NationStates Jolt Archive

I have a quick question for the chrisitans before i have to go to lesson, why is it some chrisitans celebrate the deaths of the pagens who where burned at the stake during the crusades?

http://www.antver.com/photos/ph22/22-50.html

We celebrate Hitlers defeat too, no?

Yer but pagens arnt hitler, infact its said in most documentrys a majurity of the people burned where innicent.

Last i heard all pagens do is worship the planet and life, not gas all the jews.

Anyway i got like 5 minutes till lesson, will check back here when i can.

Yer but pagens arnt hitler, infact its said in most documentrys a majurity of the people burned where innicent.
Bad analogy, I know...

Yer but pagens arnt hitler, infact its said in most documentrys a majurity of the people burned where innicent. I would have thought that everyone who was burned at the stake for witchcraft or Consorting with Ye Powers of Darknesse was innocent, not just the majority.

I have a quick question for the chrisitans before i have to go to lesson, why is it some chrisitans celebrate the deaths of the pagens who where burned at the stake during the crusades?


During the "burning times", as many Wiccans like to call it, the majority of people burned were Christians who weren't the right kind of Christian. There has been no evidence of any Witch burned at the stake. Makes me wonder why Wiccans always have those "never again" stickers and such.

All I see is Christians burning other Christians. I say let them do it.

The British celebrate the killing of a Catholic every year.

Considering that the Office of the Holy Inquisition was founded specifically to hunt Jews, and that they had some rather odd notions of legal impariality, I wouldn't say that, Keru.

I don't have any clever answer on the subject of Christians burning people just because they're pagans. The Christians in question were wrong to do it (but see possible exception below).
My line is similar on witch-burning, if the 'witch' in question was in fact merely an old lady who lived alone, and had a wart and a cat.
If the 'witch' was in fact, not just in supposition, but in FACT a worshipper and follower of Satan, Beelzebub, the Enemy of God, call him what you will, and if in the course of her worship of Satan, she used supernatural powers to kill people's livestock, ruin their crops by causing bad weather, and even bring sickness and death to their families, then a case for the death penalty could be made. Similarly, pagan societies have conducted human sacrifice (I have the Aztecs and various ancient Near East cultures such as the Canaanites as examples), though this probably doesn't apply to the Crusader era.
I myself am opposed to the death penalty, due to the usual unreliability of evidence and the possibility of reform by the guilty party.

The British celebrate the killing of a Catholic every year.
He WAS trying to destroy the government of the time by blowing up the Houses of Parliament with gunpowder!

I would have thought that everyone who was burned at the stake for witchcraft or Consorting with Ye Powers of Darknesse was innocent, not just the majority.
It was mainly 'weird' people who were accussed of witchcraft. Like old women who liked cats. Although they were innocent they provided a good scapegoat if the harvest was poor etc.

I have also seen a theory that it was an effort of Church/Government to restrict the amount of education women could recieve. As many 'witches' were midwives with the herbal knowledge innate in the craft at the time.

However women weren't the only ones accused, the is the nice cae of the witch finder general in Puritan England (for the life of me I cannot remember his name), who was so successful, he was suspect and later burned.

He WAS trying to destroy the government of the time by blowing up the Houses of Parliament with gunpowder!
Well, it seems a bit strange to celebrate his death centuries after the event. It was really a "watch out, Catholics about" thing to scare the population about the papist invasion.

It was mainly 'weird' people who were accussed of witchcraft. Like old women who liked cats. Although they were innocent they provided a good scapegoat if the harvest was poor etc.

I have also seen a theory that it was an effort of Church/Government to restrict the amount of education women could recieve. As many 'witches' were midwives with the herbal knowledge innate in the craft at the time.

However women weren't the only ones accused, the is the nice cae of the witch finder general in Puritan England (for the life of me I cannot remember his name), who was so successful, he was suspect and later burned.
It wasn't mainly weird people. They were accused too, but the majority were people who had a neighbour who didn't like them, and wanted them gone. Or people who had made an enemy of some member of the local town council.

Since the property of anyone who had been executed on the stake defaulted to the Inquisition or, no one put to the Question by the Inquisition was ever found innocent. Strange that.

My line is similar on witch-burning, if the 'witch' in question was in fact merely an old lady who lived alone, and had a wart and a cat.

She turned me into a newt!

She turned me into a newt!
I got better...

Considering that the Office of the Holy Inquisition was founded specifically to hunt Jews, and that they had some rather odd notions of legal impariality, I wouldn't say that, Keru.
The one in Spain anyway. Also, it was also there to make sure that converted Jews and Muslims hadn't lapsed into their own religions, or only publically converted and privately help their old customs.

It also enforced Church laws and a few other things.

However, the fame penchant for torture and burning everyone (along with the "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition" aspect) was largely made up by protestant propagandists of the day. For more information try this book. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1842122053/qid=1097156430/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-8882879-5478031)

And what else do we burn, besides witches?

Well, it seems a bit strange to celebrate his death centuries after the event. It was really a "watch out, Catholics about" thing to scare the population about the papist invasion.
It was still the only time that someone was really close to wiping out all the Members of Parliament all at once. Of course, the Civil War Roundheads took the opposite approach by beheading Charles I, but that was slightly out of character for the English, we're not really revolutionary at heart!
But yes, I'll accept the connected theme of anti-Catholic propaganda.

It wasn't mainly weird people. They were accused too, but the majority were people who had a neighbour who didn't like them, and wanted them gone. Or people who had made an enemy of some member of the local town council.

Since the property of anyone who had been executed on the stake defaulted to the Inquisition or, no one put to the Question by the Inquisition was ever found innocent. Strange that.
Do you have proof for this?

I have proof that criminals intentionally blasphemed in the Spanish State Prisons so they could be transfered to the Inquisitional prisons where they would be treated better.

The Inquisition also had lay members who were trained lawyers and judges, only a minority were tortured, and only a very small minority of them were tortured more than once. The amount of auto de fe each year no way was equal for the amount of prisoners the inquisition had.

Wood!! We burn wood!!

And what else do we burn, besides witches?
More Witches!!

And what else do we burn, besides witches?

MORE WITCHES!!!

The one in Spain anyway. Also, it was also there to make sure that converted Jews and Muslims hadn't lapsed into their own religions, or only publically converted and privately help their old customs.

It also enforced Church laws and a few other things.

However, the fame penchant for torture and burning everyone (along with the "No one expects the Spanish Inquisition" aspect) was largely made up by protestant propagandists of the day. For more information try this book. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1842122053/qid=1097156430/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-8882879-5478031) Both Inquisitions had the same rules regarding the property of the convicted. And yes, their charter was more than just hunting Jews of course. There were plenty of marranos and moriscoes around, and they just loved buring a Lutheran or Calvinist or Arminian too.

But they did torture people to get them to confess. Not as much as some people think, and I doubt most of them enjoyed it (some probably did of course, but not most), but torture people during the Question they did.

It was still the only time that someone was really close to wiping out all the Members of Parliament all at once. Of course, the Civil War Roundheads took the opposite approach by beheading Charles I, but that was slightly out of character for the English, we're not really revolutionary at heart!
But yes, I'll accept the connected theme of anti-Catholic propaganda.
Well, we're quite good at going half way then deciding not to.

Maybe the rebelious element emigrated?

I love that scene :D

"We build a bridge out of her"

Both Inquisitions had the same rules regarding the property of the convicted. And yes, their charter was more than just hunting Jews of course. There were plenty of marranos and moriscoes around, and they just loved buring a Lutheran or Calvinist or Arminian too.

There were not too many of these in Spain by the way (There was the occasional pocket), I think you are focusing too much in them.

But they did torture people to get them to confess. Not as much as some people think, and I doubt most of them enjoyed it (some probably did of course, but not most), but torture people during the Question they did.
Not that many though, the majority of people weren't tortured.

The Inquisition was a step forward the system in countries like England, where one accusation was needed. Witnesses and evidence were needed too. Also the Inquisition devoted little of its time to witchcraft, and most of it to protecting the faith. So really debating the Inquisition is a bit off track.

Do you have proof for this?

I have proof that criminals intentionally blasphemed in the Spanish State Prisons so they could be transfered to the Inquisitional prisons where they would be treated better.

The Inquisition also had lay members who were trained lawyers and judges, only a minority were tortured, and only a very small minority of them were tortured more than once. The amount of auto de fe each year no way was equal for the amount of prisoners the inquisition had. You might want to read the book Cautio Criminalis by the Jesuit Friedrich von Spee. It contains great insights into the treatment of witches in the time it was written (1631 or 1632, can't remember). Both the Office of the Holy Inquisition and the Spanish inquisition were very active during this time.

And you might want to look at the case of Veronica Junius, the daughter of the major of Bamberg. An interesting read indeed.

Guys, the original question was, why do they celebrate it?

Whether or not the burnings of these particular witches was justified at the time, it is clear that this sect of Christians believe it was, so from their perspective, what you have is the comemoration of the execution of some genuine witches. (And obviously they believe these witches deserved death.)

In the Bible (Old Testament, Exodus) there is a directive from God stating that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Now, this directive was given before Christ arrived to introduce the more advanced concepts of forgiveness, mercy and love. If you want to sidetrack we can get into a lengthy discussion of Old Testament vs. New Testament doctrine, or why that directive was given in the first place. Or you can set up a thread or send me a telegram. For now, suffice it to say that true Christianity is not about witch burning.

As for the time of the Crusades, consider that it was a time where the entire European continent was under a sort of Theocracy, and that it held power by being somewhat ruthless and intolerant, and that witchcraft wasn't the only crime for which someone could be burned. Since most of the histories written at the time were written by those who were educated (namely, the clerics) they are the ones who would record these events and thus they are recorded and rationalized as witch burnings.

Which brings us back to the modern day. I don't know exactly why this particular sect of Christians chooses to commemorate this event. Maybe witchcraft has been a recent issue in that region. Maybe it's nothing more than a festival with little real meaning to them, like Halloween or Columbus Day. Maybe they have a rabid hatred for witches and want to put the world on notice.

The bottom line is that this isn't representative of Christianity generally, and if you happen to be a Wiccan then please understand that the vast majority of us do not celebrate the burning of anybody.

There were not too many of these in Spain by the way (There was the occasional pocket), I think you are focusing too much in them. The Spanish Inquisition operated outside of Spain too. In the so-called Holy Roman Empire they could be found in a lot of the towns and cities, mainly in the south where Catholics dominated. But most of the marranos were "Portugees sailors" in Holland, England and France.

Not that many though, the majority of people weren't tortured.

The Inquisition was a step forward the system in countries like England, where one accusation was needed. Witnesses and evidence were needed too. Also the Inquisition devoted little of its time to witchcraft, and most of it to protecting the faith. So really debating the Inquisition is a bit off track. Well... true. But we all know how accurate eyewitnesses are in real crimes today, and I can't say much for calling a sick cow and hearsay evidence.

The British celebrate the killing of a Catholic every year.

Not all of the British.

Some of us celebrate the bold attempt of freedom fighters to destroy their oppressors. :)

Actually I've never met anyone who is conscious of the religious aspect of bonfire night when they are celebrating. Even though it is taught in schools, most people aren't conscious even of the reasons why Guy Fawkes was there. And we tend to call it bonfire night rather than Guy Fawkes' night.

All in all people are just having fun.

I suspect that on witch burning night, the same applies. I'm not thinking the people stood around the witch effigy are all rubbing their hands and wishing back to the good old days when they burnt witches.

Of course I've never been there so i don't know.

Celebrate the deaths of burned pagans? I certainly don't, and I don't know any Christians who do in this day and age. I have heard of "witch burning night" (Valpurgisnacht) as a medieval German legend.
BTW the burning of witches was mainly a Northern European activity, and from the 1500's onward was much more the norm in Protestant than in Catholic areas. Also, even in Inquisition days the accused in Catholic ecclesiastical courts were afforded far more protections than in the secular courts of most nations. Not to say that there were not injustices, such as the condemnation of Joan of Arc who was later canonized, but the Inquisition was really far less than is usually made of it.

First of all Morranos were Jews, simply ones that outwardly practiced Christianity, or whose anscestors did. Secondly, as I understand it the Inquisition was initially instituted to counter a trend among Morranos, allegedly spurred on by openly jewish friends, to return to their anscestors' religion. Thirdly, while my first forebare in this land was one of the first three here ever convicted of Witchcraft and run out of Boston Colony in tar and feathers, one of his companions returned and was indeed burned. they were actually all Quakers, but were convicted as Witches. What proof is their that none of those who were ever burned as Witches were indeed Pagans?

Now looking at this thread, we see pictures of "june 23 witch burning day", but we are given no context as to what this means, where this is, or who these people are. But there is a clue in the date: 23 june is a zodiacal cusp and also roughly (as close as the Gregorian calander gets to a set date) falls on the summer solstice. This is one of Wicca's eight major holidays, the start of summer, and the next is Lammas, or Midsummer's Night. In pagan times Lammas was celebrated by the execution of a condemned man (criminal, POW, lunatic) by burning. Sometimes by hanging from a tree, running through with a spear, and setting aflame (familiar?). It is also the root of the Burning Man festival.

Although we still have no data on who these people are, it seems clear to me that what is pictured is a synchrotization (mixing of religious elements) of Paganism and Christianity. These people are reenacting the ancient pagan sacrifices of summertime, but (assuming they are Christians) with elements of paganized Christianity in its symbolism.

Whether or not the burnings of these particular witches was justified at the time, it is clear that this sect of Christians believe it was, so from their perspective, what you have is the comemoration of the execution of some genuine witches. (And obviously they believe these witches deserved death.)

...

Which brings us back to the modern day. I don't know exactly why this particular sect of Christians chooses to commemorate this event. Maybe witchcraft has been a recent issue in that region. Maybe it's nothing more than a festival with little real meaning to them, like Halloween or Columbus Day.

So the 2nd paragraph quoted above means that the 1st is bollocks, ie it is *not* in fact clear that these people are commemorating execution in a way that suggests that they believe the witches deserve to die any more than Brits in bonfire night believe anything at all about Guy Fawkes.

Who are you who knows so much about witches and water fowl?

The British celebrate the killing of a Catholic every year.

I always thought it was more a celebration of our government and king not being blown up. Oh well, being British, what would I know?

First of all Morranos were Jews, simply ones that outwardly practiced Christianity, or whose anscestors did. No, really? Considering the best English translation for marranos is "secret Jews", thats a big surprise. Same goes for moriscoes/muslims.

So the 2nd paragraph quoted above means that the 1st is bollocks, ie it is *not* in fact clear that these people are commemorating execution in a way that suggests that they believe the witches deserve to die any more than Brits in bonfire night believe anything at all about Guy Fawkes.

*sigh*

No, it means that there are other possible explanations. I offer that because obviously it started with people who believed it was legitimate, but as for the rest, who knows? Do you really want to squabble over syntax? Have I offended you somehow?

No, really? Considering the best English translation for marranos is "secret Jews", thats a big surprise. Same goes for moriscoes/muslims.

:confused:

Why is it a surprise? It makes perfect sense that it means that. Or is that supposed to be sarcasm?

:confused:

If you are refering to the old days of Salem; Those people "burned at the stake" were not pagan. They were accussed of it. Those people were Christians.

If you are refering to the old days of Salem; Those people "burned at the stake" were not pagan. They were accussed of it. Those people were Christians.

Thank you. We were unaware of that, having spent all of our lives under rather large stones.

I have a quick question for the chrisitans before i have to go to lesson, why is it some chrisitans celebrate the deaths of the pagens who where burned at the stake during the crusades?

http://www.antver.com/photos/ph22/22-50.html

Just out of curiosity... Where are these people, geographically? How can you tell they're Christians? They don't look very happy. How do you know they're celebrating rather than mourning? (Sorry if I'm just an ignorant United States American, but I don't know of any holiday on June 23.)

... In the Bible (Old Testament, Exodus) there is a directive from God stating that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". ...
Which I've heard was actually mistranslated from "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." (Necromancy is also specifically forbidden elsewhere, I believe, as well as other methods of performing other supernatural feats through means other than direct divine intervention by God himself, but I'm not sure what punishments, if any, are listed for such activities.)

I love that scene :D

"We build a bridge out of her"
But can you not also build a bridge out of stone?

I keep forgetting the different language cultures on the net. One person's idiom is anothers' incomprehensibility.

But can you not also build a bridge out of stone?

...oh yeah... that's right...

I keep forgetting the different language cultures on the net. One person's idiom is anothers' incomprehensibility.

Elaborate?

I have a quick question for the chrisitans before i have to go to lesson, why is it some chrisitans celebrate the deaths of the pagens who where burned at the stake during the crusades?Because some christians are poopy-heads. A trite answer perhaps, but probably as accurate as you're going to get around here.

Well in the language culture I grew up in, if someone said "Really, what a surprise!" or "Oh wow, I never knew that" or "No really? I had no idea!" then everyone around them knew what they actually meant. Then in the previous forum I used to go to, which I left because I grew bored with the idiocy of WarFalcon and Cuddley_Battleship, and was, admittedly largely UK-based, if someone had posted "No really? I never knew that, its a big surprise" then all the readers would know that the actual meaning of the words lay one layer beneath the actual literal meaning of the individual words taken together.

I think the so-called "dry British humour" must be an acquired taste.

Which I've heard was actually mistranslated from "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." (Necromancy is also specifically forbidden elsewhere, I believe, as well as other methods of performing other supernatural feats through means other than direct divine intervention by God himself, but I'm not sure what punishments, if any, are listed for such activities.)

My Bible (New American Standard) has "You shall not allow a sorceress to live" (Exodus 22:18), and passages like Deuteronomy 18:9-14 expand this concept to include child sacrifice, divination, witchcraft, omen interpretation, spellcasting, being a medium or a spiritist, or calling up the dead. It says they're all detestable to the LORD, but it doesn't give (in that passage) a specific punishment to be administered, it just says that this sort of stuff is unacceptable.

Why stop at pagans? Let's burn everyone with a religious belief.

I saw a sentence from a religion I am considering adopting...

"He who calls another heretic is himself a devil"


Almost as good as the muslim 4-eyewitnesses-required-for-adultery-charges-to-be-made rule.

My Bible (New American Standard) has "You shall not allow a sorceress to live" (Exodus 22:18), and passages like Deuteronomy 18:9-14 expand this concept to include child sacrifice, divination, witchcraft, omen interpretation, spellcasting, being a medium or a spiritist, or calling up the dead. It says they're all detestable to the LORD, but it doesn't give (in that passage) a specific punishment to be administered, it just says that this sort of stuff is unacceptable.

The previous poster is right, however; going back to the Aramaic the word is poisoner. Witch and other such variations came in with the King James translation, which is an amazing political document but theologically it's deeply suspect. James himself had a peculiar fascination with the occult, and he was being lobbied heavily by an active male-dominated guild of physicians who were just coming to a position of real social and political influence and sought to consolidate their power by orchestrating the oppression of herbalists and midwives.

The British celebrate the killing of a Catholic every year.

History is but a pack of tricks we play on the dead

I was under the impression that "The British" Celebrate the killing of a traitor every year- and the traitor happened to be a catholic. I for one have never attended a bonfire night where religon was even mentioned . Perhaps they do things differently in Liverpool?
It always manages to amuse me when people try and rewrite history to fit in with their own ideals. I suppose if Fawkes had been Jewish you would be pushing the idea that Bonfire Night was anti-semitic?
Well, it seems a bit strange to celebrate his death centuries after the event. It was really a "watch out, Catholics about" thing to scare the population about the papist invasion.
I dont think the bulk of people who attend bonfire night celebrations do so to mark the death of Guy Fawkes- or to celebrate parliament not getting blown to smithereens- at least round my way folks go to see the Fireworks.
Also you think its odd that people "celebrate" his death centuries after the event. Do you also find it odd that many of these same people celebrate Christmas and Easter? Are our American friends odd because they celebrate their independence day?

The previous poster is right, however; going back to the Aramaic the word is poisoner. Witch and other such variations came in with the King James translation, which is an amazing political document but theologically it's deeply suspect. James himself had a peculiar fascination with the occult, and he was being lobbied heavily by an active male-dominated guild of physicians who were just coming to a position of real social and political influence and sought to consolidate their power by orchestrating the oppression of herbalists and midwives.
I thought the Tenakh (OT for Christians) was written in Hebrew, not Aramaic.

I'm not particularly defending the King James Version, I just wanted to provide some text in answer to Ysjerond. Do you have a translation for the Deut. 18:9-14 passage?

Which I've heard was actually mistranslated from "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." (Necromancy is also specifically forbidden elsewhere, I believe, as well as other methods of performing other supernatural feats through means other than direct divine intervention by God himself, but I'm not sure what punishments, if any, are listed for such activities.)


Point taken, although I would say that any error in the translation would likely have occurred before the time of the Crusades, and thus would account for the actions of the witch burners.

Generally speaking, most infractions that constituted blasphemy or anything witchcraft related was punishable by death under Mosaic Law. I believe Divination was also mentioned by name.

In the Bible (Old Testament, Exodus) there is a directive from God stating that "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". Now, this directive was given before Christ arrived to introduce the more advanced concepts of forgiveness, mercy and love. If you want to sidetrack we can get into a lengthy discussion of Old Testament vs. New Testament doctrine, or why that directive was given in the first place. Or you can set up a thread or send me a telegram. For now, suffice it to say that true Christianity is not about witch burning.

Wow... I'm really glad I'm a Druid instead of a Witch. Sounds like that whole "suffer a witch to live" thing is a little excessive on the part of Christianity. I thought they were supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Burning people doesn't really reflect that perspective. I wonder how this particular branch of Christians began celebrating the burning (particularly considering, as was stated before, that most of the witches burned during the Trials were Christian land-owners, not pagans).

Maybe they have a rabid hatred for witches and want to put the world on notice.

The bottom line is that this isn't representative of Christianity generally, and if you happen to be a Wiccan then please understand that the vast majority of us do not celebrate the burning of anybody.

Thanks for that. Though I'm not a witch, I do happen to be pagan. I know that not all Christians stand in the town square, point at people, and scream that they're going to hell. It does bring up an interesting point, and I'm thrilled to have a non-burn-the-witch Christian to ask about this:

I have been teaching High School English for several years now. I do not wear symbols of any belief to work, ever. I refuse to discuss my beliefs with students, but once, several years ago, a student somehow found out that I wasn't Christian (I'm guessing she found out that my band played at a pagan function in town somehow from another student in the class...). This young woman's parents then tried very hard to get me fired and remove their daughter from my class. Thankfully, my administrators were supportive, but it caused school-wide tension for awhile. I considered transfering to a different district.

My question is, what do we do about the fire-and-brimstone Christians? They're a minority, yes, but they're very vocal. I know it's got to be tough for real Christians to feel lumped in with these intolerant bigots much the same way most pagans are lumped in with devil worshipers (which is a huge misnomer as most pagans don't subscribe to the belief of devils or demons at all). If you can shed any light, I'd love a different perspective.

. . .

My question is, what do we do about the fire-and-brimstone Christians?

. . .



There are two kinds of people in this world: those that think we would be better off without certain people, and those who do not. If you are like me, you long deep in your heart of hearts for the day when we as a united human race will finally learn...






...to identify those of the first group so that we may finally get on with the work of isolating them in preparation for a final solution.

About "celebrating the burning of a catholic". Firstly, I'd like to point out that no-one really cares about the point of the celebration any more, and a lot don't even call it "Guy Fawke's Day" any more, we just say "Bonfire Night" or "Fireworks Night", because we have bonfires and fireworks. I can't recall anyone I know burning a human figure on their bonfires either.

My Bible (New American Standard) has "You shall not allow a sorceress to live" (Exodus 22:18), and passages like Deuteronomy 18:9-14 expand this concept to include child sacrifice, divination, witchcraft, omen interpretation, spellcasting, being a medium or a spiritist, or calling up the dead. It says they're all detestable to the LORD, but it doesn't give (in that passage) a specific punishment to be administered, it just says that this sort of stuff is unacceptable.

Uh oh... maybe I am in it up to my eyeballs. Divination and omen interpretation are common study in the Ovate level of Druidry. Looks to me, though, like the "specific punishment" is death as, "you shall not allow a sorceress to live." I am also interested in the gender-specifics of this. What about my husband? He's a member of the Osatru faith and commonly casts runes for divinatory purposes... is he exempt because he isn't a sorceress?

I was under the impression that "The British" Celebrate the killing of a traitor every year- and the traitor happened to be a catholic. I for one have never attended a bonfire night where religon was even mentioned . Perhaps they do things differently in Liverpool?
It always manages to amuse me when people try and rewrite history to fit in with their own ideals. I suppose if Fawkes had been Jewish you would be pushing the idea that Bonfire Night was anti-semitic?


Perhaps a little more in-depth background on "Guy Fawkes Day" for the kids at home would put an end to the confusion...?

Perhaps a little more in-depth background on "Guy Fawkes Day" for the kids at home would put an end to the confusion...?

Does this help?

About "celebrating the burning of a catholic". Firstly, I'd like to point out that no-one really cares about the point of the celebration any more, and a lot don't even call it "Guy Fawke's Day" any more, we just say "Bonfire Night" or "Fireworks Night", because we have bonfires and fireworks. I can't recall anyone I know burning a human figure on their bonfires either.

Uh oh... maybe I am in it up to my eyeballs. Divination and omen interpretation are common study in the Ovate level of Druidry. Looks to me, though, like the "specific punishment" is death as, "you shall not allow a sorceress to live." I am also interested in the gender-specifics of this. What about my husband? He's a member of the Osatru faith and commonly casts runes for divinatory purposes... is he exempt because he isn't a sorceress?
Not by Old Testament standards, he isn't; 'sorcerer' was in the list as well, I just omitted it for brevity (having already used the term 'sorceress'). As far as I can see, there wasn't any gender distinction in this area of the Mosaic law.
I'm pretty sure the punishment was death, though in some places, there is reference to removing the evil person from the community, which some interpreters suggest could mean banishment instead of death. Sometimes death by stoning is specified (Deut. 22:23-24).

But yeah, if you're into divination and omen interpretation, the God described in the Old Testament is distinctly unimpressed with you; one might go as far as saying it suggests He is righteously ticked off with your behaviour.

The New Testament makes the point that God (the same God as in the O.T.) is also totally forgiving if you repent (i.e. stop doing things your way, and start doing things His way). I won't get into the substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus Christ that makes that forgiveness possible, but God wants you back.

we killed Guy Fawkes because he tried to kill the King which is regicide
:sniper:

Uh oh... maybe I am in it up to my eyeballs. Divination and omen interpretation are common study in the Ovate level of Druidry. Looks to me, though, like the "specific punishment" is death as, "you shall not allow a sorceress to live." I am also interested in the gender-specifics of this. What about my husband? He's a member of the Osatru faith and commonly casts runes for divinatory purposes... is he exempt because he isn't a sorceress?

Do you deal in any way with "familiar" spirits or the spirits of the dead? Do you make pacts with multiple divinities for power? Do you use ritual to impose your will, the will of any kind of spirit other than an Ultimate and uniquely Primal Spirit, or your will through any kind of spirit, upon reality?

For the record, the images were taken in Aarhus, Denmark.

(And thanks for the clarification on the "sorceress" thing as well... I feel much better knowing we're both supposed to be put to death if we don't convert. At least I'm not singled out. :D )

Druthulhu, are you saying I'm out on a loophole because I don't assert my will or deal with spirits? 'Cause I do practice divination, and if that means I'm a sorceress and need to be killed (according to some Christians), I'd really like a contingency plan to avoid the aforementioned fate. :)

Do you deal in any way with "familiar" spirits or the spirits of the dead? Do you make pacts with multiple divinities for power? Do you use ritual to impose your will, the will of any kind of spirit other than an Ultimate and uniquely Primal Spirit, or your will through any kind of spirit, upon reality?

No, I don't deal with "familiar" spirits of the dead or divinities of any sort. I don't use ritual for any other reason than to connect with the earth, and I don't necessarily believe in the anthropomorphization of deified figures intended as gods. To me, they're just literary representations to map out a standard of behavior in a way people can understand. Brigid, for example, is supposed to be the goddess of inspiration and creation. She is a forger and a blacksmith (by some reckonings). I see her as a representation of productivity personified to make the concepts a little more accessible. Regarding asserting my will, that's so far outside the concept of my spirituality, it's a puzzling concept. (If you want to know more, I can elaborate via telegram or something...)

I use divinitory tools (ie. pendulums, oracles, tarot, ogham, etc.) to interpret courses of events. Druids (for the most part) see divination as a way to step outside the self and get a different, more subconscious perspective on reality. Regarding "prediction", it's easy enough to see that specific elements, if left as they are, will lead to certain actions (ie. the breakup of a marriage if querent continues in her irresponsible behavior, failure from college if one cannot be motivated to attend class and finish homework, etc.). Should I die for that? No. Should I be deemed unfit to teach based on those elements despite the fact that I keep my spirituality wholly out of the classroom? No.

I'm not suggesting anyone here thinks I should be put to death or fired from teaching as a result. I'm just wondering what course of action other Christians may suggest in getting beyond the inherent differences in our beliefs.

The vast majority (from what I understand) of the "witch-burnings" were misunderstandings and the Christians of that time were VERY religious. By religious I mean that they did what they thought the Word of God said without any personal revelation. That is what religion is. If there are christians now who celebrate the burning of those people, (many of who were innocent), they ought to be ashamed of themselves. It is not, (It should not be), the character of christians to rejoice in another's death. Those people I dare to even call Christians, as they do not understand the concept of grace, nor do they understand the Character of God. However, IF there was someone who was engaging in witchcraft or the occult to injure or kill someone, AND it was proven, AND they wouldn't change their ways, it would be understandably charged as any other crime of assault or murder. The people in those times, while they did come to America to have religious freedom, had governments that were basically theocracies. And so these people, these "witches", were persecuted to the full extend of the law. It is still not right for many of those people to have died based on false pretenses, and anyone who celebrates these "burnings" should not even consider themselves Christians; as one myself, I sure don't.

Uncommon Wisdom,

I just have one question... you seem like a really cool and reasonable person. Would you take issue with me (and/or my beliefs) if I was teaching your 15 year-old child? If not, what would you suggest I say/do if one of the intolerant Christians tried to get me fired and/or pull their child out of my class because of my beliefs? I've gotten lots of encouragement in this threat, but no real strategies or ideas... anyone?

And, I'm wondering if the point of the thread wasn't really, "why fire-and-brimstone Christianity?" What motivates it? Jesus was a pacifist, I know enough about Christianity to realize that. Why is it that several of his followers are not? Is that not hypocracy? If God is the only one who may judge, what about "Brother Jed" on the lawn at our local university pointing at people and telling them they'll go to hell for wearing a tank top and shorts in the summer? Any insight from the reasonable Christians out there? (I know there are more of you than there are of the others).

[QUOTE=Riven Dell]Wow... I'm really glad I'm a Druid instead of a Witch. Sounds like that whole "suffer a witch to live" thing is a little excessive on the part of Christianity. I thought they were supposed to love the sinner but hate the sin. Burning people doesn't really reflect that perspective. I wonder how this particular branch of Christians began celebrating the burning (particularly considering, as was stated before, that most of the witches burned during the Trials were Christian land-owners, not pagans).



Thanks for that. Though I'm not a witch, I do happen to be pagan. I know that not all Christians stand in the town square, point at people, and scream that they're going to hell. It does bring up an interesting point, and I'm thrilled to have a non-burn-the-witch Christian to ask about this:

I have been teaching High School English for several years now. I do not wear symbols of any belief to work, ever. I refuse to discuss my beliefs with students, but once, several years ago, a student somehow found out that I wasn't Christian (I'm guessing she found out that my band played at a pagan function in town somehow from another student in the class...). This young woman's parents then tried very hard to get me fired and remove their daughter from my class. Thankfully, my administrators were supportive, but it caused school-wide tension for awhile. I considered transfering to a different district.

My question is, what do we do about the fire-and-brimstone Christians? They're a minority, yes, but they're very vocal. I know it's got to be tough for real Christians to feel lumped in with these intolerant bigots much the same way most pagans are lumped in with devil worshipers (which is a huge misnomer as most pagans don't subscribe to the belief of devils or demons at all). If you can shed any light, I'd love a different perspective.[/QUOT

As we all know, we can try and try to talk to these people but the bottom line is that they will make the decision they will make. My job, (as a Christian), is to offer an alternative and show a life that works, and show people the character of God. Although, I wish there was more I could do, there will always be people who don't truly understand what they believe, and so they jump off the handle. Their thought process is usually, (I know some), that they don't want to compromise what what they believe, so, "Anyone else is wrong", and "they deserve to be punished." They do not understand that God gives everyone one a choice. That's what grace is for. They misinterpret that and think "we need to make that choice for them." That is wrong and it may not mean much but, I apoligize for people that act like that and call themselves "Christians." I am glad that your job wasn't taken, as that would be wrong. As long as teachers, (whatever background), do not force their opinions on their students, there is no reason that their job should be taken away for something so ridiculous. Talking about isn't necessarily bad, I don't think though. Not that I agree with everything you do, it's what YOU do. No one should be able to take that. So best wishes with those "People" and for yourself. If you have any questions or anything send me telegram. Ciao, Uncommon Wisdom

I think I did the quote wrong. Sorry!

I think I did the quote wrong. Sorry!

Know how to edit yet? ;)

Know how to edit yet? ;)

I think I erased the tag or something not quite sure. (Look at my number of posts.)

I'm wondering if the point of the thread wasn't really, "why fire-and-brimstone Christianity?" What motivates it? Jesus was a pacifist, I know enough about Christianity to realize that. Why is it that several of his followers are not? Is that not hypocracy? If God is the only one who may judge, what about "Brother Jed" on the lawn at our local university pointing at people and telling them they'll go to hell for wearing a tank top and shorts in the summer? Any insight from the reasonable Christians out there? (I know there are more of you than there are of the others).

Jesus did not advocate violent action by His disciples (although Luke 22:35-38 has been used by some Christians to say He did approve of violence in some contexts), but that is not to say he was wishy-washy. He disagreed with some contemperary interpretations of God's law (both then, and He probably does now as well in many situations), but He knew God's law was real, and just, and good.

The book of Revelation lists lots of things that are totally unacceptable to God (this is in the New Testament, at the end). These include cowardice, unbelief, murder, sorcery and idolatry (Revelation 21:8), and states that the consequence for these deeds is "the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death", i.e. Hell.
I've committed unbelief, so I'd be in a lot of trouble, except that I've said sorry to God (for that, and lots more besides), and now I want to obey Him, and get to know Him better. Anyone can start to do what I have started to do, that is, follow Jesus.

It is not the place of Christians to judge non-Christians (1 Corinthians 5:12-13 suggests this pretty strongly), but the Bible is consistent in saying that there will be a final Judgement, where God is the Judge (as you point out). Jesus claimed that He would be that Judge, in the parable of the sheep and the goats, Matthew 25:31-46 (one of His indirect claims to divinity).

If you feel that I'm judging you by posting this, then maybe I've used words poorly, or maybe you are sensitive to statements which imply that negative things will happen to you. I have tried to base my post specifically on the Bible, because I have no other source of objective truth about God and what He thinks about things.

Jesus did not advocate violent action by His disciples (although Luke 22:35-38 has been used by some Christians to say He did approve of violence in some contexts), but that is not to say he was wishy-washy. He disagreed with some contemperary interpretations of God's law (both then, and He probably does now as well in many situations), but He knew God's law was real, and just, and good.

The book of Revelation lists lots of things that are totally unacceptable to God (this is in the New Testament, at the end). These include cowardice, unbelief, murder, sorcery and idolatry (Revelation 21:8), and states that the consequence for these deeds is "the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death", i.e. Hell.
I've committed unbelief, so I'd be in a lot of trouble, except that I've said sorry to God (for that, and lots more besides), and now I want to obey Him, and get to know Him better. Anyone can start to do what I have started to do, that is, follow Jesus.

It is not the place of Christians to judge non-Christians (1 Corinthians 5:12-13 suggests this pretty strongly), but the Bible is consistent in saying that there will be a final Judgement, where God is the Judge (as you point out). Jesus claimed that He would be that Judge, in the parable of the sheep and the goats, Matthew 25:31-46 (one of His indirect claims to divinity).

If you feel that I'm judging you by posting this, then maybe I've used words poorly, or maybe you are sensitive to statements which imply that negative things will happen to you. I have tried to base my post specifically on the Bible, because I have no other source of objective truth about God and what He thinks about things.

A masterpiece regarding this topic:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363398

Uncommon Wisdom,

I just have one question... you seem like a really cool and reasonable person. Would you take issue with me (and/or my beliefs) if I was teaching your 15 year-old child? If not, what would you suggest I say/do if one of the intolerant Christians tried to get me fired and/or pull their child out of my class because of my beliefs? I've gotten lots of encouragement in this threat, but no real strategies or ideas... anyone?

And, I'm wondering if the point of the thread wasn't really, "why fire-and-brimstone Christianity?" What motivates it? Jesus was a pacifist, I know enough about Christianity to realize that. Why is it that several of his followers are not? Is that not hypocracy? If God is the only one who may judge, what about "Brother Jed" on the lawn at our local university pointing at people and telling them they'll go to hell for wearing a tank top and shorts in the summer? Any insight from the reasonable Christians out there? (I know there are more of you than there are of the others).

As far as strategies go, hmm.... First off, at least you have reasonable staff that aren't as crazy as the parent. Did you ask the student what he/she thinks? In high school, (I just graduated myself, LOL) the student should have the pick of what class they want. The first thing that I would say would definitely be to ask the student if you haven't already. If the parent continues with their non-sense, because the student decides to stay or what-not, then take it to administration. If it continues then take it to the police for harassment I say. Do not let some ignorant FOOL ruin your career. Rest assured that there are some people that are with you as you said. And regardless of your beliefs, and I don't know if it means anything to you but, I WILL be praying for your situation to work out, because that loon is in the wrong.

A masterpeice regarding this topic:

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363398
If you're going to plug your own essay, and describe it as a 'masterpeice', you may be shooting yourself in the foot; it's spelled 'masterpiece'.
Also, you have had quite a lot of refutation of your 'masterpiece'.

But if you were using false arrogance to deprecate yourself, I humbly salute you!

I presume that the "suffer not a witch to live" thing is because of the danger of having daemons pop up all over the place. I presume it's that.

I'm not a burn the witch Christian, but it does have a nice ring to it (lol).

If you're going to plug your own essay, and describe it as a 'masterpeice', you may be shooting yourself in the foot; it's spelled 'masterpiece'.
Also, you have had quite a lot of refutation of your 'masterpiece'.

But if you were using false arrogance to deprecate yourself, I humbly salute you!
Be Nice.

Be Nice.
You're right; I was kinda mean. Sorry, Alansyists.

But I really do like self-deprecating humour! Someone who can make fun of themself gains my respect.

If you feel that I'm judging you by posting this, then maybe I've used words poorly, or maybe you are sensitive to statements which imply that negative things will happen to you. I have tried to base my post specifically on the Bible, because I have no other source of objective truth about God and what He thinks about things.

Not at all... you've simply pointed out where the bible disagrees with my beliefs. I am curious about what is meant by "unbelief". Does it specifically refer to God and/or Jesus, or is it meant as "unbelief" in divinity?

Regarding sorcery... I think that's where definitions get really fuzzy. During the witch trials, most of the people condemned for using sorcery were midwives who used herbalism to assist in town health or birthing. Does the bible consider that sorcery? Also, couldn't my divinitory practices be considered in exactly the same way psychological evaluations are? I have studied psychology in depth. What if the ideas and suggestions I make really come from my intimate knowledge of the psyche and not from my divinitory tools at all (but that the tools help me to look away from my own subjectivity and consider other options by offering alternative images to consider). Am I then a sorceress if it's really coming from my college studies?

I have never murdered, but regarding idolatry... since I do not worship an alternative god, does that not exempt me from the category of idolatry? If you want to look closely at my beliefs, the things I revere are what Christianity would consider "creations of God". I appreciate the natural order of things and the source of all things. If I do not name that source, God, does that not still mean that, according to Christians, the source is God? There's a lot of grey area (partly because some of the members of my druidic order are ministers of Christian faiths as well).

Also, I agree with you that Jesus wasn't wishy washy. According to the characterization of him in the bible, he was a very steadfast pacifist. He didn't condone violence (or practice it), but he held firmly to his own beliefs. I do very much the same thing.

I also don't agree that I should be fired based on a parent's disagreement with my beliefs. I think that's why I wasn't fired. Either way, I don't discuss my beliefs with my students because adolescents are impressionable. I feel that they should all find their own paths and that it isn't my place to interfere with that. My purpose is to teach them to use their minds fully. :) Thanks for your insight. You also seem very cool.

Sorry I missed the Monty Python quotefest...

moose

The inquisiiiiiiiiition; what a show. The inquisiiiiiiiiiiiiition; here we go. I bet'cha wiiiiiiiiiiiishin' that we'd go away!

As far as strategies go, hmm.... First off, at least you have reasonable staff that aren't as crazy as the parent. Did you ask the student what he/she thinks? In high school, (I just graduated myself, LOL) the student should have the pick of what class they want. The first thing that I would say would definitely be to ask the student if you haven't already. If the parent continues with their non-sense, because the student decides to stay or what-not, then take it to administration. If it continues then take it to the police for harassment I say. Do not let some ignorant FOOL ruin your career. Rest assured that there are some people that are with you as you said. And regardless of your beliefs, and I don't know if it means anything to you but, I WILL be praying for your situation to work out, because that loon is in the wrong.

I, too, am glad I didn't lose my job. I would have had a really ugly lawsuit ahead of me if they'd fired me based on one child's parents. I purposely refrained, at the time, from putting the decision in the hands of the student because I didn't think it was fair to make her choose between my class and her parents' respect. Either way, if she had left my class (which she did not), she would have experienced some major curriculum issues. We just finished reading "Much Ado About Nothing" when it happened. If she had switched to the other English class, she would have read "The Taming of the Shrew" (another comedy) and skipped "Hamlet" (the other instructor does his comedy unit when I cover Shakespearean tragedy and vice versa). She must have liked something she had heard about my curriculum because she chose my class near the end of her Sophomore year. (Our students can select a preference for instructors if there are two of a particular class... she checked my name on the sheet.)

She was a great kid, an A student, and a very skilled orator. After the incident, she was very quiet with me in class and participated a little less. I think she was sheepish because the other kids knew what was going on (it was a school-wide scandal at the time... now, it's completely forgotten by most of the staff and the students that were here at the time are all gone now). I'm glad she stayed, but I was a little distraught about what she had to go through... moreso than what I had to go through.

I will certainly remember your suggestions if it happens again. You're very wise, much like most of the kids I teach (you're only a few years older than them if you just graduated). And, regardless of my beliefs, I do appreciate that you'll pray for my situation to continue to work out. How could I not? It's roughly equivalent to my meditation and reflection, and it means you care that someone different from yourself gets a fair shake. You're a great kid (this is meant to be endearing rather than condescending... you're clearly wise enough despite your years, and with as much time as I spend with "my kids" I know that wisdom has little to do with age). Keep learning. If you ever need a paper edited, send me a telegram ;). (Do you plan to go to college? Are you interested in a particular career path?)

I, too, am glad I didn't lose my job. I would have had a really ugly lawsuit ahead of me if they'd fired me based on one child's parents. I purposely refrained, at the time, from putting the decision in the hands of the student because I didn't think it was fair to make her choose between my class and her parents' respect. Either way, if she had left my class (which she did not), she would have experienced some major curriculum issues. We just finished reading "Much Ado About Nothing" when it happened. If she had switched to the other English class, she would have read "The Taming of the Shrew" (another comedy) and skipped "Hamlet" (the other instructor does his comedy unit when I cover Shakespearean tragedy and vice versa). She must have liked something she had heard about my curriculum because she chose my class near the end of her Sophomore year. (Our students can select a preference for instructors if there are two of a particular class... she checked my name on the sheet.)

She was a great kid, an A student, and a very skilled orator. After the incident, she was very quiet with me in class and participated a little less. I think she was sheepish because the other kids knew what was going on (it was a school-wide scandal at the time... now, it's completely forgotten by most of the staff and the students that were here at the time are all gone now). I'm glad she stayed, but I was a little distraught about what she had to go through... moreso than what I had to go through.

I will certainly remember your suggestions if it happens again. You're very wise, much like most of the kids I teach (you're only a few years older than them if you just graduated). And, regardless of my beliefs, I do appreciate that you'll pray for my situation to continue to work out. How could I not? It's roughly equivalent to my meditation and reflection, and it means you care that someone different from yourself gets a fair shake. You're a great kid (this is meant to be endearing rather than condescending... you're clearly wise enough despite your years, and with as much time as I spend with "my kids" I know that wisdom has little to do with age). Keep learning. If you ever need a paper edited, send me a telegram ;). (Do you plan to go to college? Are you interested in a particular career path?)

I appreciate the kind words. As it is, many people who I speak with on these boards can't hold a decent conversation without trying to insult me or one of these... *@@!#. People think that when you're views are different, "different sides," you can't understand each other, agree on anything, or act civilized. People are so childish, it doesn't give me much hope. Neither do SOME of their offspring. LOL. As far as the "career thing" I am unsure. I believe I have been given many gifts so it's been hard for me to decide what exactly to do. I have been considering running for president for about two years. And as of now I'm thinking of joining the army for a season. I would apply to be a linguist. I did well on my ASVAB (94) so all I would have to do is take the D-Lab (Defense Language Aptitude Battery) and pass. We will see. Don't be surprised if I'm the first half- black, half- French Canadian, president of the USA. I am growing increasingly tired of the people elected the past couple of terms.

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=363398

I left commentary on your essay... consider it, I'm an English teacher and may be able to help with the paper.

The previous poster is right, however; going back to the Aramaic the word is poisoner.

Actually, it's not "poisoner" ... and it wasn't written in Aramaic.

See my essay on this at:

http://www.unlc.biz/essay001.html

Enjoy!

I think the so-called "dry British humour" must be an acquired taste.

In that case, I am so glad that I was one person to acquire it, as it is such a pleasant change from the very obvious and unwitty 'humour' that some other countries seem to positively indulge in. However, I freely concede that e-musings are not the best place for sarcasm - it can be misinterpreted much more easily when it's not done verbally.

But I digress from the point of the forum - unfortunately I know very little about the issue (well, I know the Guy Fawkes part, but that wasn't the crux of the original question), so I'll leave you all to it :)

Thank you. We were unaware of that, having spent all of our lives under rather large stones.

I'm assuming most people posting from the US here have a good grasp on American History. However you'd be surprised about tween pagans. I'm a Catholic and my best friend at the time was Wiccan. Now I thought a lot of this stuff was kinda silly. Not the spirituality behind the idea of Wiccanism but the money she would spend to buy items to have her spells and rituals. She spend over 300 dollars! So my view of Wiccanism is a little skewered by her so I apologize for that. If anything, I give Wiccanism bemused respect despite it being a newbie religion.

However my dear friend did <i>not</i> know that Christians were burned at the stake during the Salem Witch trials. Mind you, it was in middle school, but she had no clue. Of course, what the saddest thing about her faith was the fact she had to ask me the names of certain goddesses and gods because she didn't know their names and times their 'jobs'. I always found that amusing looking back…

thats awful!

Actually, it's not "poisoner" ... and it wasn't written in Aramaic.

See my essay on this at:

http://www.unlc.biz/essay001.html

Enjoy!

Very informative... by that respect, I shall not be put to death (or even ostricized from society). Thanks for that. So... what to do about the "burners" then? Is there a specific way to explain this to them, or must we just ignore their threats and curses?

Very informative... by that respect, I shall not be put to death (or even ostricized from society). Thanks for that. So... what to do about the "burners" then? Is there a specific way to explain this to them, or must we just ignore their threats and curses?


If it's a female saying you should be burned, just take a look at her. If she's wearing pants, let her know that she'd be burned too. If she's not covering her hair, remind her that she'd be burned too.

If it's a male, check his face. If he's clean shaven, he'd be burned. No hat? Burn him.

Either gender wearing colored fabric, burn them.

Carrying a purse on Sunday? BURN!

Single female speaking to a single male without supervision? Burn the woman, whip the man. If he touches her ... even just to shake her hand ... burn him too.

Single male making eye contact with a married woman, burn him and whip her.

I could go on and on about what could get a person burned in the Puritan days of colonial US ... being a "witch" is only one thing out of hundreds.

But always remember ... When in doubt, light a match.

I have a quick question for the chrisitans before i have to go to lesson, why is it some chrisitans celebrate the deaths of the pagens who where burned at the stake during the crusades?

http://www.antver.com/photos/ph22/22-50.html


Erm...why don't you ask the ones who actually celebrate in such a way rather than pestering the Christians on this forum on the off chance that one of us might know? Oh, wait a moment, now I understand...this is what's called "trolling."

Very informative... by that respect, I shall not be put to death (or even ostricized from society). Thanks for that. So... what to do about the "burners" then? Is there a specific way to explain this to them, or must we just ignore their threats and curses?

Most of those people's threats are empty anyway. And, as for the curses, being that they are wrong in what they do, they have no cause, and " A curse without a cause cannot stand." So if they're doing it in the name of God they are called false prophets. Biblically they cannot even if they try. God can't violate his own rules.

Erm...why don't you ask the ones who actually celebrate in such a way rather than pestering the Christians on this forum on the off chance that one of us might know? Oh, wait a moment, now I understand...this is what's called "trolling."

You consider youself a "Christian" acting like that? You are the epitome of what Jesus could not stand. Think hard before you write non-sense like that. If people have questions then we should be able to answer. That's part of the job.

God can't violate his own rules.

God most certainly can violate his own rules. Unless you believe that God is not omnipotent.

Personally I think that God won't violate his own rules, even though he can. Is that not the essence of being moral anyway? What kind of moral victory is obeying rules that you don't have the ability to violate? What kind of moral person is it who only sets standards that they can't break anyway?

If anyone is actually serious about this subject (which I doubt) try looking for "The Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology" (I forget the author offhand, as the book is not at my present location) which gives a very good account about all the various European cultures and their reactions to the witch hunting epidemic.

The Monty Python running joke is particularly ironic. Witches in England were mostly hung, not burned. Witch hunting was equally popular in Protestant and Catholic cultures. Getting confessions (which really wasn't necessary since being accused of witchcraft meant the person was guilty) became a bizzare exercise in eroticism, and the "sexual confessions" that were obtained from young women who were probably complete virgins is bizzare to the point of hilarity.

To make a long story short the power of witch hunting can be boiled down to the following. I or someone else accuses you, therefore you are guilty, therefore I get your lands and property and if you don't want to suffer some more you can mention ten friends so I can accuse them as well, and so on and so forth, a glorious pyramid scheme of the more pratcial sort.

God most certainly can violate his own rules. Unless you believe that God is not omnipotent.

Personally I think that God won't violate his own rules, even though he can. Is that not the essence of being moral anyway? What kind of moral victory is obeying rules that you don't have the ability to violate? What kind of moral person is it who only sets standards that they can't break anyway?

If you are Christian then you believe that God CANNOT sin, correct? Then by that token, if he gave his word that he will and won't do said thing, he cannot break that then. It's not in his nature.

You consider youself a "Christian" acting like that? You are the epitome of what Jesus could not stand. Think hard before you write non-sense like that. If people have questions then we should be able to answer. That's part of the job.

1.) I should be able to answer questions about a tradition that I have not participated in and have no other knowledge of and furthermore have no need of? All Christians should be able to answer such questions? You hold people to a comprehensive standard of knowledge when there are several thousand different Christian sects and millions of related practices? In terms of non-sense, UW, you have me beat by a long shot.

2.) The epitome of what Jesus could not stand was someone who was willing to call others to follow their rules when they were not willing to do it themselves.

I could go on and on about what could get a person burned in the Puritan days of colonial US ... being a "witch" is only one thing out of hundreds.

But always remember ... When in doubt, light a match.

Oooh, can I send you my email address via telegram and get you to email me that "on and on" list of yours? *grins vigorously* :D

...and will a zippo do? I don't always have matches with me.

If you are Christian then you believe that God CANNOT sin, correct? Then by that token, if he gave his word that he will and won't do said thing, he cannot break that then. It's not in his nature.

1.) No, I believe that God does not sin.

2.) If you believe that God CANNOT sin, then you don't believe God is omnipotent.

My Christian sect abhors violence. We "celebrate" the deaths caused by Crusaders in the sense that we remember these victims as martyrs. We sympathize, because many of our own members were martyred by Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists and Presbyterians.

Well, it seems a bit strange to celebrate his death centuries after the event. It was really a "watch out, Catholics about" thing to scare the population about the papist invasion.

Well Guy Fawkes and co were all executed later than 5th November.
It seems more that a lot of people in fact remember or sometimes celebrate the attempt to destroy Parliament.

Why do some christians celebrate that? The same reason why some people on diets eat a dozen donuts in one sitting and some people lie while under oath in court. They agree to one thing and yet do another.

It isnt:
Them- "I'm X"
You- "okay, then all X are like you. You suck, X sucks"

It is:
Them- "I'm X"
You- "No, X does Y. You do Z. Z sucks. You suck. Stop it!"

:D

1.) No, I believe that God does not sin.

2.) If you believe that God CANNOT sin, then you don't believe God is omnipotent.

But what about the age-old paradox?? Can God create a mountain so large that even he cannot move it? Either way, you've got a failing... he either can't create something or he can't move something. *shrugs*

But what about the age-old paradox?? Can God create a mountain so large that even he cannot move it? Either way, you've got a failing... he either can't create something or he can't move something. *shrugs*

Nothing? Anybody...? Bueler...?

Nothing? Anybody...? Bueler...?

The omnipotence of God, and therefore an omnipotent God are contradictory. And a concept, which if assumed true leads to a contradiction is false. Hence, God's nonexistence.

Whether or not God can make a rock so big he cant pick it up is of no bearing to the religion. The concept of omnipotence isnt really self inclusive anyway. All powerful doesnt imply the ability to best ones self. May be possible, may not be, but either way it serves as nothing more than a way for a person to change the argument to something irrelevant and easy to discount. Its manipulation of an understood phrase to argue wording over substance, and its shameful.

The omnipotence of God, and therefore an omnipotent God are contradictory. And a concept, which if assumed true leads to a contradiction is false. Hence, God's nonexistence.

Hmm... maybe this should be a different/new thread. *ponders*

Hmm... maybe this should be a different/new thread. *ponders*

Another existence of God one? Maybe, but that means facing an onslaught of irrational people getting angry at the idea that their favourite belief is not undeniable truth.

The omnipotence of God, and therefore an omnipotent God are contradictory. And a concept, which if assumed true leads to a contradiction is false. Hence, God's nonexistence.
???
You are a dumbass.
All that is assumed is that God is omnipotent. However, you seem to somehow have added into the equation his existence. All the example would tell me, offhand, is that you assume that God cannot do something that is logically impossible. You assume, therefore, that he follows rules of logic. However, a christian would assume that God is not bound by laws of logic, and therefore would realize that the question is meaningless. It is similar to asking, can you create something out of nothing? Obviously, the answer is no. Or should I say logically. However, God is not a logical being, and therefore not bound by said laws.

Another existence of God one? Maybe, but that means facing an onslaught of irrational people getting angry at the idea that their favourite belief is not undeniable truth.

*laughs* Maybe you're right. But then, my hair is uncovered, I'm wearing pants, and I'm a druid so maybe I should be stoned to death or burned at the stake.

What do you think about the fire-and-brimstone religous zealots? Why do they do that?

*laughs* Maybe you're right. But then, my hair is uncovered, I'm wearing pants, and I'm a druid so maybe I should be stoned to death or burned at the stake.

What do you think about the fire-and-brimstone religous zealots? Why do they do that?
*Sighs*
Amazing, the ignorant christians are so stuck in stereotypes it is ridiculous. But these wonderful libs can do no wrong.
Yes, I understand you are making a joke. However, a joke that is openly insulting and serves only to demean another person is most definitely *not* humor.

The problem with the argument isnt with logic, but with perspective and assumptions. You cant apply logic until you know whats going on.
You cant say how anything was created because we dont know, we know who commanded it to be done.
Since the concept of omnipotence is riddled with connotations and loopholes for clever debaters, the only reliable way to view it is within the situation and perspectives as it was used.
I, for one, do not think that God acts outside of logic(reasoning). Its simply subjective to the environment. Blindly applying the logic of one thing to a radically different thing is, well, illogical.

It was mainly 'weird' people who were accussed of witchcraft. Like old women who liked cats. Although they were innocent they provided a good scapegoat if the harvest was poor etc.

I have also seen a theory that it was an effort of Church/Government to restrict the amount of education women could recieve. As many 'witches' were midwives with the herbal knowledge innate in the craft at the time.

However women weren't the only ones accused, the is the nice cae of the witch finder general in Puritan England (for the life of me I cannot remember his name), who was so successful, he was suspect and later burned.

In their defense, it was very cold that year! The spirits in the woods were angered whjen they used firewood. They had to burn something!

???
You are a dumbass.
All that is assumed is that God is omnipotent. However, you seem to somehow have added into the equation his existence. All the example would tell me, offhand, is that you assume that God cannot do something that is logically impossible. You assume, therefore, that he follows rules of logic. However, a christian would assume that God is not bound by laws of logic, and therefore would realize that the question is meaningless. It is similar to asking, can you create something out of nothing? Obviously, the answer is no. Or should I say logically. However, God is not a logical being, and therefore not bound by said laws.

I'm a dumbass, eh? Great argument there.

Any being that is not omnipotent is not fit to be called God, therefore God must be omnipotent. If omnipotence is contradictory, then an omnipotent being is contradictory.

If God is not bound by logic, then he is not part of our universe, on which logic is based. If he is not part of the universe, then the universe and he are separate and unrelated entities. Universe, by definition encompassing everything. God therefore not being part of everything, therefore not existing. In short, being not bound by the laws of logic and being nonexistent are equivalent.

The problem with the argument isnt with logic, but with perspective and assumptions. You cant apply logic until you know whats going on.
You cant say how anything was created because we dont know, we know who commanded it to be done.
Since the concept of omnipotence is riddled with connotations and loopholes for clever debaters, the only reliable way to view it is within the situation and perspectives as it was used.
I, for one, do not think that God acts outside of logic(reasoning). Its simply subjective to the environment. Blindly applying the logic of one thing to a radically different thing is, well, illogical.
Excellent. I didn't expect many people to know the response to their question, but I am pleasantly surprised at your perception.

But what about the age-old paradox?? Can God create a mountain so large that even he cannot move it? Either way, you've got a failing... he either can't create something or he can't move something. *shrugs*

This presents an apparent paradox, as you mentioned. However...

There is a difference between potential power and realized power. Everyone has a certain amount of potential power and a certain amount of realized power. I often lift heavy objects. This is realized power. I could potentially lift much, much heavier objects if I trained hard at it (for God, this process would be infinitely easier). Say God makes a mountain to heavy for him to lift. All he has to do is *poof* realize more of his potential power, and he will be able to lift it, and then create another mountain, and then realize more potential, and so on ad infinitum. Also...

God has to be able to limit God (thereby rendering God no longer omnipotent) or God would not be omnipotent. By that I mean that God must have the power to render himself powerless, or he isn't omnipotent. This doesn't generate a paradox because he isn't realizing his potential power. For instance, I could throw myself off of a cliff and paralyze myself. I have that power. But I'm not stupid enough to do such a thing (I don't realize that power). I speculate that God is not so stupid either. So...

The problem comes in when you say that God is omnipotent but that he does not even have the potential power to do something, for example; sin. This generates a paradox.

Of course, some people don't really pay much attention to the fact that their beliefs are illogical, which is fine. I might not be inclined to care if my beliefs cohered with an arbitrary system based on Western cultural thought and mathematics either.

I'm a dumbass, eh? Great argument there.

Any being that is not omnipotent is not fit to be called God, therefore God must be omnipotent. If omnipotence is contradictory, then an omnipotent being is contradictory.

If God is not bound by logic, then he is not part of our universe, on which logic is based. If he is not part of the universe, then the universe and he are separate and unrelated entities. Universe, by definition encompassing everything. God therefore not being part of everything, therefore not existing. In short, being not bound by the laws of logic and being nonexistent are equivalent.
You're still basing this on laws of logic. And you utterly fail to comprehend your obvious fallacy.
Defintion of Universe- # [n] everything that exists anywhere

Now, what is wrong with your response? You make an invalid assumption. First, you state that our universe is based on logic. However, that is incorrect. There are many things that defy logic, such as Quantam Mechanics, the Curse of the Bambino that afflicts the Red Sox, and the fact that a bumblebee can fly. Indeed, you are stretching things very far in this entire scenario, reaching for straws that you will never come up with.

*Sighs*
Amazing, the ignorant christians are so stuck in stereotypes it is ridiculous. But these wonderful libs can do no wrong.
Yes, I understand you are making a joke. However, a joke that is openly insulting and serves only to demean another person is most definitely *not* humor.

Actually, I wasn't insulting or making jokes. I was referring to previous discussion regarding what qualifies as "burnable" offenses according to ~some~ interpretations of the bible. Please read my former posts. Pardon me if I insulted you somehow, it wasn't my intent.

This presents an apparent paradox, as you mentioned. However...

There is a difference between potential power and realized power. Everyone has a certain amount of potential power and a certain amount of realized power. I often lift heavy objects. This is realized power. I could potentially lift much, much heavier objects if I trained hard at it (for God, this process would be infinitely easier). Say God makes a mountain to heavy for him to lift. All he has to do is *poof* realize more of his potential power, and he will be able to lift it, and then create another mountain, and then realize more potential, and so on ad infinitum. Also...

God has to be able to limit God (thereby rendering God no longer omnipotent) or God would not be omnipotent. By that I mean that God must have the power to render himself powerless, or he isn't omnipotent. This doesn't generate a paradox because he isn't realizing his potential power. For instance, I could throw myself off of a cliff and paralyze myself. I have that power. But I'm not stupid enough to do such a thing (I don't realize that power). I speculate that God is not so stupid either. So...

The problem comes in when you say that God is omnipotent but that he does not even have the potential power to do something, for example; sin. This generates a paradox.

Of course, some people don't really pay much attention to the fact that their beliefs are illogical, which is fine. I might not be inclined to care if my beliefs cohered with an arbitrary system based on Western cultural thought and mathematics either.
As we already pointed out, you don't even need to worry about logically explaining this one. It is unnecessary, and a waste of your time.

Actually, I wasn't insulting or making jokes. I was referring to previous discussion regarding what qualifies as "burnable" offenses according to ~some~ interpretations of the bible. Please read my former posts. Pardon me if I insulted you somehow, it wasn't my intent.
Understood. I was being a lil bit too sensitive there in any case. My apologies.

Any being that is not omnipotent is not fit to be called God, therefore God must be omnipotent. If omnipotence is contradictory, then an omnipotent being is contradictory.

A conversation between two ants:

"Of course Elephant exists and is omnipotent. Elephant is not subject to your silly logic."

"Any being that is not omnipotent is not fit to be called Elephant, therefore Elephant must be omnipotent."

By the way, Clonetopia, I stated that you were a dumbass because you inferred something that had never been included in the argument until you came along. In the future, at least attempt to stick to what has already been stated, and not arbitrarily add to it, using faulty logic to prove an unprovable point.

Well, Clonetopia? Any reply, or have I sufficiently beaten you into a bloody pulp on the debate floor? You should have at least learned a lesson, that being not to make faulty assertations.

You're still basing this on laws of logic. And you utterly fail to comprehend your obvious fallacy.
Defintion of Universe- # [n] everything that exists anywhere

Now, what is wrong with your response? You make an invalid assumption. First, you state that our universe is based on logic. However, that is incorrect. There are many things that defy logic, such as Quantam Mechanics, the Curse of the Bambino that afflicts the Red Sox, and the fact that a bumblebee can fly. Indeed, you are stretching things very far in this entire scenario, reaching for straws that you will never come up with.

A few points:

1. You are using logic to dispute my claims. To logically prove the fallacy of logic is hypocrisy.
2. Quantum Mechanics and Bumblebee flight are areas of science in which our knowledge lacks. Our theories about them may not be logical consistent, but the behaviour of the universe itself is.
3. I know nothing about the Red Sox, but I doubt their relevance, so I will not inquire.

This presents an apparent paradox, as you mentioned. However...

There is a difference between potential power and realized power. Everyone has a certain amount of potential power and a certain amount of realized power. I often lift heavy objects. This is realized power. I could potentially lift much, much heavier objects if I trained hard at it (for God, this process would be infinitely easier). Say God makes a mountain to heavy for him to lift. All he has to do is *poof* realize more of his potential power, and he will be able to lift it, and then create another mountain, and then realize more potential, and so on ad infinitum. Also...

God has to be able to limit God (thereby rendering God no longer omnipotent) or God would not be omnipotent. By that I mean that God must have the power to render himself powerless, or he isn't omnipotent. This doesn't generate a paradox because he isn't realizing his potential power. For instance, I could throw myself off of a cliff and paralyze myself. I have that power. But I'm not stupid enough to do such a thing (I don't realize that power). I speculate that God is not so stupid either. So...

The problem comes in when you say that God is omnipotent but that he does not even have the potential power to do something, for example; sin. This generates a paradox.

Of course, some people don't really pay much attention to the fact that their beliefs are illogical, which is fine. I might not be inclined to care if my beliefs cohered with an arbitrary system based on Western cultural thought and mathematics either.

The difference dear Watson is that Heavenly Father is in full control of his urges and thus does not fall prey to sin.
Its not that he couldn't sin but he has to no reason to do so.

Humans on earth do not have full control of our urges. We don't even have full control of our hearts and lungs at first. Many people after much training can learn to slow their hearts and lungs but its not easy.
Same with urges you can learn to temper them. But its not something you can just do right away.
That is the difference. Heavenly Father has fully mastered his own spirit/body.

Well, Clonetopia? Any reply, or have I sufficiently beaten you into a bloody pulp on the debate floor? You should have at least learned a lesson, that being not to make faulty assertations.

Lol. You are amusing. I hate to be rude, but making ridiculous claims about logic being wrong (logic being the basis of all arguments) is hardly beating someone into a bloody pulp. Also, such use of violent metaphors leads to serious doubts about your rationality.

A few points:

1. You are using logic to dispute my claims. To logically prove the fallacy of logic is hypocrisy.

It's too bad that hypocrisy isn't a fallacy, or you might have a point. Evaluate the claim, not the one making the claim.

If I, a longtime smoker, tell you not to smoke, that would be hypocrisy. It would also be good advice.

The difference dear Watson is that Heavenly Father is in full control of his urges and thus does not fall prey to sin.
Its not that he couldn't sin but he has to no reason to do so.

Humans on earth do not have full control of our urges. We don't even have full control of our hearts and lungs at first. Many people after much training can learn to slow their hearts and lungs but its not easy.
Same with urges you can learn to temper them. But its not something you can just do right away.
That is the difference. Heavenly Father has fully mastered his own spirit/body.

Thank you for rephrasing what I said. Some people might understand it better the way you expressed it.

It's too bad that hypocrisy isn't a fallacy, or you might have a point. Evaluate the claim, not the one making the claim.

If I, a longtime smoker, tell you not to smoke, that would be hypocrisy. It would also be good advice.

OK, lets put it more clearly.

Statement A: Logic can be wrong.

If logic can be wrong, then anything can be true. This of course includes the fallacy of Statement A, as well as any other statement in the universe. In fact, in means that the truth of any matter is arbitrary. Actually, since "truth" is a logical concept, the fallacy of logic renders "truth" and "fallacy" meaningless. Therefore there is no point in arguing because no-one can be right or wrong anyway.

Lol. You are amusing. I hate to be rude, but making ridiculous claims about logic being wrong (logic being the basis of all arguments) is hardly beating someone into a bloody pulp. Also, such use of violent metaphors leads to serious doubts about your rationality.
Wow. You have absolutely no way to debate other than to attack the opponents credibility? That would you about the same as all the other politicians. Here's an idea: try being RIGHT. Think outside the box, it is what this close-minded christian just did. And once again you make a an assumption, that being that somehow, someway, you are right because I argued against logic. You are terrible at this. God is not a logical creature. This universe is not based on logic. Debates, however, are based on logic. In fact, everything I just said was a logical statement. The only illogical arguments so far have come from you. Think more, talk less.

I'm sorry I mentioned the paradox. Please discuss it elsewhere instead of creating a flame war on this thread! Refer to the topic and post related discussions.

Good grief! So much for mentioning something in passing...

OK, lets put it more clearly.

Statement A: Logic can be wrong.

I don't recall anyone making such a statement. If I am correct and noone made such a statement within the context of our discussion, then your argument is a straw man. Please indicate where the statement that you listed is made by HRM.

OK, lets put it more clearly.

Statement A: Logic can be wrong.

If logic can be wrong, then anything can be true. This of course includes the fallacy of Statement A, as well as any other statement in the universe. In fact, in means that the truth of any matter is arbitrary. Actually, since "truth" is a logical concept, the fallacy of logic renders "truth" and "fallacy" meaningless. Therefore there is no point in arguing because no-one can be right or wrong anyway.
Wrong. Now you have completely changed your argument. First, I can acurately paraphrase what you said to mean, "There are no absolutes." This is called Relativism, which states that everything is relative. However, relativism is incorrect, due to the simple fact that logic does exist. Everything, however, does not follow logic. You cannot argue that logic does not exist at all. I never said that, and if you believe it then you must be crazy. In fact, in relativism it states that there are no absolutes. To that, I would reply "So there are absolutely no absolutes?" Argument done. Don't fool yourself into thinking you are breaking new ground heer. This argument has been played out time and time again. Logic does exist. Not everything follows it. However, this is a logical debate and so we rely on logical statements. The subject of the statement may not be logical, it is only required that the statement itself stem from logic. God logically cannot be omniscient, and thus it logically follows that God does not follow the rules of logic. A bumblebee is too big and its wings too small to fly, but it does, and therefore it does not always follow the rules of logic. And so on, and so on.

I'm sorry I mentioned the paradox. Please discuss it elsewhere instead of creating a flame war on this thread! Refer to the topic and post related discussions.

Good grief! So much for mentioning something in passing...

The thread, the thread, the thread is on fire....

Folks, please take the Pi$$ing match outside. I don't want to be forced to report that thsi thread has degredated into a flame war. Your posts will be deleted and you'll be removed from the thread. Admittedly, it's my fault for mentioning an off-topic paradox, but I didn't expect a flame war over it. Thank you.

I don't recall anyone making such a statement. If I am correct and noone made such a statement within the context of our discussion, then your argument is a straw man. Please indicate where the statement that you listed is made by HRM.
And this is another excellent point. We never said logic could be wrong, but we did state that things can exist outside of logic. I said you were wrong when you assumed that our universe was based solely on logic.

Wow. You have absolutely no way to debate other than to attack the opponents credibility?
No, I have other ways, and so do you, yet attacking my credibility is just what you do here:


That would you about the same as all the other politicians. Here's an idea: try being RIGHT. Think outside the box, it is what this close-minded christian just did. And once again you make a an assumption, that being that somehow, someway, you are right because I argued against logic. You are terrible at this. God is not a logical creature. This universe is not based on logic. Debates, however, are based on logic. In fact, everything I just said was a logical statement. The only illogical arguments so far have come from you. Think more, talk less.

*Sigh* I have always thought "outside the box". I can and have come up with ideas similar to your logicless entities, but while interesting and somewhat appealing ideas, they were nothing more.

Your claims that the universe is logicless have no backing at all. Why you expect me to simply accept this "truth" I do not know.

As I have explained, logicless entities are non-existent. This seems inherently obvious to me.

The concept of "Truth" is a logical one. Since the universe is allegedly logicless, the question of "does the universe exist?" cannot be asked, since the question requires logic to answer, but "the universe" is not a concept within logic - so the universe neither exists nor does not exist, since the question of its existence has no answer.

Ok. I understand that you want to believe in God. Go ahead. I'm going to leave you to it now, since I am just making you angry and I don't feel like reading angry posts right now.

I'll even go as far to say that you can claim to have won this debate. I don't believe it to be true, but I don't care if you believe it. I don't even care if you tell everyone else that you won. I've had enough of this.

Folks, please take the Pi$$ing match outside. I don't want to be forced to report that thsi thread has degredated into a flame war. Your posts will be deleted and you'll be removed from the thread. Admittedly, it's my fault for mentioning an off-topic paradox, but I didn't expect a flame war over it. Thank you.
LOL, just now saw these posts. I would point out that this is not a flam war. Rather it is a logical debate. Thus, it is still on target, and stems directly from a subject that you yourself brought up in relation to the discussion. I see no need for this discussion to end, and for you to try to end it seems rather unfair and a huge abuse of admin power. Try to be a little more considerate of others conversations, and not so posessive with the thread. I don't do it, and I don't expect or appreciate it from others.

No, I have other ways, and so do you, yet attacking my credibility is just what you do here:



*Sigh* I have always thought "outside the box". I can and have come up with ideas similar to your logicless entities, but while interesting and somewhat appealing ideas, they were nothing more.

Your claims that the universe is logicless have no backing at all. Why you expect me to simply accept this "truth" I do not know.

As I have explained, logicless entities are non-existent. This seems inherently obvious to me.

The concept of "Truth" is a logical one. Since the universe is allegedly logicless, the question of "does the universe exist?" cannot be asked, since the question requires logic to answer, but "the universe" is not a concept within logic - so the universe neither exists nor does not exist, since the question of its existence has no answer.

Ok. I understand that you want to believe in God. Go ahead. I'm going to leave you to it now, since I am just making you angry and I don't feel like reading angry posts right now.

I'll even go as far to say that you can claim to have won this debate. I don't believe it to be true, but I don't care if you believe it. I don't even care if you tell everyone else that you won. I've had enough of this.
Goodbye. And for your information, I never said the universe was logicless. That is a baseless accusation. However, you apparently never read very closely.

Goodbye. And for your information, I never said the universe was logicless. That is a baseless accusation. However, you apparently never read very closely.

You said that the universe was not bound by logic. Something outside the bounds can behave illogically. Something illogical is logicless.

Also, I'd just like to mention, I know you'll take no notice, but I'd like to add it; Theories are based on logic (proper scientific theories anyway). The existence of God is a theory, therefore logic does apply to it.

Take it or leave it, I can't give more than there is. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, and I'll let you have a think about yours without interference.

Your claims that the universe is logicless have no backing at all. Why you expect me to simply accept this "truth" I do not know.

Another Straw Man.

The concept of "Truth" is a logical one. Since the universe is allegedly logicless, the question of "does the universe exist?" cannot be asked, since the question requires logic to answer, but "the universe" is not a concept within logic - so the universe neither exists nor does not exist, since the question of its existence has no answer.

A very nice argument developed from the straw man.

I'll even go as far to say that you can claim to have won this debate. I don't believe it to be true, but I don't care if you believe it. I don't even care if you tell everyone else that you won. I've had enough of this.

That's unfortunate. You have alot of potential. I actually liked your argument for the nonexistence of God.


Any being that is not omnipotent is not fit to be called God, therefore God must be omnipotent. If omnipotence is contradictory, then an omnipotent being is contradictory.

Another Straw Man.



A very nice argument developed from the straw man.



That's unfortunate. You have alot of potential. I actually liked your argument for the nonexistence of God.

I don't know what a straw man is.

I'm happy to tell other people about my arguments, just not people who get angry and take it personally.

If you have any questions about my ideas and arguments, feel free to ask. As long as everything stays civil, I'm happy. Also, I will try to take more time and think about what I'm saying. It's when points get split up and criticised as separate parts that people begin to rush.

You said that the universe was not bound by logic.

I recall him saying that God is not bound by logic. Perhaps you are confusing the universe with God.

Something outside the bounds can behave illogically.

Hmmm...

Something illogical is logicless.

Oh, I like this one. Something that defies logic is without logic?

I defy logic with my belief in God, and yet am not without logic.

I recall him saying that God is not bound by logic. Perhaps you are confusing the universe with God.



Hmmm...



Oh, I like this one. Something that defies logic is without logic?

I defy logic with my belief in God, and yet am not without logic.

He mentioned the universe as well. Ok, I was wrong to use the word logicless. Initially it was because I simply used the wrong word - I am a bit tired. I meant illogical, but here is how I tried to fix it: an illogical concept is not logical. To be logical is to be consistent with logic. I used "have logic", which perhaps is not obvious as to its meaning. I apologise.

I don't know what a straw man is.

A Straw Man is when you make an argument against your opponent by changing your opponents argument so that it is easier to defeat. It's a common fallacy.

I'm happy to tell other people about my arguments, just not people who get angry and take it personally.

I understand your position and agree with you.

If you have any questions about my ideas and arguments, feel free to ask. As long as everything stays civil, I'm happy. Also, I will try to take more time and think about what I'm saying. It's when points get split up and criticised as separate parts that people begin to rush.

My apologies for making your job harder by posting responses at the same time HRM was doing the same thing.

Burning witches at the stake is, in fact, a pagan custom - the Roman Empire used the punishment long before Christianity began. Rather than bad harvests, the Romans tended to be hunting for scapegoats for bad weather interrupting the grain ships from Africa. The reason burning was used was that in Greek & Eastern thought the flames purified the victim, reducing the likelyhood of a death curse. Burning at the stake falls into the same category as Christmas trees and the Easter bunny - a pagan hold over.

He mentioned the universe as well. Ok, I was wrong to use the word logicless. Initially it was because I simply used the wrong word - I am a bit tired.

I understand that. I often regret posting in these sorts of discussions when I'm tired, hungry, etc. It really throws me off.

I meant illogical, but here is how I tried to fix it: an illogical concept is not logical. To be logical is to be consistent with logic. I used "have logic", which perhaps is not obvious as to its meaning. I apologise.

Your statement that, "An illogical concept is not logical," is quite correct. However, the only implications of that statement (at least that I can see) are these:

A: An illogical concept is not logical.

B: God is an illogical concept.

Therefore...

C: God is not logical.

Hmmm...after looking over what I wrote there seems to be something wrong with it but I can't see quite what it is. :(

Edit:

Correction

C: God is not a logical concept.

My apologies for making your job harder by posting responses at the same time HRM was doing the same thing.

While multiple posters can create that effect, it is more usually a result of one poster pointing out all points that they feel is weak, while it would be sufficient to disprove one point - this alone makes the argument fall. I was not criticising anyone here. I fall to this temptation often enough myself.

My original argument was thus:

If you take an assumption, and logically follow it to a contradiction, then you know the assumption to be false. This is a simple proof by contradiction (you are proving the opposite of the assumption).

The contradiction in this sense was the omnipotence of God. My realisation of this contradiction was aided by the fact of the "paradox" being posted. Paradoxes, of course, are inherently contradictory.

It was said could God lift the mountain.

If he can, his omnipotence lacks in the mountain-building department.
If he cannot, his omnipotence lacks in the mountain-lifting department.

If we name the statement "he can" 'A' and the statement "he cannot" 'NOT A', we find that both A and NOT A lead to "his omnipotence is lacking".

Either "he can" or "he cannot" is true. They cannot both be false, therefore, anything they prove is true. They each imply "his omnipotence is lacking" on their own, so together "A OR NOT A" implies that "his omnipotence is lacking", and since we know that "A OR NOT A" must be true, "his omnipotence is lacking" must be true.

If we define "God" as being omnipotent (which is a pretty standard definition), then he cannot exist, because his existence depends on his omnipotence, which is a fallacy.

I hope I explained myself properly there, and used correct terminology.

Your statement that, "An illogical concept is not logical," is quite correct. However, the only implications of that statement (at least that I can see) are these:

A: An illogical concept is not logical.

B: God is an illogical concept.

Therefore...

C: God is not logical.

Hmmm...after looking over what I wrote there seems to be something wrong with it but I can't see quite what it is. :(

There is. "God is not logical" implies that he has an irrational mind. What you should say is that the concept of God is logical (in being consistent with A and B).

While multiple posters can create that effect, it is more usually a result of one poster pointing out all points that they feel is weak, while it would be sufficient to disprove one point - this alone makes the argument fall. I was not criticising anyone here. I fall to this temptation often enough myself.

My original argument was thus:

If you take an assumption, and logically follow it to a contradiction, then you know the assumption to be false. This is a simple proof by contradiction (you are proving the opposite of the assumption).

The contradiction in this sense was the omnipotence of God. My realisation of this contradiction was aided by the fact of the "paradox" being posted. Paradoxes, of course, are inherently contradictory.

It was said could God lift the mountain.

If he can, his omnipotence lacks in the mountain-building department.
If he cannot, his omnipotence lacks in the mountain-lifting department.

If we name the statement "he can" 'A' and the statement "he cannot" 'NOT A', we find that both A and NOT A lead to "his omnipotence is lacking".

Either "he can" or "he cannot" is true. They cannot both be false, therefore, anything they prove is true. They each imply "his omnipotence is lacking" on their own, so together "A OR NOT A" implies that "his omnipotence is lacking", and since we know that "A OR NOT A" must be true, "his omnipotence is lacking" must be true.

If we define "God" as being omnipotent (which is a pretty standard definition), then he cannot exist, because his existence depends on his omnipotence, which is a fallacy.

I hope I explained myself properly there, and used correct terminology.

Very good. Well-written and thorough. I already dealt with this point earlier in the thread, though.

There is. "God is not logical" implies that he has an irrational mind. What you should say is that the concept of God is logical (in being consistent with A and B).

Ah, there it is. Thanks. :)

Very few of the "witches" killed during the inquisition were pagan. And none of them were "wiccan", which is a 50 year old religion. By and large witch burnings were just Christians killing other Christians.

Very good. Well-written and thorough. I already dealt with this point earlier in the thread, though.

Thankyou. Yes, you mentioned about potential and realised power. At first it seems like mere word-play, however, it is more than that, or at least, it brings more to mind.

If God can make a mountain too heavy for him to lift, then the required strength is beyond his strength's upper limit.

He however, is infinitely strong. If you say that his strength is limitless, then of course, you can determine that the question is meaningless - it speaks of God's strength limit when he has none. This is the best argument, but I'm going to go down another route too:

Alternatively, you could say that his limit is infinite. I'm not sure if this is mathematically correct. However, infinity is not a number. There are differently sized infinities, quite confusingly. In your theory, he could simply move to a different infinity - his strength never ceasing to be infinite. For example, there are an infinite number of integers (whole numbers, like 1,2,3, etc.) and an infinite number of real numbers (numbers with decimal places, eg. 1, 2.53, -35.132),etc. However, if you think about it, there are more real numbers than integers (all integers are real numbers, but not all real numbers are integers).

I have a quick question for the chrisitans before i have to go to lesson, why is it some chrisitans celebrate the deaths of the pagens who where burned at the stake during the crusades?

http://www.antver.com/photos/ph22/22-50.html
That is incredibly funny. During the Inquisition everyone who participated in that would be burned or horribly tortured (not for the light of heart) (http://www.freewebs.com/see_the_truth/Inquisition.html) and their children thrown alive into giant ovens, like the other 2 year olds who's parents (or the children themselves) were deemed witches. Why you might ask, burning 'wickermen' filled with things of evil like that one is an age old pagan celebration to remove evil from the world. Damned hypocrites.

The reason as to why they would do that is beyond me. Stupid intolerant people.
:sniper:

OK, I've got to go now. TG any questions, or topic hyperlinks.

Thanks for that. Though I'm not a witch, I do happen to be pagan. I know that not all Christians stand in the town square, point at people, and scream that they're going to hell. It does bring up an interesting point, and I'm thrilled to have a non-burn-the-witch Christian to ask about this:

I have been teaching High School English for several years now. I do not wear symbols of any belief to work, ever. I refuse to discuss my beliefs with students, but once, several years ago, a student somehow found out that I wasn't Christian (I'm guessing she found out that my band played at a pagan function in town somehow from another student in the class...). This young woman's parents then tried very hard to get me fired and remove their daughter from my class. Thankfully, my administrators were supportive, but it caused school-wide tension for awhile. I considered transfering to a different district.

My question is, what do we do about the fire-and-brimstone Christians? They're a minority, yes, but they're very vocal. I know it's got to be tough for real Christians to feel lumped in with these intolerant bigots much the same way most pagans are lumped in with devil worshipers (which is a huge misnomer as most pagans don't subscribe to the belief of devils or demons at all). If you can shed any light, I'd love a different perspective.

I know quite a bit of conversation has passed since this post, but I do have a thought to share...

My particular flavor of Christianity and that of my sister are different. She's a very extreme "biblethumper" and is convinced that everyone who isn't on board with her specific flavor is destined to burn in hell. We've debated a few times, and I've known her to attack others, including Catholic Nuns. All of this, in my view, is a sign of insecurity. A lot of people who try to bash you with their belief systems tend to be people who have some sort of faith issue that they may or may not be aware of, and they want to validate their belief by either convincing others to agree with them, or destroy those that don't. I'm not saying my sister would burn someone for being pagan, but the source of the mentality is the same.

Personally, I don't feel the need to convert or destroy anyone because I know what I believe and I require nobody's validation. I don't see people of other faiths as a threat to mine, and so there's no need for hate or bigotry. Most of the people I go to church with are the same way, and so we try and set an example.

I was also fortunate to be raised in surroundings where thst kind of understanding was important. I am not Catholic anymore but I was raised as one, and went to Catholic school. Believe it or not, we had some Baptists, Jews and Muslims going there as well for the quality of the education. This was never a source of difficulty for any of us, and the teaching staff were very good about making sure we were clear that while these folks didn't believe in what we did, that was no reason not to show them respect and love as taught by Jesus Christ. That was a very valuable lesson that I am grateful for.

Look, it's real simple. Hundreds of years ago the Christians burned witches. Nowadays there are no witches. It was totally necessary.

Nowadays there are no witches.

Ummmm ... there are hundreds of thousands of witches in the US alone ... dunno what world you're in.

I'm assuming most people posting from the US here have a good grasp on American History. However you'd be surprised about tween pagans. I'm a Catholic and my best friend at the time was Wiccan. Now I thought a lot of this stuff was kinda silly. Not the spirituality behind the idea of Wiccanism but the money she would spend to buy items to have her spells and rituals. She spend over 300 dollars! So my view of Wiccanism is a little skewered by her so I apologize for that. If anything, I give Wiccanism bemused respect despite it being a newbie religion.

However my dear friend did <i>not</i> know that Christians were burned at the stake during the Salem Witch trials. Mind you, it was in middle school, but she had no clue. Of course, what the saddest thing about her faith was the fact she had to ask me the names of certain goddesses and gods because she didn't know their names and times their 'jobs'. I always found that amusing looking back…



Ok *sigh* a couple of things....
A) Pagans existed way before Christians.
B) NO ONE WAS BURNED IN SALEM....

Around September of 1692 19 people were hung and 1 person was pressed to death by rocks... It is a huge misconception that they were burned.

There have been NO recorded cases of Witches or Pagans being burned at the stake in America....

Sorry a little pet peeve of mine. Didn't mean to sound rude, just wanted facts straight.

Ummmm ... there are hundreds of thousands of witches in the US alone ... dunno what world you're in.

Yeah, but they are not flying around on brooms eating babies anymore are they? Those kind of witches are extinct.

tag

Ok *sigh* a couple of things....
A) Pagans existed way before Christians.
B) NO ONE WAS BURNED IN SALEM....

Around September of 1692 19 people were hung and 1 person was pressed to death by rocks... It is a huge misconception that they were burned.

There have been NO recorded cases of Witches or Pagans being burned at the stake in America....

Sorry a little pet peeve of mine. Didn't mean to sound rude, just wanted facts straight. Heh yeah, cause hanging doesn't kill them, it just gives them a full physcial workover. :p

Yeah, but they are not flying around on brooms eating babies anymore are they? Those kind of witches are extinct.

Are you really that dense? They NEVER flew around eating babies. That was Christian Catholic propaganda usually aimed at popular heresies at the time.

And the Inquisition was not started against Jews, it was begun to assit in the subjugation of the Cathar Heresy that was begun in the Languedoc region in what is now southern France. True, in the end it managed to kill huge numbers of both Jews, non-Christians, Protestants, and it's original targets, the Cathars, but it was not begun against the Jews.

If this has already been pointed out, ignore me. I just thought I'd mention it.

Are you really that dense? They NEVER flew around eating babies. That was Christian Catholic propaganda usually aimed at popular heresies at the time.
Protestant to.
And the Inquisition was not started against Jews, it was begun to assit in the subjugation of the Cathar Heresy that was begun in the Languedoc region in what is now southern France. True, in the end it managed to kill huge numbers of both Jews, non-Christians, Protestants, and it's original targets, the Cathars, but it was not begun against the Jews.

Dominicans took part in the inquisition against the Cathars. But that was the Dominicans leading an inquisition, rather then the Holy Office in Spain (why would Spain need to worry about a dead Heresy?).

Yeah, but they are not flying around on brooms eating babies anymore are they? Those kind of witches are extinct.


I'm pretty sure those kind of witches never existed in the first place.

Ok *sigh* a couple of things....
A) Pagans existed way before Christians.
B) NO ONE WAS BURNED IN SALEM....

Around September of 1692 19 people were hung and 1 person was pressed to death by rocks... It is a huge misconception that they were burned.

There have been NO recorded cases of Witches or Pagans being burned at the stake in America....

Sorry a little pet peeve of mine. Didn't mean to sound rude, just wanted facts straight.

Yeah no one was burned. Just hung. That's much better.

Yeah, but they are not flying around on brooms eating babies anymore are they? Those kind of witches are extinct.

Really?

You know, when I lose my virginity, the Eagle Headed Big Feet (they're QUITE a menace in the Sahara) will all suddenly die out. That's right, ALL of them!

Yeah no one was burned. Just hung. That's much better.


Don't get me wrong, No one should have been killed at all. It is just now a days everyone thinks about the "Witch burning times when nearly 4 million people were killed" I am not justifying any murder. I just think if people are going to get frustrated with history, the facts should at least be straight...






*For the record, I am not christian, I am actually a studier and believer in many pagan beliefs.

For the record (and because I'm an English teacher), clothes are "hung" not people... (unless you're talking about something else entirely, in which case, eek)

People are put to death by hanging from the neck until dead. The past tense of this process is "hanged".

Thank you all for humoring me on this one. :)

Ummmm ... there are hundreds of thousands of witches in the US alone ... dunno what world you're in.

There are hundreds of thousands of people who own crystals, don't open their curtains much and light candles when they have a perfectly serviceable electricity supply. I don't see anyone cursing baby princesses, turning stuff into toads or beguiling young men with glamours.

There are hundreds of thousands of people who own crystals, don't open their curtains much and light candles when they have a perfectly serviceable electricity supply. I don't see anyone cursing baby princesses, turning stuff into toads or beguiling young men with glamours.

There are no people walking across water, casting demons into pigs, or changing water into wine either, but there are still Christians, yes?

There are no people walking across water, casting demons into pigs, or changing water into wine either, but there are still Christians, yes?

Of course there are, but have you tried walking across the Atlantic for a bit of Florida Sun (or in the converse for you guys, Devon and Cornwall rain). Nightmare! Water into wine; why do think all the Christians you people meet are always so obtrusively happy or ridiculously aggressive?

As for demons in livestock there was that recent BSE thing was there not...

Or more seriously, people coming back from Africa have been witnesses to remarkable things. Recently a friend of mine (I fairly sure she wouldn't lie about this kind of thing) said that a girl formerly inflicted with a crippling disease had been dancing around to music by the end of meeting in which people had been praying for her.

And there's always the huge miracle that we are al thankful for, namely that dubya hasn't started a nuclear war yet

There are no people walking across water, casting demons into pigs, or changing water into wine either, but there are still Christians, yes?

Christians are followers of Christ. Christ did all that stuff (maybe). Christians are people who believe that Christ did that, not people who believe that they can do it themselves.

Witches are people who do magic. People who believe that other people did magic once are "people who believe that other people did magic once".

If you want to now rant on about the origins of wicca, and the etymological relationship between the words "wicca" and "witch", and modern pagan praxis and its bases* in pre-christian folk religions and blah blah blah, I don't care. I'm english and I speak english, and where I come from, a witch is somebody that does magic.

If you want witchy props, a pointy hat and a warty nose work better than a crystal and some joss sticks. I mean then you could easily get confused with any non-witchly hippy. Of course the actual doing of actual magic is the clincher. Willow and Tara looked like any old hippy lesbians until they started blasting holes in stuff and making their eyes go black.




*For the ignorant pedants, I haven't misspelled basis. The plural of basis is bases (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=basis).

Christians are followers of Christ. Christ did all that stuff (maybe). Christians are people who believe that Christ did that, not people who believe that they can do it themselves.

Jesus supposedly gave his power to others ...

To the apostles - Luke 9:1
To the 70 non-apostles - Luke 10:1-9
To believers generally if they claimed the power - John 14:12-14
To Peter's shadow - Acts 5:14,15
To Paul's handkerchief - Acts 19:11,12

and so on ...

And of all the Christians I have ever met, not one could perform a miracle.

Witches are people who do magic. People who believe that other people did magic once are "people who believe that other people did magic once".

Define "magic"

If you want to now rant on about the origins of wicca, and the etymological relationship between the words "wicca" and "witch", and modern pagan praxis and its bases* in pre-christian folk religions and blah blah blah, I don't care. I'm english and I speak english, and where I come from, a witch is somebody that does magic.

I'm not Wiccan. Not even close. Wiccans give true Pagans a bad name, actually. I find it sad. So, I won't be defending Wicca any time soon.

Not all of the British.

Some of us celebrate the bold attempt of freedom fighters to destroy their oppressors. :)

Actually I've never met anyone who is conscious of the religious aspect of bonfire night when they are celebrating. Even though it is taught in schools, most people aren't conscious even of the reasons why Guy Fawkes was there. And we tend to call it bonfire night rather than Guy Fawkes' night.

All in all people are just having fun.

I suspect that on witch burning night, the same applies. I'm not thinking the people stood around the witch effigy are all rubbing their hands and wishing back to the good old days when they burnt witches.

Of course I've never been there so i don't know.

Next you'll be claiming that people who aren't religious still celebrate Christmas!!!

Oh, erm, right.

That was an incredibly stupid practice during the medivel times. Many innocent people were burned and they had ridiculous tests for finding out if you were a witch.

For the record (and because I'm an English teacher), clothes are "hung" not people... (unless you're talking about something else entirely, in which case, eek)

People are put to death by hanging from the neck until dead. The past tense of this process is "hanged".

Thank you all for humoring me on this one. :)


Some of them might have been hung as well.

And of all the Christians I have ever met, not one could perform a miracle.

So Christianity is a lame religion. I don't think that makes somebody with a candle and a crystal a witch.


Define "magic"

Why? Don't you know what "magic" means? Look it up in a dictionary. If you aren't a native english speaker, most european languages probably have a pretty much exact analogue word. I expect that non-European languages do too.
You know? Magic, it means, "magical stuff".



I'm not Wiccan. Not even close. Wiccans give true Pagans a bad name, actually. I find it sad. So, I won't be defending Wicca any time soon.

True Pagans? Purlease. Paganism is pretty much any non theist religion. According to a strict english dictionary definition, buddhists are pagans.

There are no people walking across water, casting demons into pigs, or changing water into wine either, but there are still Christians, yes?

I have been involved in an exorcism. No pigs were involved, however, although there were some strange happenings. I will not go into it here. Believe me or not.

There are no people walking across water, casting demons into pigs, or changing water into wine either, but there are still Christians, yes?
And catholics think their priest changes wine into blood all the time.

And catholics think their priest changes wine into blood all the time.

Doesn't count, since not one of them claims that it takes on the physical properties of blood.

Doesn't count, since not one of them claims that it takes on the physical properties of blood.

If it doesn't take on the physical properties of blood then it is even more miraculous, because the priest guy has turned the wine into blood without the physical properties of blood.

So Christianity is a lame religion. I don't think that makes somebody with a candle and a crystal a witch.

I believe "Witch" is a religious title, hence, if you call yourself a "Witch", then you are a "Witch" ... in the US anyway.


Why? Don't you know what "magic" means? Look it up in a dictionary. If you aren't a native english speaker, most european languages probably have a pretty much exact analogue word. I expect that non-European languages do too. You know? Magic, it means, "magical stuff".

I know what I think it means, but your opinion may differ. I mean ... we can look it up in the dictionary - http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=magic - if we like and get lots and lots of definitions.

Personally, I find magic falls into four categories: High Magic, Low Magic, Hedge Magic, and Illusion. High Magic is tantric, meditative, and what allows a person to obtain a higher spiritual reality when seeking enlightenment and such. Low Magic is the crystal smooching, tarot reading stuff. Hedge Magic is use of herbs and poultices (such as smearing citronella oil on the trash can to keep away the ants). Illusion is trickery ... pick a card, any card.


True Pagans? Purlease. Paganism is pretty much any non theist religion. According to a strict english dictionary definition, buddhists are pagans.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pagan

Yep ... pretty much seals the deal ...

However, I prefer to think of Pagan as those who follow nature based religions. I am a Caddo (Native American) and follow my people's old ways. I am a Pagan, by either definition, but find Wiccan syncretism distasteful.

If it doesn't take on the physical properties of blood then it is even more miraculous, because the priest guy has turned the wine into blood without the physical properties of blood.

I can turn lead into gold that has all of the atomic properties and physical appearence of lead. Big Fucking Deal.

And catholics think their priest changes wine into blood all the time.

No they don't. It's symbolic - you aren't supposed to believe that, and you never originally were. Most of the things Catholics used to be told to believe were made up by heads of the Church in the Middle Ages in order to oppress people. Such as "Anglo-Saxon is the devil's language" - a tale spun purely so that people wouldn't be able to interpret the Bible themselves.

Same as purgatory - something made up by someone in order to force his view upon people - originally there was only heaven and hell.

Interpretations of the Scriptures are made subjectively - eg. If someone hits you, you should turn your cheek - this does not, as is popularly believed, mean that you should invite the person to hit you again because you're a good person who won't resort to violence - it's actually a great insult. You're actually inviting them to hit you with their other hand - their dirty hand, which they use for dirty jobs.

If it doesn't take on the physical properties of blood then it is even more miraculous, because the priest guy has turned the wine into blood without the physical properties of blood.


I turn beer into pee.

I am a Christian....and firstly...I find it appauling if their are fellow believers who praise burning people at the stake!!....I do agree that back during the witch hunts and so forth that most of those people were innocent and did not deserve to die....and actually if you study some of those situations, the people burned at the stake were Christians that did not agree with the Catholic doctrine.....and for Christians today to praise those dark times Im sickened by it.....
We dont have the right to judge the sinner....only Jesus does.....and thats the problem....to many "Chrisitans" have judged unbelieves and turned them off to the wonderful aspects of the Light of Jesus.....all I can say is "Im sorry".....I as a Christian say sorry for all those that have judged the unbeliever...because ITS NOT OUR RIGHT.....ONLY GODS!!!.....

No they don't. It's symbolic - you aren't supposed to believe that,

Yes you are. It's only symbolic in heathen protestant churches. In the Roman Catholic church, transsubstantiation takes place. That is the bread and wine actually turn into the actual body and blood of jesus. And if you don't believe that, you're a heretic.

Yes you are. It's only symbolic in heathen protestant churches. In the Roman Catholic church, transsubstantiation takes place. That is the bread and wine actually turn into the actual body and blood of jesus. And if you don't believe that, you're a heretic.

Indeed, this is true. It basically involves a suspension of disbelief and the insistence that the wine is now blood that looks and tastes like wine.

"Behold! A small quantity of loaves and fishes! Now, turn around.

"Turn... turn around...

"Turn around."

Personally, I find magic falls into four categories: High Magic, Low Magic, Hedge Magic, and Illusion. High Magic is tantric, meditative, and what allows a person to obtain a higher spiritual reality when seeking enlightenment and such. Low Magic is the crystal smooching, tarot reading stuff. Hedge Magic is use of herbs and poultices (such as smearing citronella oil on the trash can to keep away the ants). Illusion is trickery ... pick a card, any card.


In that case, High Magic is meditation and stuff, Low Magic is divination or nonsense, Hedge Magic is aromatherapy, homeopathy and traditional medicince, and illusion is david copperfield.

I think that none of the above are magic, and that magic is blowing stuff up with the power of lightning out of your fingers, flying on a broomstick, turning people into toads etc.




However, I prefer to think of Pagan as those who follow nature based religions. I am a Caddo (Native American) and follow my people's old ways. I am a Pagan, by either definition, but find Wiccan syncretism distasteful.

Well in that case you are probably a pantheist or animist. I think that syncretism rocks. What annoys me about lots of wiccans is that they are white anglo saxons who follow an invented syncretic religion but believe they are walking the path of their ancient celtic ancestors.

Indeed, this is true. It basically involves a suspension of disbelief and the insistence that the wine is now blood that looks and tastes like wine.

"Behold! A small quantity of loaves and fishes! Now, turn around.

"Turn... turn around...

"Turn around."

"Now count to five thousand..."

I can turn lead into gold that has all of the atomic properties and physical appearence of lead. Big Fucking Deal.

Anyway, you can't. When you do it, it is still lead.

I think that none of the above are magic, and that magic is blowing stuff up with the power of lightning out of your fingers, flying on a broomstick, turning people into toads etc.

Ah ... well that's just fairy tales ... nobody has ever been able to do such things and anyone who claims they can, I wanna see proof.


Well in that case you are probably a pantheist or animist. I think that syncretism rocks. What annoys me about lots of wiccans is that they are white anglo saxons who follow an invented syncretic religion but believe they are walking the path of their ancient celtic ancestors.

Syncretism annoys me to some degree. It's sort of like when a Wiccan says, "In the Native American belief ...". Which tribe?! I mean ... they'll go on about how "Native Americans" believe Whale to be the spirit of music and their songs are healing. My tribe, a Native American tribe, is a land locked farming tribe that has absolutely no legends of Whales or Dolphins. Syncretism is generalization and to generalize is to dehumanize.

As for the rest of it, well, I have to chuckle with you. I do like listening to speeches and reading essays on the "Ancient Wiccan Craft". Personally, I feel Wiccans should be proud that their religion has grown so quickly and become so influential in just half a century.

Syncretism annoys me to some degree. It's sort of like when a Wiccan says, "In the Native American belief ...". Which tribe?! I mean ... they'll go on about how "Native Americans" believe Whale to be the spirit of music and their songs are healing. My tribe, a Native American tribe, is a land locked farming tribe that has absolutely no legends of Whales or Dolphins. Syncretism is generalization and to generalize is to dehumanize.

As for the rest of it, well, I have to chuckle with you. I do like listening to speeches and reading essays on the "Ancient Wiccan Craft". Personally, I feel Wiccans should be proud that their religion has grown so quickly and become so influential in just half a century.

You get this nonsense everywhere. People say "buddhists believe..." "christians believe..." "muslims believe..." even "republicans believe..." Well some of the do, and some of them don't.

There's so much to know. As a kid I only knew that Indians (because we didn't learn the words Native American until about 10 years ago) wore feather headdresses and whooped and fought with cowboys. The very idea that there were a large number of Native American nations with different customs never occurred to us and was never presented. I know a something about the 50-something different ethnicities who live in China because I've studied it, but lots of people don't.

I suppose the moral of the story is "ask first, tell later".

Personally, I find magic falls into four categories: High Magic, Low Magic, Hedge Magic, and Illusion. High Magic is tantric, meditative, and what allows a person to obtain a higher spiritual reality when seeking enlightenment and such. Low Magic is the crystal smooching, tarot reading stuff. Hedge Magic is use of herbs and poultices (such as smearing citronella oil on the trash can to keep away the ants). Illusion is trickery ... pick a card, any card.

Here's where things get confusing, though. Regarding divination: A lot of people "play" with tarot decks and so forth for divination. True divination comes from a meditative connection with one's surroundings and learning how to listen to what you can hear and sense. For many, the cards/sticks/runes are just a way to shift the focus from their immediate surroundings and facilitate the meditative state that allows them to tap into the more subtle reality of a situation. Would that kind of divination still be Low Magic to you? One can seek a higher reality and enlightenment by using that assisted meditative state. Heck, some people get drunk to meditate. Is that still High Magic? *shrugs*


However, I prefer to think of Pagan as those who follow nature based religions. I am a Caddo (Native American) and follow my people's old ways. I am a Pagan, by either definition, but find Wiccan syncretism distasteful.

That's me. 'Course, I'm not a Wiccan, I'm a Druid. I can't really speak towards the roots if Wicca as I'm not as well versed in that religion as I am in my own spiritual path. Druidry and many of the Native traditions have a similar tie to nature. Different approach, but similar reverence for the natural order. :)

I suppose the moral of the story is "ask first, tell later".

Good moral!

For the record: I prefer the term "American Indian" (as opposed to the other kind of Indian). I mean, anyone born in the US as a citizen is, by all rights, a "Native American".

Would that kind of divination still be Low Magic to you? One can seek a higher reality and enlightenment by using that assisted meditative state. Heck, some people get drunk to meditate. Is that still High Magic? *shrugs*


I figure if tools are necessary, then it is Low Magic. With High Magic, no tools are needed, just the will.


That's me. 'Course, I'm not a Wiccan, I'm a Druid. I can't really speak towards the roots if Wicca as I'm not as well versed in that religion as I am in my own spiritual path. Druidry and many of the Native traditions have a similar tie to nature. Different approach, but similar reverence for the natural order. :)

Nod ... I know in comparison of Caddo and Druids beliefs, we are far more warrior-like while ya'll are far more ceremonial, our sacred number is 5 where yours is 3 (isn't it? I think I read that somewhere), we don't have a godhead or any Spirit that is more powerful than any other (I don't remember if ya'll do or not).

But, then, tribal religions tend to be very similar throughout the world. Judaism is a little strange ... one of the extremely rare monotheistic tribal religions, but there are always exceptions.

If no one else has done so, I would like to recommend to all those interested in witchcraft and witch trials in the good ol'days to read the book "The devils of Loudon" by Aldous Huxley.

It's a very interesting and chilling tale of what went on in the minds of people in those times.

Anyway, you can't. When you do it, it is still lead.

:eek: HERETIC! :mad:

As I am influenced by 'wiccan' ideas and catholic upbringing I think it is sick to celebrate anyones death. The reasons for the witch hunts are very political and complex(not justifying), but it was an age where it was scary to be different in any way you could be killed as a witch foralmost anything and it was big in Germany where two towns were left with only two women left alive. The Catholic church applogised for it's arocities recently although I think it was a rather week and pathetic attempt personally so a strict catholic is going against the church if celebrating killing. As for others killed gay men were used to start the fires that killed many women in europe and this is where the word faggot comes from as it was an old type of wood used to start fires so I think they are the forgotten victems of crusade. We all should reflect on the saddness that millions suffer for the sake of religious freedoms even today.

That said witchcraft is a joyous religion and although it may have its origins in poor taste and saddness it must still be a good party (and do people need a reason to celebrate). I think a name change would be a good idea yet do we want to risk forgetting or changing theperceptions of past.( In most cool places in Australia not only do we not have a night dedicated to it but most cool places parks ect it is illegal to have a bonfire. we used to have fire crackers to celbrate the Queens birthday(sic) in the backyards ect and now thats banned too pity.)

I think the Goddess smiles when people are having fun so don't stop it.

I figure if tools are necessary, then it is Low Magic. With High Magic, no tools are needed, just the will.

For my part, divinatory tools are for the comfort of the querent rather than to help me out. I'm not sure how others do it, but if I get grounded, center, and meditate on something, folks just don't hear it (even when they ask directly). Basically, my tools (and my brand of divination) serve to make the querent feel like the items are giving insight. Tools are relatively "neutral" and keep them from feeling like I've passed some sort of bogus "judgement" instead of just telling them what I truly see. But that's just me. I don't know how others do it.


Nod ... I know in comparison of Caddo and Druids beliefs, we are far more warrior-like while ya'll are far more ceremonial, our sacred number is 5 where yours is 3 (isn't it? I think I read that somewhere), we don't have a godhead or any Spirit that is more powerful than any other (I don't remember if ya'll do or not).

My order does not emphasize a higher spirit. As a matter of fact, the reason I chose the druid order I belong to is because they didn't emphasize a central "god or goddess" figure.

Most American Indian (term duly noted) beliefs are a little more warrior-like than Druidry, Caddo is among those. Druids were a little more legislative in their dealings with other tribes in Europe. This may have served to diminsh them during the Roman conversion, though (if you ask me). Just my take on things, though, it's certainly not the be-all, end-all of Druidry.

Regarding sacred numbers... Druids have several for different reasons.

4-number of seasons, compass points, tangible elements
8-number of festivals (4 seasonal, 4 agricultural)
5-number of elements (earth, air, fire, water, spirit)
3-Awen...

3 tends to be the central (being related to Awen and all that implies), but the others, IMHO, are no more or less important.

But, then, tribal religions tend to be very similar throughout the world. Judaism is a little strange ... one of the extremely rare monotheistic tribal religions, but there are always exceptions.

I fiercely agree with you on that. I think the need to live with the earth rather than on it is what inspires that. I know the Druid sacred animals are different from the American Indian animals (which vary based on tribe and region, of course), but at the same time, some of the representations (and even the animals themselves) are the same.

Similar paths... different footfalls.

I have a quick question for the chrisitans before i have to go to lesson, why is it some chrisitans celebrate the deaths of the pagens who where burned at the stake during the crusades?

http://www.antver.com/photos/ph22/22-50.html

Only a complete idiot would start a thread like this. What ya gonna do next? Go to Rome, knock on the door and ask whoever answers what he feels about feeding Christians to the lions.

What a clot you are!

As I am influenced by 'wiccan' ideas and catholic upbringing I think it is sick to celebrate anyones death.

Do distinguish this for me... do you mean it's sick to celebrate death or to celebrate killing? Death is a necessity of life. Without death, there can be no life. I think, if life if worth celebrating, death is too. Perhaps not killing, though or brutality.

NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

damn i missed another "night of the witches"! SHIT SHIT SHIT.
oh well next year maybe.

Guys if no-one has anything better to do next 11th oct. I'd recommend going to the south of spain. We burn witches (fake of course) get sloshed on the beach, and its nice and warm! Huge celebration, lots of fun.

and i missed it....... oh well next year (sigh)

I have a quick question for the chrisitans before i have to go to lesson, why is it some chrisitans celebrate the deaths of the pagens who where burned at the stake during the crusades?

http://www.antver.com/photos/ph22/22-50.html

What the hell is a chrisitan? What lesson are you going to, English lessons? And what's a pagen? Do you mean pagan? Beyond that, what the hell are you talking about?

I was upset when I read that some Lutherans rubbed gunpowder onto the heads of our people before torching them.

Then I was told that this was an act of compassion, since it would give them a quick death instead of a slow painful one.

Ah, nothing like being compassionately burned to death.

I have a quick question for the chrisitans before i have to go to lesson, why is it some chrisitans celebrate the deaths of the pagens who where burned at the stake during the crusades?

http://www.antver.com/photos/ph22/22-50.html

Every mythical belief has more than its share of stupid holidays. Christians tend to like to celebrate the death of things. Easter for example. Nothing like celebrating the death of a man who's never been shown to live.

Every mythical belief has more than its share of stupid holidays. Christians tend to like to celebrate the death of things. Easter for example. Nothing like celebrating the death of a man who's never been shown to live.

Well, now ... Easter is celebrating the ressurection ... Good Friday is the death.

I think it's more a case of extremes. Birth and Death, but no celebration of life. It's very strange and foreign to me.

Well, now ... Easter is celebrating the ressurection ... Good Friday is the death.

I think it's more a case of extremes. Birth and Death, but no celebration of life. It's very strange and foreign to me.

Meh, you know what I meant, hehe!

Well, now ... Easter is celebrating the ressurection ... Good Friday is the death.

I think it's more a case of extremes. Birth and Death, but no celebration of life. It's very strange and foreign to me.

And christmas is a pagan celebration...

And christmas is a pagan celebration...

Actually, "Christmas" is the celebration of the "birth" of Jesus ('cept he was born in the Summer sometime, from what I was told). The customs we practice are pagan (tree, decorating tree, feast, etc.).

That reminds me... I have to rant a little. The tradition of a tree was "appropriated" by Christians, yes? So it has become a Christian tradition as well... the thing is, pagans didn't butcher a tree for each family. They took one tree per tribe. Now, as a Druid, every time I go by a "Christmas Tree" stand, my heart catches in my throat. Why? Because there are hundreds of them. They are all living sacrifices to the Christian god now... and they were unceremoniously put to death and left to bleed to death, bedonned with lights and ornaments for weeks of torture. It's just cruel. Makes my blood run cold... all the living sacrifices the christians make to their god each year (and they don't even get to regenerate back into the earth again... they're not consumed, used for building, used to keep the tribe warm, or killed swiftly). Nobody asks them for their life, nobody thanks them for their sacrifice. It's all just such a waste of life.

Nobody asks them for their life, nobody thanks them for their sacrifice. It's all just such a waste of life.

Well ... that's Christianity in a nutshell. They bitch and moan about how great and glorious their godman is, but refuse to show even the tiniest iota of reverence for his creation.

As I said ... it's strange and foreign to me.

Well ... that's Christianity in a nutshell. They bitch and moan about how great and glorious their godman is, but refuse to show even the tiniest iota of reverence for his creation.

As I said ... it's strange and foreign to me.

I hear ya. Actually, I've been thinking of getting a group of my pagan friends together (from various traditions), getting them to get out their robes/cloaks, etc., and going from tree stand to tree stand thanking the trees for their sacrifices and apologizing for their senseless murders (and their suffering). Trouble is, I don't want the lot of us to get thrown in jail for disturbing the peace/interfering with businesses.

I hear ya. Actually, I've been thinking of getting a group of my pagan friends together (from various traditions), getting them to get out their robes/cloaks, etc., and going from tree stand to tree stand thanking the trees for their sacrifices and apologizing for their senseless murders (and their suffering). Trouble is, I don't want the lot of us to get thrown in jail for disturbing the peace/interfering with businesses.

If you wait until after Xmas and go out to the tree people and ask them, they will often give you whatever trees remain in their lots. I rent a truck and trailor and collect as many as I can and build a bonfire to the tree spirits on Jan. 1st every year.

Not as easy if you're in an urban setting, of course, but your idea could work too. It's not interfering with business if you say, "I'm just browsing". :)

If you wait until after Xmas and go out to the tree people and ask them, they will often give you whatever trees remain in their lots. I rent a truck and trailor and collect as many as I can and build a bonfire to the tree spirits on Jan. 1st every year.

Not as easy if you're in an urban setting, of course, but your idea could work too. It's not interfering with business if you say, "I'm just browsing". :)

*smiles* I'll have to look into that bonfire idea... I'm in a fairly large city, but my father lives out in the boonies (just northwest of the middle of nowhere). I have about three friends with trucks. We could probably build a pretty serious fire, 'though. I'll have to find out what the story is on fire codes out here... just to keep from going to jail (and such). Thanks for passing that along. Maybe I'll do both... pay homage to the fallen during their death and stage a symbolic sacrifice to the fallen afterward. I like the way you think *nods*

I cant believe what im hearing! let me clear a few things up:

Most christians do not do this whole christmas tree rubbish. that is a corruption of the christian holiday (much like easter eggs at easter), and is mostly practiced by holiday-stealing atheists.

We do have a celebration of life. its called "Easter". you may have heard of it.

We celebrate life in our day-to-day actions. we dont see "wiccan aid" helping out anywhere, while there are the samaritans, Christian aid, Mission aviation. when there are pagan missionaries helping fellow man rather than a christma tree, then your arguments will have some founding

I cant believe what im hearing! let me clear a few things up:

Most christians do not do this whole christmas tree rubbish. that is a corruption of the christian holiday (much like easter eggs at easter), and is mostly practiced by holiday-stealing atheists.

We do have a celebration of life. its called "Easter". you may have heard of it.

We celebrate life in our day-to-day actions. we dont see "wiccan aid" helping out anywhere, while there are the samaritans, Christian aid, Mission aviation. when there are pagan missionaries helping fellow man rather than a christma tree, then your arguments will have some founding

You couldn't be more wrong. Most of the Christians I've met (99%, in fact) celebrate Christmas with a tree. Second, the word "Easter" is an adaptation of "Ostara" which was originally a spring fertility rite (I celebrate Beltaine and the Vernal equinox, though... same basic rites). Chocolate bunnies, eggs, flowers, etc... all pagan. Also, I don't know a single Athiest with a tree (or chocolate bunny). Your celebration of "life" is a pagan's celebration of life. The difference? We didn't need a deified icon to die in order to celebrate life.

Regarding the "pagan missionaries" helping people instead of trees... pagans don't generally have missionaries as such because our lives don't revolve around converting others to religions that they don't already subscribe to. Thanks...

Most christians do not do this whole christmas tree rubbish. that is a corruption of the christian holiday (much like easter eggs at easter), and is mostly practiced by holiday-stealing atheists.

Actually, most Christians do the tree thing.

We do have a celebration of life. its called "Easter". you may have heard of it.

Easter is a celebration of a dead man coming back to life. You celebrate zombies. Good for you.

We celebrate life in our day-to-day actions. we dont see "wiccan aid" helping out anywhere, while there are the samaritans, Christian aid, Mission aviation. when there are pagan missionaries helping fellow man rather than a christma tree, then your arguments will have some founding

Nobody speaking in this thread is Wiccan, so you've just proven you're a 'tard who can't read. Your missionaries only help if people convert to your way. I don't feel like I need to go into the thousands of Pagan founded organizations that help out globally.

Actually, most Christians do the tree thing.

Nobody speaking in this thread is Wiccan, so you've just proven you're a 'tard who can't read. Your missionaries only help if people convert to your way. I don't feel like I need to go into the thousands of Pagan founded organizations that help out globally.

Have any of you ever actually been in a Church? CHRISTIANS do not usually do the tree thing. not the general population of countries such as my own, britain.

Congratulations! you have just proved your a "'tard" who doesnt understand the concept of an example.

again, CHRISTIANS, not the average joe bloggs who uses easter as an excuse to eat eggs, celebrate the victory of Christ over sin and death.

This may be hard to understand, but missionaries help people BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE RIGHT! even if your too busy with your trees, we have an intrest in fellow man. We do not "Convert". we simply tell people the good news. they decide what to believe themselves

This may be hard to understand, but missionaries help people BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE RIGHT! even if your too busy with your trees, we have an intrest in fellow man. We do not "Convert". we simply tell people the good news. they decide what to believe themselves


Horseshit. Pure, unadulterated horseshit.

If that were true, you'd never pass around a collection plate.

You force conversion either by scaring people with "Hell" or by denying a person something basic that they need .... like food. You go into a place with a giant buffet and tell homeless/hungry people that if they listen to you prattle on about Jesus, they can eat and have shelter.

Pagans do it because it's the right thing to do. Christians sold their souls to a book.

Have any of you ever actually been in a Church?

Oh ... and to answer this ... no. I do not put myself in a place where someone will stick a plate in my face and beg for change while trying to sell me salvation - something I don't need - and espouse philosophies that made it ok for their people to ruthlessly slaughter my people. We call that "Evil".

Have any of you ever actually been in a Church? CHRISTIANS do not usually do the tree thing. not the general population of countries such as my own, britain.

My mother was raised methodist. I spent two years in Sunday school and one year attending Church. I am quite familiar with Christian practices, thankyouverymuch. MOST Christians have trees. (And both of us are in the United States.) I found my path later in life when I was aware enough of my surroundings to make adult decisions rather than follow like the rest of the sheeple.

again, CHRISTIANS, not the average joe bloggs who uses easter as an excuse to eat eggs, celebrate the victory of Christ over sin and death.

Yes, CHRISTIANS... new clothes for church on Easter sound familiar? Pagan tradition. New bonnet? Pagan. White clothes? Pagan. Feasting? Fish? Pagan traditions. Now, unless you're a member of some strange branch of Christianity that I have yet to hear of, I'd say you're the exception to the rule, my friend.

This may be hard to understand, but missionaries help people BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE RIGHT! even if your too busy with your trees, we have an intrest in fellow man. We do not "Convert". we simply tell people the good news. they decide what to believe themselves

ALL of the missionaries that have come to my door have tried to convert me. I had a group of JWs at my door for three hours haranguing me because I don't believe that it's polite to slam the door in a visitors face (my husband is a follower of Odin, and inhospitality is seriously rude). Oh, and if you're really a Christian, you out to respect the life of all living entities, not just human beings. To people who have other, equally valid beliefs, "you're going to hell unless you love Christ" isn't really great news. Please feel free to check your ego at the door before insulting pagans for appreciating life in all its forms (not just human).

Oh ... and to answer this ... no. I do not put myself in a place where someone will stick a plate in my face and beg for change while trying to sell me salvation - something I don't need - and espouse philosophies that made it ok for their people to ruthlessly slaughter my people. We call that "Evil".

Right on... well put, well put. *passes a plate of change* Want some money? It's an un-offering.

I am afraid that churches are NON-PROFIT organisations, and since the goverment doesnt fund us and we have to pay taxes and such as well, we accept VOLUNTARY DONATIONS from the congregations. i pity you for having such feelings, but i am angered by any church who makes this contribution compulsory

Why do you blame us for the crusades and burnings and such? that was a mistake made by some pope and used religion as an excuse. you will find unfortunately that most world religions have such blunders. We actually hold the sanctity of life dear. we are charged with taking care of this earth, not killing its inhabitants

Why do you blame us for the crusades and burnings and such? that was a mistake made by some pope and used religion as an excuse. you will find unfortunately that most world religions have such blunders. We actually hold the sanctity of life dear. we are charged with taking care of this earth, not killing its inhabitants

Well, than you should start some activist action about the slaughter of pines as well (if nothing else, it's a huge fire hazard). I tend to advocate for lives that nobody bothers themselves about AS WELL as human beings.

Anyway, I'm out for the night...

My mother was raised methodist. I spent two years in Sunday school and one year attending Church. I am quite familiar with Christian practices, thankyouverymuch. MOST Christians have trees. (And both of us are in the United States.) I found my path later in life when I was aware enough of my surroundings to make adult decisions rather than follow like the rest of the sheeple.



Yes, CHRISTIANS... new clothes for church on Easter sound familiar? Pagan tradition. New bonnet? Pagan. White clothes? Pagan. Feasting? Fish? Pagan traditions. Now, unless you're a member of some strange branch of Christianity that I have yet to hear of, I'd say you're the exception to the rule, my friend.



ALL of the missionaries that have come to my door have tried to convert me. I had a group of JWs at my door for three hours haranguing me because I don't believe that it's polite to slam the door in a visitors face (my husband is a follower of Odin, and inhospitality is seriously rude). Oh, and if you're really a Christian, you out to respect the life of all living entities, not just human beings. To people who have other, equally valid beliefs, "you're going to hell unless you love Christ" isn't really great news. Please feel free to check your ego at the door before insulting pagans for appreciating life in all its forms (not just human).

This "strange branch" of christianity is called the church of england. or the methodist church. or the baptist church. or the united reformed church. Heck, they dont even do these at my local catholic church. We do not have the amercan traditions of new clothes for church on Easter, New bonnet, White clothes Feasting, Fish. so these do NOT sound familier. I pity americans who are forced into church rather than giving it a try themselves.

Also, there are virtually NO door-to-door christians in england. i have never even seen one in my lifetime. JWs are just weird (no insult to my fellow christians, but there are many beliefs we do not share)

"you're going to hell unless you love Christ" is not the message we give. we simply tell people about christ, and if they accept him they will have eternal life. Weather people believe this or not is there own oppinion.

to tell the truth, you have successfully lowered my oppinion of the american churches

Well, than you should start some activist action about the slaughter of pines as well (if nothing else, it's a huge fire hazard). I tend to advocate for lives that nobody bothers themselves about AS WELL as human beings.

Anyway, I'm out for the night...

I dont know what happens where you live, but we do not even have bonfires as part of any church holiday. We dont use any wood for burning unless its dead

I am afraid that churches are NON-PROFIT organisations, and since the goverment doesnt fund us and we have to pay taxes and such as well, we accept VOLUNTARY DONATIONS from the congregations. i pity you for having such feelings, but i am angered by any church who makes this contribution compulsory

Non-profit organizations don't pay taxes in the US. Tithe, bubba, isn't voluntary. According to your own book, it is mandatory.

Why do you blame us for the crusades and burnings and such? that was a mistake made by some pope and used religion as an excuse. you will find unfortunately that most world religions have such blunders. We actually hold the sanctity of life dear. we are charged with taking care of this earth, not killing its inhabitants

Now where did I blame you for crusades or burnings? When I say "my people" I mean my tribe. Have you not been paying attention? I am an American Indian and it wasn't "some pope" who oppressed and tried to wipe out my people, it was God-fearing Anglo Protestants who realized that they couldn't convert us, so they decided to slaughter us "savages". They have never once even tried to apologize. At least the Pope apologized for everything his church ever did in the name of Jesus.

Also, there are virtually NO door-to-door christians in england.

Lucky bastard ... they're crawling around here like maggots.

I've never heard of any Christian celebrating witch burning and I know a lot of Christians. What happens is that a few wackos who call themselves Christian celebrate it and give all Christians a bad name.

Celebrating the death of innocent human beings is NOT consistent at all with Christian teaching, no matter what you believe about or want to believe about Christians. I think that's obvious to most people, but perhaps some are very ignorant of Christian teachings or purposefully use false accusations to attack Christianity.




DISCLAIMER: Do not take anything you hear about Christianity on these threads to be true. There are so many false statements on here that it would take me days to respond to all of it. If you're curious about Christianity, talk to someone who actually knows about it (probably a Christian over the age of 25 who actually stays in touch with his/her religion.) It seriously scares me to think that kids and even adults come here and take everything they read on this forum as true.

A- we never have or will advocate tithes. please find these things out before argueing. Most true christians follow teachings, not these fancifull claims you puy on us

B- perhaps the comment about crusades and such was not speciffically directed at you. :headbang:

I run a church ... it is free.

I've never heard of any Christian celebrating witch burning and I know a lot of Christians. What happens is that a few wackos who call themselves Christian celebrate it and give all Christians a bad name.

Celebrating the death of innocent human beings is NOT consistent at all with Christian teaching, no matter what you believe about or want to believe about Christians. I think that's obvious to most people, but perhaps some are very ignorant of Christian teachings or purposefully use false accusations to attack Christianity.

DISCLAIMER: Do not take anything you hear about Christianity on these threads to be true. There are so many false statements on here that it would take me days to respond to all of it. If you're curious about Christianity, talk to someone who actually knows about it (probably a Christian over the age of 25 who actually stays in touch with his/her religion.) It seriously scares me to think that kids and even adults come here and take everything they read on this forum as true.


Very well said. most of the things we are accused of here i havnt heard of happening in the last God knows how many years, if outside anti-christian aguements

Running a church free? so there are no water bills? no electricity bills? you never spend anything to help with, lets say, youth ministry?

Running a church free? so there are no water bills? no electricity bills? you never spend anything to help with, lets say, youth ministry?

No .... water and electricity are unneeded ... I have a stream and the sun and land.

What better youth ministry can one have than 20 acres to play on?

Actually, "Christmas" is the celebration of the "birth" of Jesus ('cept he was born in the Summer sometime, from what I was told). The customs we practice are pagan (tree, decorating tree, feast, etc.).

That reminds me... I have to rant a little. The tradition of a tree was "appropriated" by Christians, yes? So it has become a Christian tradition as well... the thing is, pagans didn't butcher a tree for each family. They took one tree per tribe. Now, as a Druid, every time I go by a "Christmas Tree" stand, my heart catches in my throat. Why? Because there are hundreds of them. They are all living sacrifices to the Christian god now... and they were unceremoniously put to death and left to bleed to death, bedonned with lights and ornaments for weeks of torture. It's just cruel. Makes my blood run cold... all the living sacrifices the christians make to their god each year (and they don't even get to regenerate back into the earth again... they're not consumed, used for building, used to keep the tribe warm, or killed swiftly). Nobody asks them for their life, nobody thanks them for their sacrifice. It's all just such a waste of life.

Well, the date is a pagan one...
25th of december.
Even the pagan word for this celebration is still used in the nordic countries. The pagans had "jól" a celebration of the wintertime on the 25th of december long before they had even heard of Jesus&co.
Today, christmas is still called "Jól" or "Jul" in here.

The story goes that by simply changing the names of the "holidays" and keeping the date, the christians thought it would make the transition into christianity easier for pagans as they would not have to change their habits... Nevertheless, the transition is one of the bloodiest chapters in the history of this country.

Well, the date is a pagan one...
25th of december.
Even the pagan word for this celebration is still used in the nordic countries. The pagans had "jól" a celebration of the wintertime on the 25th of december long before they had even heard of Jesus&co.
Today, christmas is still called "Jól" or "Jul" in here.

The story goes that by simply changing the names of the "holidays" and keeping the date, the christians thought it would make the transition into christianity easier for pagans as they would not have to change their habits... Nevertheless, the transition is one of the bloodiest chapters in the history of this country.

*nods* My research has shown about the same things...

Dont forget that most of the people who were actually burned at the stake during the Inquisitions, were mostly land-owners.
The Church would seize thier assets, after declaring them "Heretics", or "consorters with the devil".

They burned....The Church got thier property, and money.

Dont forget that most of the people who were actually burned at the stake during the Inquisitions, were mostly land-owners.
The Church would seize thier assets, after declaring them "Heretics", or "consorters with the devil".

They burned....The Church got thier property, and money.

Don't forget about the Knights Templar- they were wiped out because they had too much money. They didn't have the slightest brush with witchcraft of any kind. The Church just got envious.

For the record: I prefer the term "American Indian" (as opposed to the other kind of Indian). I mean, anyone born in the US as a citizen is, by all rights, a "Native American".

Hell Yeah!

I was upset when I read that some Lutherans rubbed gunpowder onto the heads of our people before torching them.

Then I was told that this was an act of compassion, since it would give them a quick death instead of a slow painful one.

Ah, nothing like being compassionately burned to death.

ftr, who are "our people" ?

Have any of you ever actually been in a Church? CHRISTIANS do not usually do the tree thing. not the general population of countries such as my own, britain.

Hello. I'm British. Are you one of those Christians who thinks that catholics aren't Christian? Every catholic church I've ever been in at Christmas (which is a lot as i was brought up catholic and still go to mass at christmas with my family) had a christmas tree in it, usually on the altar. Everyone I know, whether catholic, protestant, hindu, muslim has a christmas tree. I've never discussed it with anyone Jewish.



again, CHRISTIANS, not the average joe bloggs who uses easter as an excuse to eat eggs, celebrate the victory of Christ over sin and death.
Lots of people manage to combine celebrating the victory of Christ over sin and death with eating chocoloate eggs. Christ himself gave us examples of the importance of feasting in celebration, eg the wedding at cana and the last supper.


This may be hard to understand, but missionaries help people BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IT TO BE RIGHT! even if your too busy with your trees, we have an intrest in fellow man. We do not "Convert". we simply tell people the good news. they decide what to believe themselves

Believing you are right doesn't make you right. Lots of Nazis believed it was right to gas Jews. And yes, Christians *do* convert. Christianity is a converting religion. They may not baptise at gunpoint, but they do convert people.

Your own view of Christianity is necessarily narrow, as you are just one person and you haven't met every Christian and categorised their views. So it is unwise to say what all Christians do, or what a real Christian believes.

I've never heard of any Christian celebrating witch burning and I know a lot of Christians. What happens is that a few wackos who call themselves Christian celebrate it and give all Christians a bad name.

Celebrating the death of innocent human beings is NOT consistent at all with Christian teaching, no matter what you believe about or want to believe about Christians. I think that's obvious to most people, but perhaps some are very ignorant of Christian teachings or purposefully use false accusations to attack Christianity.




DISCLAIMER: Do not take anything you hear about Christianity on these threads to be true. There are so many false statements on here that it would take me days to respond to all of it. If you're curious about Christianity, talk to someone who actually knows about it (probably a Christian over the age of 25 who actually stays in touch with his/her religion.) It seriously scares me to think that kids and even adults come here and take everything they read on this forum as true.

actually i can think of 30 million or more that celebrate it. Come to spain!!!
we have a night called "noche de las brujas" (night of the witches). Huge fires on the beach, burn efigies and have drinks and enjoy!

actually i can think of 30 million or more that celebrate it. Come to spain!!!
we have a night called "noche de las brujas" (night of the witches). Huge fires on the beach, burn efigies and have drinks and enjoy!

Spain? Catholic? Witch burning? Connection?

Sorry. Rudeness. We do that kind of stuff all summer in England. Just without the effigies. We call it:
" The Celebration of the night of all days ending in the letter 'Y' "

It's very specific. Okay it usually only happens when it's not raining, but on those two days, whoa, do us Brits rock out!!

I've never heard of any Christian celebrating witch burning and I know a lot of Christians. What happens is that a few wackos who call themselves Christian celebrate it and give all Christians a bad name.

Celebrating the death of innocent human beings is NOT consistent at all with Christian teaching, no matter what you believe about or want to believe about Christians. I think that's obvious to most people, but perhaps some are very ignorant of Christian teachings or purposefully use false accusations to attack Christianity.




DISCLAIMER: Do not take anything you hear about Christianity on these threads to be true. There are so many false statements on here that it would take me days to respond to all of it. If you're curious about Christianity, talk to someone who actually knows about it (probably a Christian over the age of 25 who actually stays in touch with his/her religion.) It seriously scares me to think that kids and even adults come here and take everything they read on this forum as true.

Very true, but no one ever wants to believe it. They would rather believe the ones that make all Christians sound like bigots and idiots. Although I do agree with you for the most part, I would say instead, "Do not take MOST of the stuff you hear on here as Christianity." Every once in a while some good nuggets do pop up. One other thing though, you don't have to be over 25 to be a "real" christian. As has been said , it is believed that many of the disciples were teens. The bible even says, "Let no man despise your youth." And that the youth are supposed to be examples of the true believer. I'm 18, AND a strong Christian. I'm trying not to bite though. Other than that, thank you for saying that. I hope it gets through.

Speaking as a Christian, I prefer building bridges out of them. Yes, it may be said that you can also build bridges out of stone, but I have found that Witches make the best of bridges.

Don't forget about the Knights Templar- they were wiped out because they had too much money. They didn't have the slightest brush with witchcraft of any kind. The Church just got envious.

Maybe I'm off base here, but didn't the Knights Templar wage one of the bloodiest crusades in history? I don't think they were necessarily "wiped out" as in "hunted to death" or anything... they were "wiped out" as a result of a bloody crusade/war.

Don't forget about the Knights Templar- they were wiped out because they had too much money. They didn't have the slightest brush with witchcraft of any kind. The Church just got envious.
Not quite, the French King [Phillipe IV iirc] who was jealous of the Templars riches, and indebted to them, acted in collusion with Pope Clement V [who owed him a favour since Phillipe helped him become pope] to destroy the order. It was a French led action, not a church led one, Most Templars who were arrested were arrested on the authority of the King not the pope.

And wiped out is a bit of a hyberbole, the majority of Templars were not even arrested, they simply stopped being Templars.

Maybe I'm off base here, but didn't the Knights Templar wage one of the bloodiest crusades in history? I don't think they were necessarily "wiped out" as in "hunted to death" or anything... they were "wiped out" as a result of a bloody crusade/war.
No, they were dissolved by a French Pope acting for a French king.

I have a quick question for the chrisitans before i have to go to lesson, why is it some chrisitans celebrate the deaths of the pagens who where burned at the stake during the crusades?

http://www.antver.com/photos/ph22/22-50.html

First, the opening post had a url which pointed to a joke, albeit in poor taste. This is not a celebration of burning witches.
Second, it was not the crusades, it was the time of the inquisition.
Third, from a Christian viewpoint, Satan is the author of all that is evil, and anyone worshipping him would be the equivalent of a soldier in an enemy army.

I have a quick question for the chrisitans before i have to go to lesson, why is it some chrisitans celebrate the deaths of the pagens who where burned at the stake during the crusades?

http://www.antver.com/photos/ph22/22-50.html
well, because they're made of wood!

and she turned me into a newt!


no, really, - what makes you assume this is a Christian event depicted in the photos?

Not quite, the French King [Phillipe IV iirc] who was jealous of the Templars riches, and indebted to them, acted in collusion with Pope Clement V [who owed him a favour since Phillipe helped him become pope] to destroy the order. It was a French led action, not a church led one, Most Templars who were arrested were arrested on the authority of the King not the pope.

And wiped out is a bit of a hyberbole, the majority of Templars were not even arrested, they simply stopped being Templars.
Pretty close - they WOULD have been wiped out except that their Grand Master refused to name them even after greusome torture. He was burned at the stake for heresy.
The King of France indeed wanted their riches - and successfully confiscated them after the sham-trial - He hired men of questionable repute to spy on the order. Of course, they came back reporting unmentionable vulgarities - which gave the king the justification he needed.

It is worth noting that the Templars were raided on Friday the 13th - which is where the tradition of bad omen on that day comes from. It is also suspected that many of the templars became 'pirates' working for the spanish? (I think) targeting foreign vessels (french) for looting. There is also evidence that mane retreated to Ireland to continue the order underground which eventually surfaced again as Free and Accepted Masons. That is all mostly speculation based on moderate available fact.