Complaints about threads

coffee_cake

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Firstly, they are more firm in their beliefs; they don't doubt.

There are christians in the Christianity forum who are exactly the same. And all over the world. In many religions. Putting the "mental" into fundamentalism

Secondly, their beliefs are much more strange than a belief in God.

Why? because we're all accustomed to the idea of a belief in god, so it's ok?
To someone who has never considered any of the beliefs before, a belief in god may well be as strange or stranger. It all depends on your perspective, and in this kind of perspective there is no definite right or wrong.

They even regard what they do as dangerous - or two of them who write here say so.

And yet we have posts in the Christian forum recounting experiences with the devil. Many things are dangerous. That's life.

They believe in witchcraft, angels, psychic power, evil spirits, that crystals have power (sugar??), astrology .... I could go on; the list sometimes seems endless. I wonder is there some trait on display which impels people towards the bizarre? What I mean is, are there people who are attracted to something because it is bizarre, novel or perhaps because it means admission to an exclusive in-group? This puts me in mind of teen cults who enjoy the idea that they are misunderstood by as many people as possible.

I could direct you to many places where people of all faiths are crying persecution and misunderstanding, be they atheists, teeny pagans, christians etc. Many things are found bizarre by others - again, there is no definite right and wrong in this.

I can view the spiritualists as interesting, worthy opponents in debate, part of the wonderful odd tapestry of life. However, despite my attempts to be very rational and open, I have to say I find the area repulsive; my impression is of people who would like to live in a cheap horror movie.

So far in your post:

-I wonder is there some trait on display which impels people towards the bizarre?
-this puts me in mind of teen cults who enjoy the idea that they are misunderstood by as many people as possible
- I find the area repulsive
-people who would like to live in a cheap horror movie


Ah yes indeed, very "rational and open".

Perhaps I misunderstand your own background here; I assume you are a christian or an atheist?

Gordon

Jackie laughlin wrote:

the spiritualists are different in two respects. Firstly, they are more firm in their beliefs; they don't doubt.

To be honest, I think you may be wrong there, I think that people that believe in religion (such as Christianity) do believe, and don't doubt. However, that's an interesting point, maybe you should create a thread on a religious forum and posit that.

Secondly, their beliefs are much more strange than a belief in God. They even regard what they do as dangerous

I don't think they say that, I think they say that there are areas that can be dangerous. I think there are dangers in religion though aren't there? The Devil, temptation, sin..

They believe in witchcraft, angels, psychic power, evil spirits, that crystals have power (sugar??), astrology .... I could go on; the list sometimes seems endless. I wonder is there some trait on display which impels people towards the bizarre? What I mean is, are there people who are attracted to something because it is bizarre, novel or perhaps because it means admission to an exclusive in-group? This puts me in mind of teen cults who enjoy the idea that they are misunderstood by as many people as possible.

Interesting ideas, in fact you have some bizarre beliefs, you should post a thread on this in the philosophy forum, or the Humanities forum.

I can view the spiritualists as interesting, worthy opponents in debate, part of the wonderful odd tapestry of life. However, despite my attempts to be very rational and open, I have to say I find the area repulsive; my impression is of people who would like to live in a cheap horror movie.

Interesting yet repulsive. Exactly how I feel about the work of Damien Hirst and Tracey Emin!

I hope the reaction to this won't be too bad.

I think a lot of us are trying to understand why you are repulsed by people interested in the spiritual side of things. I have a friend who is a Pilates instructor and I was trying to get her to listen to the sound of her own heart one day. She couldn't do it, it was like showing a live worm to my Mum, she coiled back in disgust and fear. But I know through experience that it can be an interesting and mind opening experience if you just listen to the sound of your heart beating for a while.

What I didn't do was insist that she listens to her heart and tell her that if she doesn't do it I'll try and force her to. I tried to respect her opinion and carried on listening to my heart.

stevenmu

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I found "spiritualism" shocking, I guess, because I had not before seen such extreme beliefs advanced seriously. There are aspects of religion which are questionable - perhaps religion is questionable - but the spiritualists are different in two respects. Firstly, they are more firm in their beliefs; they don't doubt. Secondly, their beliefs are much more strange than a belief in God. They even regard what they do as dangerous - or two of them who write here say so. They believe in witchcraft, angels, psychic power, evil spirits, that crystals have power (sugar??), astrology .... I could go on; the list sometimes seems endless. I wonder is there some trait on display which impels people towards the bizarre? What I mean is, are there people who are attracted to something because it is bizarre, novel or perhaps because it means admission to an exclusive in-group? This puts me in mind of teen cults who enjoy the idea that they are misunderstood by as many people as possible.

I think you're slightly misinformed about spiritualists. In general I don't think we are firmer in our beliefs than the mainstream religious. It' common practice for spiritualists to look at a wide range of ideas and decide for themselves what they believe. It's also common for spiritualists to be open to new ideas and to re-evaluate their old ideas. The mainstream religious on the other often just believe what somebody has told them to believe, generally based up on a book written thousands of years ago. Secondly if you think spiritualism is bizarre you should try reading the bible sometime, angels killing townfulls of children, lightening carving commandments into rocks, burning bushes, parting seas, walking on water, water into wine, curing the crippled, raising the dead etc. etc...

As an example, I don't particularly 'believe' in astrology. I am open to to the possibility that astrological events can influence our lives, but that's very different from a firm extreme belief.





(p.s. Thanks for sig MonkeyFudge, I promise I'll take Real good care of it and feed it and walk it every day and .. and .. )

6th

I wont hold back like other people are:

You are commenting on things you clearly have not got a clue about! But thats not a new thing on boards and its not nessecerily a bad thing either. Its not something i'd do myself (hence you wont see me on the politics forum or many others), but then again i dont try for a second to say my beliefs are absolute and that any group or people are repulsive, unfortunate, wrong etc.

I suggest you come back when you are better informed or dont come back at all.

CuLT

Well, I think belief systems are crutches for the mentally insecure, I usually keep that particular opinion to myself most of the time, but seeing as we're labelling people in this thread, I figured "what the hell".

As long as they're not hurting others (that would be causing them damage), people really should be allowed be as fruity as they like with their beliefs.

I slag Thaed a lot about the Wiccan stuff, but it's all friendly banter.

WhiteWashMan

6th wrote:

I wont hold back like other people are:

You are commenting on things you clearly have not got a clue about! But thats not a new thing on boards and its not nessecerily a bad thing either. Its not something i'd do myself (hence you wont see me on the politics forum or many others), but then again i dont try for a second to say my beliefs are absolute and that any group or people are repulsive, unfortunate, wrong etc.

I suggest you come back when you are better informed or dont come back at all.

yeah, but come on, paranormal is hardly scientific is it?

i saw derek accora on tv last night, so i reckon im an expert at this stage.

derek accora wrote:

eh eh eh eh

all right then, i rrreckon this sarah-la died of a ven-e-real disease, and she was a prossie down the dochks like.

i rrreckon her spiriht jst pissed coz like, she didnt get paid fer las job like

/scouser mode

Oryx

Ooh a sucker punch.. that smarts... Seriously, among a lot of regular posters to Paranormal Derek Acorah is regarded as slightly higher on the evolutionary scale than an amoeba.

None of the stuff we discuss in spirituality is scientific really, but the issue is whether someone can have the spirituality forum closed down, or have the right to challenge what goes on there.

Jackie laughlin

I sincerely hope my mindset is coming across clearly. I've tried.

I certainly don't disagree that there are bizarre passages in the the bibles and that they are very similar to some of what the spiritualists hold.

I do differ with anyone who holds that all positions are equal or are justified on the grounds of religion or culture. This leads to tolerating everything from mild eccentricity to mutilation. The open tolerant society is a product of western liberalism. Tolerance lasts as long as that society and it in turn is based on doubt, uncertainty and debate.

As I said, I'm not entirely sure why I find spiritualism so repulsive. I tried to explore my thinking in my last submission. I think the gothic horror they bring to strange beliefs repels me.

Yes, I do have a tendency to lump all these beliefs in together and some are certainly more odd than others. A belief that the position of Mars at the time of one's birth had some effect is harmless enough. A belief that crystals have powers is very hard to take seriously.

I would be concerned on two fronts. Firstly, if a person adopts a large number of these beliefs, there must come a point when they are beyond reason. Secondly, should a sufficient number of people in a society (or even a majority) find these beliefs comfortable, the society will have moved back to a pre-Enlightenment view of the world. Now, that would be problematic. However, I think the interest in New Age and Spiritualism has peaked and is now in decline. There is a marked falling off in the shelf space occupied in my local bookshop and in the adult ed classes in the tech, there were no takers for the course on Angels or the course for healing both of which were over-subscribed a few years ago.

WhiteWashMan

KatieK wrote:

Ooh a sucker punch.. that smarts... Seriously, among a lot of regular posters to Paranormal Derek Acorah is regarded as slightly higher on the evolutionary scale than an amoeba.

None of the stuff we discuss in spirituality is scientific really, but the issue is whether someone can have the spirituality forum closed down, or have the right to challenge what goes on there.

ok, i admit, i was being facetious. but i think its probably the way most people think of the whole 'paranormal stuff' and what brings derek acorah (ok, i dont watch it enough to even get his name right, thats how much i thinks its a load of rubbish ) so low in the grand scale of the paranormal investigator (sic) i have no idea.

as for spirituality, even less than a leg to stand on.

however, id rather the OP tried to get the news put off air, or ask them to report only nice things from now on, becuase im still truamatised by 9/11, and any car crash reportings, suicides, murders, wars, muggings, rapes and paddys day parade coverage tends to feel me with dispair.


but, everyone has the right to their opinion.

but you cant force your opinion on people, or they will tell you to fúck right off.

and proper order too. i believe the phrase is, 'if you dont like it, then dont read it'

and if you dont wnt yer children to read it, look after them better. its up to you to raise your childrenhow you want them. its not up to me or anyone else to mind them. do your own parenting you lazy bum.

now, i think im needed elsewhere.

WhiteWashMan

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I sincerely hope my mindset is coming across clearly. I've tried.

I certainly don't disagree that there are bizarre passages in the the bibles and that they are very similar to some of what the spiritualists hold.

I do differ with anyone who holds that all positions are equal or are justified on the grounds of religion or culture. This leads to tolerating everything from mild eccentricity to mutilation. The open tolerant society is a product of western liberalism. Tolerance lasts as long as that society and it in turn is based on doubt, uncertainty and debate.

As I said, I'm not entirely sure why I find spiritualism so repulsive. I tried to explore my thinking in my last submission. I think the gothic horror they bring to strange beliefs repels me.

Yes, I do have a tendency to lump all these beliefs in together and some are certainly more odd than others. A belief that the position of Mars at the time of one's birth had some effect is harmless enough. A belief that crystals have powers is very hard to take seriously.

I would be concerned on two fronts. Firstly, if a person adopts a large number of these beliefs, there must come a point when they are beyond reason. Secondly, should a sufficient number of people in a society (or even a majority) find these beliefs comfortable, the society will have moved back to a pre-Enlightenment view of the world. Now, that would be problematic. However, I think the interest in New Age and Spiritualism has peaked and is now in decline. There is a marked falling off in the shelf space occupied in my local bookshop and in the adult ed classes in the tech, there were no takers for the course on Angels or the course for healing both of which were over-subscribed a few years ago.

whats your point?

stevenmu

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I do differ with anyone who holds that all positions are equal or are justified on the grounds of religion or culture. This leads to tolerating everything from mild eccentricity to mutilation. The open tolerant society is a product of western liberalism. Tolerance lasts as long as that society and it in turn is based on doubt, uncertainty and debate.

Of course there are of course ideas and positions which we should not be tolerant of, those which harm others. I think you'd be hard pressed to find any of them on the spirituality forum though

Jackie laughlin wrote:

As I said, I'm not entirely sure why I find spiritualism so repulsive. I tried to explore my thinking in my last submission. I think the gothic horror they bring to strange beliefs repels me.

With a few exceptions, there's very little by way of 'gothic horror' on the forum.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I would be concerned on two fronts. Firstly, if a person adopts a large number of these beliefs, there must come a point when they are beyond reason.

Unless of course their beliefs are in fact correct, in which case it is the people who won't accept those beliefs who are beyond reason. Remember, you view that their beliefs are wrong is just a belief itself, with equally little proof to back it up.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Secondly, should a sufficient number of people in a society (or even a majority) find these beliefs comfortable, the society will have moved back to a pre-Enlightenment view of the world. Now, that would be problematic.

I'm unsure what it is about our modern society that you find so enlightened that you think spirituality would destroy. Most new agey type beliefs encourage the discovery of new knowledge, including through science, and let's not forget that many of the prominent scientists who've shaped modern science, and the understanding we have of our world today, had strong religious beliefs.

Jackie laughlin

All beliefs should be constantly tested.

The most compelling argument holds until something more compelling is presented.

The burden of proof rests with with whoever says that something is true.

I did find that they were discussing a world in which evil spirits were active. Indeed the moderator of the thread, as I recall, held this view. At least two contributors warned about the dangers of some kind of bad spirits. I was put in mind of a bad horror movie.

New Age beliefs reach back several centuries to before the Enlightenment (i.e. the philosophical movement which gave rise to the Modern world - with all its problems and progress) and revive ancient beliefs. Some may be worth another look at this stage but they should be approched critically and whoever proposes further research should be required to argue for it.

stevenmu

Jackie laughlin wrote:

All beliefs should be constantly tested.

The most compelling argument holds until something more compelling is presented.

The burden of proof rests with with whoever says that something is true.

If this were possible in any meaningfull way I'd agree. Unfortunatly the most people who don't hold a particular belief can usually say about it is that there is no proof, but absence of proof does not constitute proof of absence.

Jackie laughlin wrote:

I did find that they were discussing a world in which evil spirits were active. Indeed the moderator of the thread, as I recall, held this view. At least two contributors warned about the dangers of some kind of bad spirits. I was put in mind of a bad horror movie.

That was merely some people sharing their beliefs, not everyone partaking in that thread would share those beliefs.

(I'm sorry that we couldn't remind you of a better horror movie, but there is so few it makes it very difficult )

Jackie laughlin wrote:

New Age beliefs reach back several centuries to before the Enlightenment (i.e. the philosophical movement which gave rise to the Modern world - with all its problems and progress) and revive ancient beliefs. Some may be worth another look at this stage but they should be approched critically and whoever proposes further research should be required to argue for it.

I suppose one reason why it's known as 'New Age' is that it's the restoration of some old ideas and the merging of them with modern ones. Just because an idea is old does not mean it is in some way wrong. You mention the problems and progress of the Modern world, but are they really all that different to the problems and progress of the 'pre enlightenment' world ? Many new agers, and I'd include myself in this, would believe that the age of elightenment hasn't arrived yet, and won't untill we turn our backs on all the greed, hatred, suffering, war etc that dominates the modern world. Enlightenment should be synonymous with the ideas of loving, caring, giving, acceptance and pursuit of knowledge, all of which are much more important to new agers in general than whether or not someone believes in angels or tarot cards or whatever.

I don't believe that accepting new age ideas is sending us backwards, I think it will propel us forward, to greater things than we could possibly accomplish without them.

The Corinthian

Jackie laughlin wrote:

New Age beliefs reach back several centuries to before the Enlightenment (i.e. the philosophical movement which gave rise to the Modern world - with all its problems and progress) and revive ancient beliefs.

Rubbish. The vast majority of New Age beliefs are at best around since the Victorian era.

stevenmu

The Corinthian wrote:

Rubbish. The vast majority of New Age beliefs are at best around since the Victorian era.

No, most of them around a lot longer than that. In fact the Victorian era would be when they started becoming popular again. You might be confusing some of the modern systems, methods and tools with the beliefs which underly them. For example, things like tarot cards or ouija boards may only be around since the Victorian era, but they're just modern workings of much older beliefs.

Gordon

If it's so old, why do we call it New Age?

The Corinthian

stevenmu wrote:

No, most of them around a lot longer than that. In fact the Victorian era would be when they started becoming popular again.

The Victorian era was when a number of ‘ancient’ religions came back in vogue, however without adequate information on the practice of those religions, the Victorians essentially ‘reinvented’ them - some, such as modern Druidism, have very little in common with the ancient beliefs that they are named after.

You might be confusing some of the modern systems, methods and tools with the beliefs which underly them.

No, many of the religions that appeared in the twentieth century (e.g. Wicca, Fellowship of Isis, etc) equally claim ancient origins.

For example, things like tarot cards or ouija boards may only be around since the Victorian era, but they're just modern workings of much older beliefs.

Care to back that up?

stevenmu

New Age is really just a blanket term for a lot of old ideas becoming popular again (in this modern 'New Age'). Also, there are sometimes new twists introduced, which does add an element of newness, but they're really just new ways of looking at the old ideas.

The Corinthian

On a related note, the only thing that comes close to a New Age belief from the Enlightenment was Deism, which the French revolution briefly and unsuccessfully tried to turn into a religion.

However the explosion in ‘New Age’ religions is far more recent and certainly cannot be said to be a direct result of the Enlightenment.

The Corinthian

stevenmu wrote:

New Age is really just a blanket term for a lot of old ideas becoming popular again (in this modern 'New Age'). Also, there are sometimes new twists introduced, which does add an element of newness, but they're really just new ways of looking at the old ideas.

Whatever their supposed origins, they’re modern religions. There’s typically very little continuity with the ancient faiths they property to follow from.

stevenmu

The Corinthian wrote:

Care to back that up?

I'm not sure exactly what type of reference/evidence would suffice, maybe just an explanation will do ?

Tarot Cards are basically a form of divination (in particular sortilege or cleromancy). They're essentially no different from the casting of runes, reading tea leaves or many other systems which all work on the same principle, tarot cards are simply a modern system.

Similarly Ouija Boards are just a modern tool for channeling. This page claims that the principle of the ouija board dates back to Pythagoras in 540BC (I'm not too sure about that one myself), but the concept that a spirit can write messages through a person dates back at least as far as the bible which is the best known example (ok so the bibles history is a little mixed but it's easily pre-victorian), and quiet possibly way way further back.

edit: some relevant wikipedia links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleromancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channeling_(mediumistic)

edit2:

The Corinthian wrote:

Whatever their supposed origins, they’re modern religions. There’s typically very little continuity with the ancient faiths they property to follow from.

I wouldn't even say there's much continuity within New Age today. I wouldn't even class it as a belief system, let alone a religion. There is no core shared set of beliefs, altough someone who does believe in one 'New Age' belief will tend to be quite open to others.

(I don't think any claims of the age of any beliefs are meant to somehow imply legitimacy, and I hope I wasn't conveying that impression.)

stormkeeper

Hmm... if all beliefs should be constantly tested, does that mean that Christianity and the other religions/faiths should be tested too?

The Corinthian

stevenmu wrote:

Tarot Cards are basically a form of divination (in particular sortilege or cleromancy). They're essentially no different from the casting of runes, reading tea leaves or many other systems which all work on the same principle, tarot cards are simply a modern system.

Similarly Ouija Boards are just a modern tool for channeling. This page claims that the principle of the ouija board dates back to Pythagoras in 540BC (I'm not too sure about that one myself), but the concept that a spirit can write messages through a person dates back at least as far as the bible which is the best known example (ok so the bibles history is a little mixed but it's easily pre-victorian), and quiet possibly way way further back.

That’s far too dodgy a connection TBH. It’s like arguing that Shinto is an old religion, Islam is a more modern one, ergo Islam is a reworking of Shinto. The reality is that other than being a form of divination, it’s not a reworking of anything else.

I wouldn't even say there's much continuity within New Age today. I wouldn't even class it as a belief system, let alone a religion. There is no core shared set of beliefs, altough someone who does believe in one 'New Age' belief will tend to be quite open to others.

No one has suggested that here, why are you?

stevenmu

The Corinthian wrote:

That’s far too dodgy a connection TBH. It’s like arguing that Shinto is an old religion, Islam is a more modern one, ergo Islam is a reworking of Shinto. The reality is that other than being a form of divination, it’s not a reworking of anything else.

That's a somewhat misleading analogy. Shinto and Islam are two completely seperate things, whereas reading Tarot Cards is a form of Divination. It doesn't matter if you read Tarot Cards, Tea Leaves, Runes, Sand, Bones or anything else, it's still the same belief and the same fundamental practice. Tarot Cards are merely one particular tool for doing the same job.

The Corinthian wrote:

No one has suggested that here, why are you?

I thought that's what you were suggesting in post 141, I must have been mistaken

amp

It's the age... of aquarius. EVERYBODY! Age of Aquarius!!

Semu

amp wrote:

It's the age... of aquarius. EVERYBODY! Age of Aquarius!!

For Real people!

The Corinthian

stevenmu wrote:

That's a somewhat misleading analogy. Shinto and Islam are two completely seperate things, whereas reading Tarot Cards is a form of Divination. It doesn't matter if you read Tarot Cards, Tea Leaves, Runes, Sand, Bones or anything else, it's still the same belief and the same fundamental practice. Tarot Cards are merely one particular tool for doing the same job.

The analogy is perfectly valid. Shinto and Islam are both religions and share numerous similarities, but it does not mean that one is a reworking of the other. The same applies to divination.

I thought that's what you were suggesting in post 141, I must have been mistaken

You are mistaken.

coffee_cake

Kennett wrote:

Hmm... if all beliefs should be constantly tested, does that mean that Christianity and the other religions/faiths should be tested too?

Indeed.

Terry

Kennett wrote:

Hmm... if all beliefs should be constantly tested, does that mean that Christianity and the other religions/faiths should be tested too?

no, because it's not "weird" or "scary".

meh. it's all a bunch of tree hugging hippy crap.

CuLT

julep wrote:

no, because it's not "weird" or "scary".

Two words, Christian Brothers.