Cornelius
-
Posts
3,562 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by Cornelius
-
-
Stormbringer,
Hello....I am most curious about your belief system.
Certainly I appreciate learning new things so if you would assist me, please....
You note; " in my belief system there can be no such thing" - to what specifically were you referring?
The idea of "ministers" per se; "ministering to another"; time spent in in introspection or silence with one's self; or was it all of those things - that do not exist on your chosen path.
Obviously you are tolerant of others (kudos to you for that) - so your path is one that allows for
tolerance thereby recognizing that others and other ways exist.
I won't assume that permits you to interact with them or does it? Sorry I haven't been around the Forum to much of late so I am just catching up.
von
I was specifically referring to solitary "ministers." There is no such thing in my belief system. What we have that equates to clergy can only be granted that status by group recognition. That status also only pertains to said group and does not reach beyond it.
What others do is of no concern to me. There is not orthodoxy in my belief system only orthopraxy. It was the ancestors tolerance of other beliefs and belief systems that can be argued to have been their downfall in regards to the christianization of Europe.
It is good to see you back Von.
i'm a little curious about that also stormbringer.you have changed"paths" a couple of times that i know of.
and von,it's always great seeing you my friend.
I am a Germanic Heathen and I've been on this "path" for a little over seven years. It's good to hear from you Mark. I hope things are well.
-
In my belief system there can be no such thing. Although the definition of "clergy" is also different than the christian worldview entails. That being said there is nothing wrong with it in others. If you feel the need to have others then find them.
-
I hope she finds comfort with her ancestors.
-
I am what I am -Popeye
-
It has been a while DE. I have changed my name a few times so I don't know which you would remember but it's good to see you back.
-
Exactly what I was getting at Jonathan.
-
Then it's not nothing
-
There is a big difference between ex nihilo creation and that. There is a difference between nothing and something. The singularity was something. Nothing does not mean can't be seen with the naked eye, it means nothing. It seems you are trying to reconcile science with your beliefs and chosen mythology. There is nothing wrong with this as we all do it to varying degrees. Just don't expect anyone else to take it seriously.So, perhaps the first thing we should talk about might be; does this coincide with, or contradict what we are told by science?
It seems that science , for many hundreds of years, claimed that the universe was eternal and infinite. In making this assertion scientists eliminated the need for any force (God) to be necessary for the universe to start. It wasn't until the mid 20th century that science caught up to the Bible and decided that the universe had a beginning. The Bible has been saying that the universe had a beginning since the first book of the Pentateuch was written. It was only in 1968-1970 that Stephen Hawking, George F. R. Ellis, and Roger Penrose published papers extending Einstein's theory of relativity to show time/space had a finite beginning that corresponded to the origin of matter and energy. Einstein resisted the concept of an expanding universe with a finite beginning even though relativity pointed the way.
The Bible says in Hebrews 11:3 Amplified Bible (AMP) 3 By faith we understand that the worlds [during the successive ages] were framed (fashioned, put in order, and equipped for their intended purpose) by the word of God, so that what we see was not made out of things which are visible. This is the idea that God created the world out of nothing. The Big Bang theory asserts that before the universe was there was the singularity. Often when attempting to explain the singularity laymen might give the example that all of the matter was condensed into something the size of an orange or a golf ball or some other small spherical object. In truth scientist will tell us that the singularity was much smaller. Smaller than a speck of dust, smaller than a molecule, smaller than an atom, smaller even than the nucleus of an atom. It seems, once again, the Bible was right. Everything (including matter and all life) in this universe was made from things which are not visible.
Isn't it amazing that thousands of years before modern science the Bible presented so much insight into how this universe is made?
-
Exactly.That is the question at hand, friend. I can understand that perhaps it is not how common parlance defines the theory, yet this is a theory that is taught in some schools. It seems to me that in the professional setting, at least so far as secular settings go I should say, creationism cannot rightly be called a theory without some sort of testing to determine whether it is an accurate observation. Hence, when the debate arises as to whether a school should offer creationism as an alternative theory, the answer must be no, unless and until someone can devise a method for testing the hypothesis and thus upgrade it from such to theory. It isn't really relevant in my mind whether or not this "Theory" coincides with what science says, what is relevant to me is that this does not hold up as a legitimate theory, but rather a philosophy as Dan said. I could fully accept teaching this in school as one of many philosophies detailing how the universe was created, so long as other philosophies and religions were given equal weight. But to teach this in science class is a fallacy, I believe. When science class gets to the beginnings of the universe, I believe it is perfectly acceptable for the teacher to state that we do not know how it all started. After all, isn't that where science begins with answering a question in the first place?
-
Kill witches. Christians do it all the time in Africa.
-
A theory in science is different than the common parlance definition.
-
Christians do this all the time in Africa.
-
I guess it's easier than spending the countless hours reading, learning, discussing, and altering your worldview to a pre-christian European weltanschauung.
-
http://m.livescience.com/49489-oldest-known-gospel-mummy-mask.html
Researchers using a technique that dissolves the glue in Mummy masks from Egypt have recovered many ancient papyri including works such as Homer. Among such finds they have recovered a fragment of the Gospel of Mark dating before 90 C.E. The oldest known Gospel fragment ever found. The findings will be released at a later date.
-
1
-
-
Do that which is right is an excellent and libertarian philosophy to me that is shadowed by be excellent to each other. Which although from Bill and Ted I find to be excellent as well. It is both hard and easy to follow Do that which is Right. The beauty of it is that that which is Right is left up to the person to decide. Like reality and morality it is ultimately subjective. I find that even people who do wrong barring mental issues know that they are doing wrong. Therefore they also know what right is as well. Basically on some level we have an idea of right and wrong and while knowing what's right is easy applying that knowledge can be hard and we as humans will fail. It doesn't mean we can't strive to do that which is Right at all times even though we fail because that is doing the Right thing.
-
I'm about a 1/4 of the way through. Some obligations have kept me busy so I apologize for not responding sooner. Did you want to discuss anything in particular??
-
I would be glad to do so. I'll start tonight and I am a fast reader so I will probably be able to start talking sometime tomorrow. In the meantime leave any questions or thoughts and I will reply when I am ready. I used to try to run a book club here and I encourage anyone who has the time or access to join in on this discussion.
-
I have not read it in a few years. I would be willing to read and discuss it in this thread.
-
Oddly enough Satanism advocates responsibility to the responsible and admonishes shifting blame.
-
If an ** is going to kill someone because another ** with a guitar tells him too then he was an ** to begin with and going to do it anyway. -Pete Townshend
It's all about avoiding personal responsibility and accountability. Also pushing ones morality (which is subjective) and/or religious beliefs on others to conform them to your way of thinking.
-
What pickle conspiracy?
-
Preach it!
-
Waes thu, Ealdred, Hael.
If there was a like button I would click it. I would like to hear more of your take on Englisc Wiccecraeft. As the Vitki said there are a few of us around.
-
Thank you for the information Gruff. Have a good Equinox. I take it you are a welsh based Druid?
Being A Solitary Minister
in * Welcome - ULC Minister's Introduction Junction *
Posted
I am always glad when you grace us with your presence and wisdom Von and You're Welcome
The Amish actually are a good example for an analogy. They are an insular community and while heavily christianized their society is descended from and contains many germanic elements. Heathens today are practicing and reconstructing a pre-christian religiosity, worldview, and culture based upon tribalism. With our groups we are attempting to build a "tribe" and society within society. While integrated in modern times of course as we are modern people I actually have large Amish and Mennonite communities where I live in Upstate NY by the Adirondacks.
"It seems as if you do have a solitary minister in terms of ONE and only one clergy figure for each unique congregation (to the extent those terms convey the loose conceptualization to which the rest of us can grasp it) "
This statement I take minor issue with. As the op and ther term "solitary minister" refers to a minister without any congregation and not just a sole minister of a congregation. I do see what you are getting at however. Another issue is that this doesn't apply to Heathenry. In Arch-Heathen times they had priests of a specific cult that mainly was responsible for the upkeep of a holy site such as a grove or the rare temple. Most of what could be considered a priest was also the tribal leader or chieftain. This can also be seen into the middle ages such as in Iceland with the term "Godhi" that some heathens prefer to use. Which was a chieftain that also functioned as a high priest. Going back 2,000 years to the time of the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus when he wrote "Germania" we see this same basic model where a head of state performed all public priestly duties for the community and tribe but in the household the male head was responsible for the priestly duties and household religion. A religion which was private and could and perhaps often differed from the state religious practices and beliefs. Today this basic model generally holds as most Heathens practice a household religion that is kept for the most part private and only for select people to have knowledge of. In larger more public groups while often there will be one person taking on a priestly role this is not necessary or required. Some groups have a Lord or Chief of some kind that also takes on the priestly function. A group may have a designated member that fulfills this role. Some groups have nobody officially dedicated to this role and just the person who performs said functions when they occur. Some groups have no set person for the role or function and simply take turns. Each group develops their own specific. what is commonly referred to as, Sidu or Thew which loosely translates to custom. It is not up to anyone outside this group to tell them any different or what they should be doing. We have other concepts that come into play such as inningart and utengart but I think you'll get the picture.
You're Welcome Mark. As you know I'm always willing to take the time. I'm glad things are well for you and that you still take the time to post.