patrician class, was seen as a trendy new thing with the upper crust. According to this author, it did not flourish from the "meek and humble" as later history would have it.

At any rate, during the Pagan resurgence which happened in the mid 1900s, "Pagan" was merely resurrected as a term of art because it most quickly and accurately described many of these paths even though they all were reconstructionist (see Robert Graves etc. up through the initiation of Gerald Gardner). They did not cleave to it in a sort of "let's take back the night!" thing that you are alluding to.

Lastly, you've got the relationship of Wicca to Paganism backwards. It was the Pagan rebirth that made the modern construct we call Wicca, popular. Wicca is more churchy than many other Pagan paths, and it's really crafted for the modern Pagan. I am not Wiccan, I am a Witch. The terms are not necessarily inclusive.

just to lighten the mood a little here is the amazing irish comic "dylan moran" giving his take on religion,its from his "monster" dvd recorded in dublin,ireland...by the by you might recognize him if you have seen the movie "shaun of the dead"

this is some funny sh*t...i love this

click the link below and enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhXxBlF8 ... re=related

"Pagan" did not start out as a slur. It is merely a Latin word meaning "country dweller" , and was used to differentiate those who dwelt in the cities. Now later on, of course, it became a bit of slur to talk down to the "old believers"

(snipped)

Lastly, you've got the relationship of Wicca to Paganism backwards. It was the Pagan rebirth that made the modern construct we call Wicca, popular.

Didn't I say "disregarding" it's latin roots? We are talking about the English usage. You're basically affirming what I already said on that issue.

"old believers" which suggests they had it right all along, and it is necessary to return to the "truth". We don't buy that for science, why religion? We are evolving, and our understanding evolves and I believe, improves, albeit with bumps along the way. It is possible, even likely that there was a broader "spiritual" acceptance, then, more than now. That is debateble, but even if true, science was religion back then. Religion, and usually myth, WAS the scientific explanation of origins, history, natural phenomena, etc... We know more now. Isn't it possible that as science has evolved, so has religious understanding, spiritual understanding?

Wicca. Yes, technically Wicca is a modern practice, or at least popularized in modern times, but it is ROOTED in witchcraft, and is therefore ancient in my mind. I would bet that THEY consider their beliefs ancient, and NOT new.

In any event, you will be more knowledgeable on Paganism than I, and I certainly enjoy your discourse on it.

Holy crap, I think god just gave me a shock. LOL He made me read these posts. I think my retinas are burned.

Didn't I say "disregarding" it's latin roots? We are talking about the English usage. You're basically affirming what I already said on that issue.

Yeah, you did. But I am disputing that it is largely used today by Pagans precisely to "take the term back". I have seen that in very few Pagans actually.

"old believers" which suggests they had it right all along, and it is necessary to return to the "truth". We don't buy that for science, why religion? We are evolving, and our understanding evolves and I believe, improves, albeit with bumps along the way. It is possible, even likely that there was a broader "spiritual" acceptance, then, more than now. That is debateble, but even if true, science was religion back then. Religion, and usually myth, WAS the scientific explanation of origins, history, natural phenomena, etc... We know more now. Isn't it possible that as science has evolved, so has religious understanding, spiritual understanding?

It's not a real good idea to try and mix the rason d'etre for science and religion (spirituality). To me they serve different purposes. Science can explain a sunset. Spirituality may explain why I find it beautiful or sublime. Both are necessary to the working of my world.

An example of how this is not as linear progression as you want it to be, is the paradox of how we are today in possession of greater technological means to communicate than ever - yet, our ability to do it face to face with someone is on the decline. We live in iPod bubbles and text-message land, a bizarre place in which you will see two people sitting at a restaurant table texting each other over their phones.

So no, I cannot honestly say there is a connection in any linear progress between either discipline.

Wicca. Yes, technically Wicca is a modern practice, or at least popularized in modern times, but it is ROOTED in witchcraft, and is therefore ancient in my mind. I would bet that THEY consider their beliefs ancient, and NOT new..

Almost. Pagan paths can generally be grouped into three developmental categories: Modern (Invented), Reconstructionist, and Revivalist.

Wicca is a modern invention built from a few shards of pre-Christian European folkcraft that still survive. Another interesting Modernist Pagan way is actually based on....I'm not kidding....KLINGON rites. I sat in on one of their religious plays once, and it really was impressive. They acknolwedge they are deriving this from a made up culture for a TV show, but claim that there is some power in it, and this stands as a good example of a concept for another time called "creative mythology".

Other Pagan paths are called "Reconstructionist" because there is a fair amount of knowledge surviving on how they conducted their rites, succession of elders etc, but it is being practiced today somewhat differently. Paths that would fall into this category would include Dianism, Alexandrean (Egyptian) Craft and Stregha (Italian, based on Roman/Greek rites).

"Revivalist" paths are those in which we have almost complete knowledge of how they were conducted, how it was taught and even the languages used. These might include some of the Norse practices (not including Asatru, which is modern).

Witches (who use that term as a form of autonomy from a larger religious body) can be derived from any of the above. Many are from traceable lineages (clans) which are by blood or by succession of teachers and students. I am in the later category. True blood line Witches are almost impossible to find or verify, although many claim to be.

Captain Scott, I think my retinas are going to burn if I have to read all of this right now, lol. I think I will do it later, when I have the patience...


Peace, GuitarAnatomy.

lead into a discussion of paganism, wiccan, witches, Jesus, etc. etc. etc.? Talk about going off on a tangent. Later...

Politics...religion....rinse, repeat.

fc