Thursday, 18 November 2010

Burning Questions

I've long since learned that ignoring what is because of what might potentially be is a fool's game; so why do it, in any arena?

The worst, the nastiest, the most deeply damaged and damaging people I've known, and the ones who have wreaked the most havoc in my life, have been people I've met through the auspices of neo-paganism; so why meet or seek the companionship of such people?*

Is that another Bones lesson I'm supposed to be getting: the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting a different result? Granted, Bones was not the first place I ever heard that statement, but it seems a suspiciously well-timed reiteration of it. But then, as Mulder once said, "if coincidences are merely coincidental, then why do they seem so contrived?"

(*This in no way refers to my Kemetic or FOI associations, which have been almost universally pleasant and positive.)


  1. I really think that it's just a coincidence that worst people you've met were people who came into your life as a result of neo-pagan associations. People involved in mainstream religions are just as screwed up as people claiming/ever claiming a neo-pagan faith. If you hadn't been dealing with those crazies, there would have been others.

    Not that you should do the same thing over and over again, but I doubt that what you've done was really such a bad idea.

  2. 'Warning bells'should chime when a person/group gives themselves the title of 'neo-pagan'! Surely one is either simply 'pagan' - or not? (I've never heard such terms as 'neo-Muslim/Hindu/Hebrew'etc (although I think some Christians bestow a similar 'title'on themselves)The main term is a bit of a misnomer anyway!'Antinomious'is dead right tho'- 'crazies' come in all manner of shapes and sizes, and the trick is to sus 'em out and back off/out before they do any real damage! Splendid blogsite - lots of 'kindred interests'/thoughts etc.