Sorry to hear that it got turned down .... an original ritual being affirmed in that manner would certainly be reason for celebration. Keep plugging & best wishes fior future success with that ...
===============
Thanks, it would have been nice but it is no big whoop. Well actually it is :) but that was with a friend of mine, my trad is going to apply to do one for 2013, that ritual would be a much bigger deal were it accepted... we shall see.
*
Same-ol' ... not much changes in my world. Performing chaplain duties now at a local hospital in addition to the collegiate advisory council and various ministry commitments ... have cut down drastically on travel and the number of speaking engagements/conferences I accept. Wifey wanted me to retire 5 years ago ... still feel young enough to keep reasonably active, so why not ?
=============
As long as you are called and you are healthy, why not? I am not doing hospice at the moment, I have a second job now that eats up myy extra time, but that is okay because I love it and it never feels like work. And hey but you sound like a rockstar; all the speaking engagements you can handle. What are some of the topics? (if I may ask)
*
Haven't seen my 2 kids in over a year ... might have to pay a visit to the Windy City soon.
=========
Brrrr!!!!!

They are not addressed in detail in the scripture, so they really don't matter.

 

      Nothing is addressed in detail in the scripture so nothing matters then. I think you have never questioned the Bible. Had you done so, you would be tolerant, understanding, humble, and wise. While I am not a Jew, I have listened to Rabbi reading and discussing the Torah. There are more questions than answers. In fact, they seldom answer any question at all. They make pronouncements as safe place holders in the same manner as physics and pronouncements about dark matter and energy. When you don't know; a guess in a safe direction servers to open the mind. Your unquestionin, would close the mind at every opportunity.

you will wonder in hell forever

 

      You really assume a lot, don't you? Since you are now condemning people we do have Blasphemy raising its ugly head once more in your responses.

      It doesn't take the Pharisee long to reveal itself in bakerman66 responses.

And hey but you sound like a rockstar; all the speaking engagements you can handle. What are some of the topics? (if I may ask)

 

hahahaha ... a rockstar ... you're too funny Fiona.         No - not a star at all, rock or otherwise.        But since you asked, unless something specific is requested, the topic depends on the venue in many cases.      If it is a church or congregation, then the topic is doctrine specific.      If it is a conference, college, or civil gathering - then the topic is usually about Bible translation, Biblical archeology, or Semitic history.        Have cut down to one engagement every 5-6 weeks or so now

Referring you to the last post (#28, provided it does not get deleted for the usual attacks)  ...  I'll pass it on to you for answering if you feel so inclined  ...  as you are aware, the originator of the post no longer deserves any of my time or attention.     :-)

Hardly think my comments qualify as an anything approaching an attack, notably an ad hominem one, particularly an unjustified one:

 

Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue, as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject's words.

Given your belief in the literal “performance of miracles by Jesus of Nazareth” and in “His death and resurrection” I am surprised and more than a little curious about your characterization of Fiona. Seems to me that you two have very antithetical conceptions of God, so much so that “deluded” or “devil-worshipper” would seem to have been more accurate from your perspective, particularly as that would seem to be consistent with the standard run-of-the-mill Christian fundamentalist and literalist.
==================
I am responding to Phil's request and responding to this on his behalf. At least answering how I see it :) Phil may disagree with what I say but ya know that is the risk you take when you hand off your communication to a third party. But I get the feeling that Phil and I share some of the same wavelength on this. ANYhoo... the reason Phil can characterize me that way (what was it... a truly "spiritual" person?) is because Phil sees me as a true *seeker* in search of the Mysteries, rather than a seeker in search of the *true* mysteries. Do you see the difference? People who study and immerse at a higher level learn this. Phil is my dream Christian, he's educated and devoted to the *personal* journey. The fact that you would refer to Phil as a "run of the mill" Christian, let alone a fundie or literalist, just tells me you don't hear what people say to you, too busy formulating your "run of the mill" responses to listen, I'd venture. You, like so many seekers or skeptics, are tripped up on what to believe *now* and its accompanying *end* result, rather than on the lifelong journey and its limitless potential for personal growth.... which is waaay more exciting and rewarding, and which transcends ALL religions and labels like "devil worshipper."

… because Phil sees me as a true *seeker* in search of the Mysteries, rather than a seeker in search of the *true* mysteries. Do you see the difference? People who study and immerse at a higher level learn this. [Post #31]

 

I see a difference in emphasis but one that appears falsely profound, a false dichotomy as if to suggest that a “true *seeker*” isn’t also in “search of the *true* mysteries”. Seems rather silly to me; why would a “true *seeker*” not want to find that which he or she is seeking, to find that which is true?

 

Phil is my dream Christian, he's educated and devoted to the *personal* journey.

 

I’m happy for you, although I would say that is rather inconsistent at best if not actually obtuse on your part. Even in this thread, and in many other ones, you’ve very pointedly questioned the basis for Christianity – God said the bible was "truth?" When and where did your god say the bible is true? – yet Phil clearly has indicated that he believes in the literal “performance of miracles by Jesus of Nazareth” and in “His death and resurrection” apparently only because the Bible is supposedly the “Word of God” as the veracity of those events is nowhere else confirmed. Seems to me that his conception of God and your conception of your various gods can’t both be correct – seems to me that you either have to accept his and reject yours or vice versa; can’t really have your cake and eat it too which is what it looks like you’re trying to do. Although, personally, I think that as literal concepts neither one of them holds very much water.

 

You, like so many seekers or skeptics, are tripped up on what to believe *now* and its accompanying *end* result, rather than on the lifelong journey and its limitless potential for personal growth.

 

I seem to recollect you talking of other “seekers” in your “tradition” or related ones and how their opinions and views were “cringe-worthy”. That’s what you get when you don’t have any objective evidence to support one contention or opinion or another – what makes you think that they might not also view your opinions the same way? And that’s apparently why Dr. Susan Blackmore, after some 30 years researching psychic phenomena and not finding a single bit of evidence to justify the various claims has given up and gone into fields with more tangible results and repeatable data.

 

Richard Feynman, the well known quantum physicist, describing the obligations of scientists to a graduating class, said that "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” Personally, I think that the “*end* results” of quantum mechanics and related fields have been far more productive “lifelong journeys” for many people and have provided far more “potentials for personal growth” for far more people than has all of the bafflegab surrounding psychic phenomena and religion in general. At some point if the seeking doesn’t yield some answers with some tangible and repeatable end results it seems the question should be whether or not one is barking up the wrong tree, whether one is being preyed upon by “night-walkers, magicians, priests of Bacchus, priestesses of the wine-vat, mystery-mongers.”

When and where did your god say the Bible is true?....................John 14:6,7

So you know the book is true because the book says it is true?  That is called circular logic.

I see a difference in emphasis but one that appears falsely profound, a false dichotomy as if to suggest that a “true *seeker*” isn’t also in “search of the *true* mysteries”. Seems rather silly to me; why would a “true *seeker*” not want to find that which he or she is seeking, to find that which is true?

======================

A true seeker moves forward with what works.

*

I’m happy for you, although I would say that is rather inconsistent at best if not actually obtuse on your part. Even in this thread, and in many other ones, you’ve very pointedly questioned the basis for Christianity – God said the bible was "truth?" When and where did your god say the bible is true? – yet Phil clearly has indicated that he believes in the literal “performance of miracles by Jesus of Nazareth” and in “His death and resurrection” apparently only because the Bible is supposedly the “Word of God” as the veracity of those events is nowhere else confirmed. Seems to me that his conception of God and your conception of your various gods can’t both be correct – seems to me that you either have to accept his and reject yours or vice versa; can’t really have your cake and eat it too which is what it looks like you’re trying to do. Although, personally, I think that as literal concepts neither one of them holds very much water.

==============

Perhaps we are both correct or perhaps we are both wrong, or only one of us has it right. I don't get tripped up on that because I am doing the work, therefore focusing on my own journey. I have my opinions on Christianity for sure but if I get a sense that a Christian is learning and moving to the same spiritual conclusions (which have nothing to do with religion) then why should I care what their "beliefs" are? Your concerns are those of people who bob the surface, I don't bob, I immerse. So does Phil. Our paths are personal and are not found in books though we may refer to them. If you can't understand this it is not my problem. I will get back to the rest of your post later when I have some time, there is one more thing I would like to address, a very important point.

 

John 14 6-7
========
Here is what that passage says: "⁶ Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. ⁷ If you really know me, you will know^[a] my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
.
Bakerman, thank you for responding but this is not your god or even Jesus talking about the bible, it is Jesus talking about himself and his God. Please answer my question: where and who said that your god said the bible is true? Does Jesus say this somewhere? Or do you agree with my earlier assertion that your god is not a god, but the bible....a book? Because I'm telling you, your offering up this particular passage as your answer leads me to no other conclusion.

A true seeker moves forward with what works. [Post #35]

 

That – “what works” – looks to me very much like a case of an “end result” which you were criticizing me for being focused on, for being “tripped up on” – “sauce for the gander …”, you know. And as for what works, chemistry works, alchemy doesn’t; astronomy works; astrology doesn’t (doesn’t help at all that its practitioners insist on using star-maps of the constellations that are out of date by several thousand years); medicine works, homeopathy doesn’t; philosophy works (more or less); religions (generally), at least the fundamentalist and literalist ones, don’t.

 

Perhaps we are both correct or perhaps we are both wrong, or only one of us has it right. I don't get tripped up on that because I am doing the work, therefore focusing on my own journey.

 

Yes, well, that – your willingness to consider that you or he might be wrong – would appear to be a very large and significant difference between the two of you. I very much doubt that Phil would ever even entertain the possibility that he might be wrong, that he has any doubts whatsoever that Jesus performed miracles and was crucified, died and was resurrected. You would appear to be on a journey and appear still to retain some degree of skepticism; fundamentalist and literalist Christians and Muslims in general, and Phil in particular, on the other hand, seem like they figure that they have arrived and no further effort of discernment and questioning is required.

 

… but if I get a sense that a Christian is learning and moving to the same spiritual conclusions (which have nothing to do with religion) then why should I care what their "beliefs" are?

 

Looks to me like the “beliefs” of a great many Christians, including Phil’s, are “spiritual conclusions” which are the “rock of ages” and are not at all open to any variation, tempering or amelioration based on facts or other perspectives. As that attitude seems to undergird and motivate the plan of various Republican candidates for the Presidency to “nullify the courts and establish a Christian theocracy” – in the words of a Slate article – I would think that all of us – the whole world – should very much “care” what those rather dogmatic beliefs really are.  

 

Your concerns are those of people who bob the surface, I don't bob, I immerse.

 

Yes, I’m one of those “shallow superficial fellows, unable to see into the inwardness of things”. What can I say? We all have our crosses to bear ….

I seem to recollect you talking of other “seekers” in your “tradition” or related ones and how their opinions and views were “cringe-worthy”.
==============
Yes, I did say that, though not in reference to anyone in my trad.
*
That’s what you get when you don’t have any objective evidence to support one contention or opinion or another
==================
No, that's *my* opinion based on what I see within the larger community. I have plenty of evidence to support my opinion.
*
– what makes you think that they might not also view your opinions the same way?
==================
They very well might. There is a pie chart somewhere, that shows a categorical breakdown of the pagan community. 70% of pagans are Attendees... they're in it for the social aspect: friendships, holidays, the freedom, the party and a sense of belonging to something meaningful.... ya know ... pew warmers. 20% are Wannabee Actors in search of a stage (let's put on a show!), another 20% are Wannabee Preachers in search of a flock (listen to me, aren't I important?!) and the remaining 5% are Seekers in search of the Greater Mysteries. And I would venture it is even less than 5%. I would say that most religions are like this (with some variance), with about 5% of adherents actually going deep and doing theurgy. Except for Buddhism, I don't think you can be a half baked Buddhist but I could be wrong. What that 95% think of me is not my concern, just as what I think of them is not theirs. You focus on that 95% as representative for all because that is all you see and hear about, and it *is* almost all, whereas I focus on the 5% as representative, because that is where I live, associate and work spiritually (though I also love to attend, put on and lead ritual). I went from atheist straight to the 5%, I don't view that 95% as having what I need, and i can see why so many people pooh pooh religion based on the 95%.
*
And that’s apparently why Dr. Susan Blackmore, after some 30 years researching psychic phenomena and not finding a single bit of evidence to justify the various claims has given up and gone into fields with more tangible results and repeatable data.
===============
Good for her!

Okay Phil, I did your bidding :) I hope there is a kernel of concurrence there because I have found myself once again sucked into a mind numbing round of justifying my spiritual self and work with someone incapable of getting where I am coming from. It would be far more interesting to talk to *you* about such things, lemme tell ya! OMGs.... did Satan's minion just say that? Ye gods.... what little box can *that* revelation be stuffed into??