NationStates Jolt Archive

:
Kumi, consider that you don't even have to be a part of any religion.


How true. Why do you need a religion, Kumi? It sounds like you are window shopping for a religion, and you are stuck comparing the brands.

If you need a hobby, consider collecting something. Otherwise, consider reading philosophy. It is much more thought provoking and open to divergent views.

In regards to why Christians would hate, anything including Witches, consider the source historically and currently. Religion often stirs up hate and prejudice.

I think that the intentions of any religion start out good, but it is all theory and doesn't work when put into practice. There is no Utopia and relegion will not accomplish one.

I know those with Christian "faith" will claim that they are not attempting to acieve a Utopia, but just ask them about Heaven.

A religion that preaches forgiveness and reccomends at least 10% of your income is 'donated' to the church (Don't worry they will provide the envelopes), has bred an incredible amount of intolerance, and ironically often accomplish the opposite of their intentions.

The original Greek New Testament word for illegal magic is "pharmacopoeia". It's the same word we apply to prescription drugs.

Hah! Let's burn all the druggists!

You lot over in the UK, burn all the chemists!

Hah!

A religion that preaches forgiveness and reccomends at least 10% of your income is 'donated' to the church (Don't worry they will provide the envelopes), has bred an incredible amount of intolerance, and ironically often accomplish the opposite of their intentions.

Sorry, I cut the generalisations and myths out of your post. Hope that isn't seen as misquoting. Oh, except the Utopia part. Roll on utopia. Hmm the big Rock Party in the sky. If you do want to state opinions like that lot I suggest you explicitly say that they are opinions.

A tenth of all that you have, I believe. Actually when it's not your own to begin with it's easier. Like spending someone else's money (fun). And yes, we have pink envelopes, but they're not necessary. Just give us your credit card number and you will be saved. :D

(Never give out your credit card number or password in a forum debate. Especially to politicians. Or me)

Where in the bible does it specificall say that "Witchery" is bad? Can someone point out the chapter and verse for me?

Where in the bible does it specificall say that "Witchery" is bad? Can someone point out the chapter and verse for me?

Leviticus 19 v31.
Medium: one who channels another's power or spirit

How about Galatians 5 v20. Next

A witch turned me into a newt!

Yes! Monty Python!

"Bring out yer dead!"

Christians do not focus their own energies and believe that they can achieve supernatural, miraculous healing by their own efforts. Fact.
Christians pray to God. Fact.

Wrong.

I'll kindly ask that you don't act like you know what every Christian does.

I'm a Christian. I'm also a Wiccan.
It is possible to combine the two. Fact.

And yes I do believe I can focus my own energies and do all of that.
And yes I do pray to God. I ask him for assistance and thank him for giving me my abilities.

All religions were made up at some point by someone somewhere.

Older != Better. If it did, Hindu would pwn you all.

Well said. Remember, kids:
ANY religion that isn't 2000 years old is a CULT!!

(ducks)

Well said. Remember, kids:
ANY religion that isn't 2000 years old is a CULT!!

(ducks)
Like Islam.

Like Islam.

LOL, uh oh, look out.

Well said. Remember, kids:
ANY religion that isn't 2000 years old is a CULT!!

(ducks)

Well isn't that great since plenty of pagan religions have roots that go back further than that. :D

Leviticus 19 v31.
Medium: one who channels another's power or spirit

How about Galatians 5 v20. Next

Leviticus 19:31 says "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God."

It doesn't mention witches. It does mention 'wizards' (in the KJV translation), but the word being translated 'Yidde'oniy' is "one who has a familiar spirit".

And, since "familiar spirits" are not necessary for wicca, or even witchcraft... and since a medium doesn't automatically = a witch... this passage is irrelevent.

Galatians 5:20 says "Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,"

It mentions witchraft, but the word translated in to English from the Greek is "Pharmakeia", which means an administerer of drugs and poisons... the root of our modern word Pharmacist. Clearly Pharmacists are not witches, and again, clearly all wiccans does not = people who administer drugs or poisons.... so this passage is irrelevent.

NEXT.

Leviticus 19:31 says "Regard not them that have familiar spirits, neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God."

It doesn't mention witches. It does mention 'wizards' (in the KJV translation), but the word being translated 'Yidde'oniy' is "one who has a familiar spirit".

And, since "familiar spirits" are not necessary for wicca, or even witchcraft... and since a medium doesn't automatically = a witch... this passage is irrelevent.

Galatians 5:20 says "Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,"

It mentions witchraft, but the word translated in to English from the Greek is "Pharmakeia", which means an administerer of drugs and poisons... the root of our modern word Pharmacist. Clearly Pharmacists are not witches, and again, clearly all wiccans does not = people who administer drugs or poisons.... so this passage is irrelevent.

NEXT.

Oh, but Pharmacists are witches! That's why they where the white coats! It tricks you! :D *End insane babble*

Well isn't that great since plenty of pagan religions have roots that go back further than that. :D

The religion has to be 2000 years old. Not the roots. If you can show me a document proving strand X of Paganism, sure. This is why Wicca is a cult. ;)

(Yes, this is meant to be tounge-in-cheek. Catholicism/Christianity would *just* make the cut!)

Christians do not focus their own energies and believe that they can achieve supernatural, miraculous healing by their own efforts. Fact.
Christians pray to God. Fact.


You and your 'facts'. Prove it, if it is a fact. Without resort to your 'bible', because that can hardly be considered independent verification, now can it?

Yes, Christians 'pray' to 'god'. That is a fact. What ISN'T a 'fact' is who, or what, answers those prayers. It's all well and good for you to 'claim' it as fact... but you have as much evidence to support your 'god' theory as the witch does to support their belief.

Now, I can probably find links, if I look... that verify the experiment I was talking about, that verifies the efficacy of non-denominational 'prayer' activities.

You can provide no such data.



Right. That's er.. really not my problem. Satan exists, isn't Marilyn Manson or Chris Pontius and really DOES have relevance to non-Christian lives. They just prefer to not see it.


Prove Satan exists. It's all very well to flippantly point out that Satan 'isn't' Marylin Manson... but I suspect you have no other evidence to bring to the table.

Reading back through the Old Testament, it is obvious that the 'Satan' of the New Testament is an error, or deliberate fabrication, on the part of the New Testament authors... an accidental or deliberate re-imagining of the role of the 'adversary'... but hey, that's just to my critical eye.

Prove that Satan exists. Prove that it is, in fact, he that gives 'power' to the witch.


Have a nice day.

You too. No, really.

The religion has to be 2000 years old. Not the roots. If you can show me a document proving strand X of Paganism, sure. This is why Wicca is a cult. ;)

(Yes, this is meant to be tounge-in-cheek. Catholicism/Christianity would *just* make the cut!)

Ah... *coughcrapcough*

(Yes, this is meant to be tounge-in-cheek. Catholicism/Christianity would *just* make the cut!)

:D

The religion has to be 2000 years old. Not the roots. If you can show me a document proving strand X of Paganism, sure. This is why Wicca is a cult. ;)

(Yes, this is meant to be tounge-in-cheek. Catholicism/Christianity would *just* make the cut!)

Who says that Catholicism and Christianity make the cut?

Since Jesus is assumed to have died in about 30 AD... neither of the 'churches' can actually be two thousand years old, yet!

You and your 'facts'. Prove it, if it is a fact. Without resort to your 'bible', because that can hardly be considered independent verification, now can it?

Yes, Christians 'pray' to 'god'. That is a fact. What ISN'T a 'fact' is who, or what, answers those prayers. It's all well and good for you to 'claim' it as fact... but you have as much evidence to support your 'god' theory as the witch does to support their belief.

Now, I can probably find links, if I look... that verify the experiment I was talking about, that verifies the efficacy of non-denominational 'prayer' activities.

You can provide no such data.

Prove Satan exists. It's all very well to flippantly point out that Satan 'isn't' Marylin Manson... but I suspect you have no other evidence to bring to the table.

Reading back through the Old Testament, it is obvious that the 'Satan' of the New Testament is an error, or deliberate fabrication, on the part of the New Testament authors... an accidental or deliberate re-imagining of the role of the 'adversary'... but hey, that's just to my critical eye.

Prove that Satan exists. Prove that it is, in fact, he that gives 'power' to the witch.

I'm getting quite tired of your angry, misguided rantings. Please don't say 'your bible' in that tone (yes I know it's text but the meaning is clear) as I find it very offensive.

Proof would be nice. If we had proof there would be no need to believe. Faith. Belief in something you can't see, touch, prove. The way I said fact was not very useful. In that context what I mean is that the image of a Christian as portrayed by God is one that will only perform acts for the Glory of said God, acts being anything, not just supernatural. Faith is required. If we all had proof of God's existence and love then it would be a serious wrench on the human pysche for someone to actually say "well, no I don't really believe it. I think I'll take my chances with the old Hell idea."

As for the praying then receiving thing, if you ask your mum for food and there is no other interaction, does your great-uncle then bring you a cheeseburger in answer? As for your data. Read this a couple of times and accept it: humans are fallible. They can be wrong. They can lie on purpose. Especially in this context as if God through me will not prove what you are asking then any proof you get from other (non-God) sources will inherently be false (I am not saying I am infallible, as many examiners/friends/parents will confirm).

This also goes for your translation issues. If the Bible was in Inuit and recorded a snowball fight between Christians you would be able to find many people who could linguistically say that the people were hurling great balls of ice at each others heads. What you have to accept or at least let Christians accept is that God will not let the Bible in its taught form to be twisted by any human device whatsoever.

I have to admit to not having read the entire Old Testament. I'm somwhere in Chronicles 2 at the moment. I'm not aware of any reference to Satan in the OT which does not depict him as the serpent in eden or as a generically evil force. I believe that's what my vicar said. If you want to argue with him, he has a double first from the most accomplished university in the world and has taught at the best School in England. He's not an unintelligent man and has probably thought things out (with help from God of course) quite nicely.

I do give humblest apologies for any offence I cause anyone. I'm typically pretty angry when I write posts (it's computer related, don't ask) and can go off the handle easily. Great advert for Xtianity, huh?

Yes! Monty Python!

"Bring out yer dead!"

I shall ask of thee these questions three!

Who says that Catholicism and Christianity make the cut?

Since Jesus is assumed to have died in about 30 AD... neither of the 'churches' can actually be two thousand years old, yet!

Had followers in life.

Who says that Catholicism and Christianity make the cut?

Since Jesus is assumed to have died in about 30 AD... neither of the 'churches' can actually be two thousand years old, yet!

Christianity goes for the 'Our religion started before the dawn of time' argument. Hey, Grave_n_idle, disprove that for me will you.

Maybe they could say that the first recorded Christian teaching was 9AD when a 12 year old kid started mouthing off at the pharisees. 5 more years!!

Hee hee. When was Buddha around anyway? Was that 2000+ years ago?(I realise this is not serious)

Christianity goes for the 'Our religion started before the dawn of time' argument. Hey, Grave_n_idle, disprove that for me will you.

Hee hee. When was Buddha around anyway? Was that 2000+ years ago?(I realise this is not serious)

Under the 2000 years concept, Buddhism, Christianity (just!), Judiaism, and some of the other religions work. (Ie: If there are any worshipers of Baal left, hey, great.) Jainism (from India) is another good example of a 2000+ year old religion.

...Still not serious, but it is fun.

Had followers in life.

Okay, let's use non-canonical texts... where Jesus starts to 'preach' at age of about 12.... born in about 4 BC... that would mean that the very earliest christians (if they became christians of catholics then... which they didn't... they didn't become christian or catholic until the founding of a church... but we'll let it pass for now)

So, the earliest christians would have been in 8 AD.

Which is 1996 years ago... so, neither christianity or catholicism are 2000 years old yet.

Christianity goes for the 'Our religion started before the dawn of time' argument. Hey, Grave_n_idle, disprove that for me will you.

Maybe they could say that the first recorded Christian teaching was 9AD when a 12 year old kid started mouthing off at the pharisees. 5 more years!!

Hee hee. When was Buddha around anyway? Was that 2000+ years ago?(I realise this is not serious)

I don't need to disprove your argument here.

The fact that other cultures already had written histories before the world was even created, according to the Judeo-christian reckoning, proves how erroneous the christian assertion is.

There are Buddhist teachings from at least 600 years before Jesus... and, interestingly, the Jesus story is remarkably 'similar' to the earlier Buddhist stories, and the teachings of Jesus seem to bear a striking resemblence to those early Buddhist teachings, too.

I'm getting quite tired of your angry, misguided rantings. Please don't say 'your bible' in that tone (yes I know it's text but the meaning is clear) as I find it very offensive.

Proof would be nice. If we had proof there would be no need to believe. Faith. Belief in something you can't see, touch, prove. The way I said fact was not very useful. In that context what I mean is that the image of a Christian as portrayed by God is one that will only perform acts for the Glory of said God, acts being anything, not just supernatural. Faith is required. If we all had proof of God's existence and love then it would be a serious wrench on the human pysche for someone to actually say "well, no I don't really believe it. I think I'll take my chances with the old Hell idea."

As for the praying then receiving thing, if you ask your mum for food and there is no other interaction, does your great-uncle then bring you a cheeseburger in answer? As for your data. Read this a couple of times and accept it: humans are fallible. They can be wrong. They can lie on purpose. Especially in this context as if God through me will not prove what you are asking then any proof you get from other (non-God) sources will inherently be false (I am not saying I am infallible, as many examiners/friends/parents will confirm).

This also goes for your translation issues. If the Bible was in Inuit and recorded a snowball fight between Christians you would be able to find many people who could linguistically say that the people were hurling great balls of ice at each others heads. What you have to accept or at least let Christians accept is that God will not let the Bible in its taught form to be twisted by any human device whatsoever.

I have to admit to not having read the entire Old Testament. I'm somwhere in Chronicles 2 at the moment. I'm not aware of any reference to Satan in the OT which does not depict him as the serpent in eden or as a generically evil force. I believe that's what my vicar said. If you want to argue with him, he has a double first from the most accomplished university in the world and has taught at the best School in England. He's not an unintelligent man and has probably thought things out (with help from God of course) quite nicely.

I do give humblest apologies for any offence I cause anyone. I'm typically pretty angry when I write posts (it's computer related, don't ask) and can go off the handle easily. Great advert for Xtianity, huh?

First: My post wasn't angry. You may read it as 'demanding', which it is. You make assertions of your 'creed' as though they were factual, and I deny you the oppurtunity to have it passed unquestioned. If you are going to assert that articles of YOUR faith are factual, I demand evidence.

Second: I am far from misguided, and you are in an interesting place to be questioning me on biblical 'misguiding', when you have yet to even complete the text. This means that you only know what someone else has told you, and that person is capable of being fallible. I have, incidentally, read several English translations of the bible, have read the bible in Hebrew/Greek and in the Latin Vulgate. For sheer poetic value, I favour the KJV most, and have read it hundreds of times from cover to cover.

Third: I didn't say 'your bible', I said your 'bible'.... a bible being a book... (note the lack of capital letter), and especially, I use it here to denote a religious text. (As in; the Koran is the Islamic 'bible'.)

Re: your example about sandwiches. Your argument falls down because YOU can only see Mommy in the kitchen. I can see that there COULD BE hundreds of people in the kitchen. I also know that I made that cheeseburger myself.

Re: Your assertion that "God will not let the Bible in its taught form to be twisted by any human device whatsoever" is a nonsense, I'm afraid. No two denominations of christianity, let alone catholicism, can agree on what the whole bible means. And the English translation versions are abortions of the original language versions.

Re: "I'm not aware of any reference to Satan in the OT which does not depict him as the serpent in eden or as a generically evil force"... so why did you say it then? Have you scriptural evidence that DOES link these entities, or that DOES depict Satan as generically evil? Yes - these links are made in the New Testament, but the Hebrews do not accept the New Testament, as it butchers THEIR text for it's own purposes. Find me Old Testament support for your claims.

And, I'm really sorry to have to break it to you, but I have no interest in your vicar or his academic 'acheivements'... although i do wonder where you think the "most accomplished university in the world" and the "best School in England" are. I'm sure he's a very bright fellow, but, he is unfortunately, a christian, and therefore unable to give an objective analysis of scripture.

For your information, my Uncle Tony is a vicar, and a highly qualified one... and when I have had these debates with him, he has not thought me 'misguided', except in as much as I am not a christian.

ok i was wondering i personally have no religious beliefs but instead is searching for some and i saw witchcraft and did some research. Well I found out that the church is very against it but i wonder why i asked a very religious friend that and he said "because the bible sys it is wrong" then i asked why and got a shrug and asked if i still rooted for the chiefs so you religious people why are you against wicca and other witch craft even the ones that are against pain and suffering.

As I understand it from a Christian friend who is rational, the original statement was "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." Not a witch. One mis-translation got proliferated, and the rest of us suffer.

Okay, let's use non-canonical texts... where Jesus starts to 'preach' at age of about 12.... born in about 4 BC... that would mean that the very earliest christians (if they became christians of catholics then... which they didn't... they didn't become christian or catholic until the founding of a church... but we'll let it pass for now)

So, the earliest christians would have been in 8 AD.

Which is 1996 years ago... so, neither christianity or catholicism are 2000 years old yet.

Not bad! 8 is better than 30.
Now, how about those 3 wise men?
(Actually, John the Baptist is where I start Christianity at.)

The religion has to be 2000 years old. Not the roots. If you can show me a document proving strand X of Paganism, sure. This is why Wicca is a cult. ;)


Go cults! :D

I don't know how old my religion is, personally, and I don't really care. By anthropology, it's remained basically unchanged for 10s of thousands of years, but there's no way to document it. The oldest documents describing my tribe's practices dates back to around the 500s - about when Islam was springing up - but we didn't have much of a written language before then. The earliest European documents are from when the Spanish first made contact with my people in the 1560s.

But, then again, American Indians may only be 60 years old, for all I know, and were created in a vast conspiracy during WWII in order to make the white man look bad - Yes, I actually did pull that from a Klan document.

As I understand it from a Christian friend who is rational, the original statement was "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live." Not a witch. One mis-translation got proliferated, and the rest of us suffer.

Look back over this thread for my earlier post... or look over Keruvalia's response in the thread about Christians burning witches...

You're close, but not close enough.... as you are confusing the transaltion of the Greek, with a passage from the Hebrew.

Either way, either my post, or Keruvalia's post will clean this mess up for you.

Not bad! 8 is better than 30.
Now, how about those 3 wise men?
(Actually, John the Baptist is where I start Christianity at.)

But 1996 years is still not 2000 years.... :)

What three wise men? The three (allegedly) attending the birth of Jesus? Well, they were astronomers, weren't they? So - not Hebrews, surely?

And the 'Christ' had yet to be born (and some argue, IS still to be born), so they can't have been Christian...

How can John the Baptist be the root of Christianity... rather than Christ? Think about that question for a second, you'll see what I mean...

Go cults! :D

I don't know how old my religion is, personally, and I don't really care. By anthropology, it's remained basically unchanged for 10s of thousands of years, but there's no way to document it. The oldest documents describing my tribe's practices dates back to around the 500s - about when Islam was springing up - but we didn't have much of a written language before then. The earliest European documents are from when the Spanish first made contact with my people in the 1560s.

But, then again, American Indians may only be 60 years old, for all I know, and were created in a vast conspiracy during WWII in order to make the white man look bad - Yes, I actually did pull that from a Klan document.

I seem to recall hearing a figure of 9000 years of American Indian habitation on the North American landmass... although I recently read numbers suggesting a consistent habitation closer to 15.000 years. I have to see if I can remember where I saw that figure...

Whichever figure... if we assume that oral traditions passed heritage between individuals as long as there WERE individuals (which is not unlikely) with the capacity for oral traditions... American Indian 'religion' must have at least 9000 years of 'history', maybe 15,000 (if I can find that accursed link)... and probably more... since there is no reason to suppose they lacked 'religion' before the earliest yet-located evidence...

Either way, either my post, or Keruvalia's post will clean this mess up for you.


Here's my essay on the subject:

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

:)

But 1996 years is still not 2000 years.... :)

What three wise men? The three (allegedly) attending the birth of Jesus? Well, they were astronomers, weren't they? So - not Hebrews, surely?

And the 'Christ' had yet to be born (and some argue, IS still to be born), so they can't have been Christian...

How can John the Baptist be the root of Christianity... rather than Christ? Think about that question for a second, you'll see what I mean...

They were Magi, or Mageans, which is to say, Zoroastrians. They were celebrating the birth in earthly form of Uhuru Mazda, the Spirit of Freedom, whom the Chsistians call Christ and who the Hebrews call (although not recognizing that birth) the Messiah of the Seed of David.

But 1996 years is still not 2000 years.... :)

What three wise men? The three (allegedly) attending the birth of Jesus? Well, they were astronomers, weren't they? So - not Hebrews, surely?

And the 'Christ' had yet to be born (and some argue, IS still to be born), so they can't have been Christian...

How can John the Baptist be the root of Christianity... rather than Christ? Think about that question for a second, you'll see what I mean...

True, but 2004 = 2004... observe:
Yep. They don't have to be Hebrews, just the earliest Christians. :)

Sure they can have been. They followed the star, found the (and their) messiah. Done!

John baptized many, including Jesus himself. He's not the root, but he is the chronological beginning. If you believe, then you believe that those he baptized were/became Christians.

Are people actually arguing about whether christianity is 1996 yrs old or 2004 yrs old? ... What exactly does anyone here hope to accomplish?

Are people actually arguing about whether christianity is 1996 yrs old or 2004 yrs old? ... What exactly does anyone here hope to accomplish?

Yes... yes they are. Who said anything would be accomplished?

Yes... yes they are. Who said anything would be accomplished?

OOPS! LOL...

Are people actually arguing about whether christianity is 1996 yrs old or 2004 yrs old? ... What exactly does anyone here hope to accomplish?

This started with me saying a few pages back that "any religion that isn't 2000 years old is a cult". It's a joke, but that's the gist of it.

This started with me saying a few pages back that "any religion that isn't 2000 years old is a cult". It's a joke, but that's the gist of it.

And someone took it as literal, and a sensible debate? please..... (lol)

True, but 2004 = 2004... observe:
Yep. They don't have to be Hebrews, just the earliest Christians. :)

Sure they can have been. They followed the star, found the (and their) messiah. Done!

John baptized many, including Jesus himself. He's not the root, but he is the chronological beginning. If you believe, then you believe that those he baptized were/became Christians.

So, okay... we allow the Magi... but Zoroastrians didn't believe in Messiah, they were looking for "Saoshyant", who is a) a very different figure, and b) almost certainly not Jesus... since he satisfied the requirements of Saoshyant even less well than those of Messiah.

And, since the Magi were Zoroastrians, and didn't follow the life or teachings of Christ, I don't think they can be considered 'christian'.

I have to disagree with your John Baptist assessment, too. John baptised Jesus, but Jesus was not a christian... you can only be christian by following the life or teachings of 'christ', hence the name. John didn't... the other way if anything... so John wasn't a christian, any more than Moses or Adam were.

I've decided that if a religion isn't less than 5 years old, it ain't worth listening to.

Enjoy! :D

I've decided that if a religion isn't less than 5 years old, it ain't worth listening to.

Enjoy! :D

Man. I have neon tetras that old!

I HEARBY PROCLAIM THE ORTHODOX CHURCH OF THE NEON TETRA!

Brother, would you care for a holy fish flake or some divine Sodium Biphosphate?

And someone took it as literal, and a sensible debate? please..... (lol)

For some reason, yep.
I'm so happy we have an Electoral College. :)

So, okay... we allow the Magi... but Zoroastrians didn't believe in Messiah, they were looking for "Saoshyant", who is a) a very different figure, and b) almost certainly not Jesus... since he satisfied the requirements of Saoshyant even less well than those of Messiah.

And, since the Magi were Zoroastrians, and didn't follow the life or teachings of Christ, I don't think they can be considered 'christian'.

I have to disagree with your John Baptist assessment, too. John baptised Jesus, but Jesus was not a christian... you can only be christian by following the life or teachings of 'christ', hence the name. John didn't... the other way if anything... so John wasn't a christian, any more than Moses or Adam were.

That's your speculation, and you're certainly entitled to it. My POV is that is what the Catholics (and a good chunk of the other Christians) believe, thus 2000 years is valid.

Ah, but that's the cunundrum! John was baptisizing before Jesus came to him... was he making them Amway salesmen? :)
Christianity does have a "proto-state". After all, Mary was born without Original Sin. How'd that happen? The Father obviously had a plan for the whole thing. The generation(s) before can be considered Christian, granted only in an abstract way.
Just like the Phantom Menace can be called a Star Wars movie, though it doesn't really have Darth Vader in it. ;)
Or, if you prefer a real-world example: the same way the Ancient Spartans were basically Communists.

That's your speculation, and you're certainly entitled to it. My POV is that is what the Catholics (and a good chunk of the other Christians) believe, thus 2000 years is valid.

Ah, but that's the cunundrum! John was baptisizing before Jesus came to him... was he making them Amway salesmen? :)
Christianity does have a "proto-state". After all, Mary was born without Original Sin. How'd that happen? The Father obviously had a plan for the whole thing. The generation(s) before can be considered Christian, granted only in an abstract way.
Just like the Phantom Menace can be called a Star Wars movie, though it doesn't really have Darth Vader in it. ;)
Or, if you prefer a real-world example: the same way the Ancient Spartans were basically Communists.

Which part of my post is speculation?

2000 years is valid, in your opinion... but it makes a mockery of christianity... since it implies you can be christian without following christ.

John was making them baptised. He wasn't making them christian, any more than converting to Islam makes you christian... sure, they all follow the same god, but is a Moslem a christian? Is a christian a judaist?

Interesting idea that Mary was born without original sin. Can you support that scripturally?

Which part of my post is speculation?

2000 years is valid, in your opinion... but it makes a mockery of christianity... since it implies you can be christian without following christ.

John was making them baptised. He wasn't making them christian, any more than converting to Islam makes you christian... sure, they all follow the same god, but is a Moslem a christian? Is a christian a judaist?

Interesting idea that Mary was born without original sin. Can you support that scripturally?

The first paragraph.

It doesn't make a mockery, it shows that the Father was working to set events into motion for the divinity of his Son.

And what is baptism, then?
I learned that he was anointing them in the name of the Father, and in the name of the one to come who was greater than he was. The he acknowledged J.C. as that one. Slam dunk. :)

The first paragraph.

It doesn't make a mockery, it shows that the Father was working to set events into motion for the divinity of his Son.

And what is baptism, then?
I learned that he was anointing them in the name of the Father, and in the name of the one to come who was greater than he was. The he acknowledged J.C. as that one. Slam dunk. :)

The first paragraph? What, you don't believe that the wise men were Zoroastrian? Or maybe you don't accept that Zoroastrians would be looking for Saoshyant? I don't see where my 'speculation' is, in all this...

You do understand what the word 'christian' means, don't you? That's why it makes a mockery of christianity.

He wasn't anointing in the name of the one who was to come... he was anointing in the name of the Father.... he said that the one who was to come would anoint ALSO, but that HE would anoint with the Holy Spirit.

I guess you can un-dunk your slam...

The first paragraph? What, you don't believe that the wise men were Zoroastrian? Or maybe you don't accept that Zoroastrians would be looking for Saoshyant? I don't see where my 'speculation' is, in all this...

You do understand what the word 'christian' means, don't you? That's why it makes a mockery of christianity.

He wasn't anointing in the name of the one who was to come... he was anointing in the name of the Father.... he said that the one who was to come would anoint ALSO, but that HE would anoint with the Holy Spirit.

I guess you can un-dunk your slam...

I believe that the wise men found and adored the Christ. Ergo, Christians.

Yes, I do. I just don't agree with your line of logic.

Right... "proto-christians". :)

Listen, neither of us is going to convince the other, but you have great arguements and I've enjoyed this debate. Kyrie Elesion.

I believe that the wise men found and adored the Christ. Ergo, Christians.

Yes, I do. I just don't agree with your line of logic.

Right... "proto-christians". :)

Listen, neither of us is going to convince the other, but you have great arguements and I've enjoyed this debate. Kyrie Elesion.

I have also enjoyed our exchange of ideas...

You have, by the way, given me a new thought to contemplate... that christians could be christians NOT because they followed christ, but because they were ANOINTED (as in kristos).... which is an interesting angle, but might throw me at odds with most christians.

Anyway... that means I learned something, so it is all worthwhile. :)

I have also enjoyed our exchange of ideas...

You have, by the way, given me a new thought to contemplate... that christians could be christians NOT because they followed christ, but because they were ANOINTED (as in kristos).... which is an interesting angle, but might throw me at odds with most christians.

Anyway... that means I learned something, so it is all worthwhile. :)

Unusual to have a civilized debate on here. :)

Thanks to you, too. You've also given me something to consider: I need to read up on the wise men a bit. Maybe my thinking on them is over-simplified...

The whole witchcraft thing strikes me as being a really namby sort of association for the rebellious, the self-outcast, and people who crave attention. Every one I've met has been a floaty idealist who insists upon turning the mundane into the mystic. Many of them are uneducated hacks who "make spells" to do their homework better or just ramble on in a poorly constructed poetic gush about how important and powerful they think they are. Worst of all, they always seem convinced that I actually give a rat's ass about the "pagan" viewpoint on every single issue.

Unusual to have a civilized debate on here. :)

Thanks to you, too. You've also given me something to consider: I need to read up on the wise men a bit. Maybe my thinking on them is over-simplified...

And so, everyone can learn something.... and that means, even if there is disagreement, everyone can go away happy.

Now that, I believe, is how debate is SUPPOSED to work... :)

First: My post wasn't angry. You may read it as 'demanding', which it is. You make assertions of your 'creed' as though they were factual, and I deny you the oppurtunity to have it passed unquestioned. If you are going to assert that articles of YOUR faith are factual, I demand evidence.

Second: I am far from misguided, and you are in an interesting place to be questioning me on biblical 'misguiding', when you have yet to even complete the text. This means that you only know what someone else has told you, and that person is capable of being fallible. I have, incidentally, read several English translations of the bible, have read the bible in Hebrew/Greek and in the Latin Vulgate. For sheer poetic value, I favour the KJV most, and have read it hundreds of times from cover to cover.

I consider eigenvalues and vectors demanding. No wait, did them yesterday (ok, still don't get them). I shouldn't really be describing you as angry. I'm sorry for that. As I'm guessing that you are an academic I challenge you to state that you have gone out and found direct, unequivocal evidence for everything that someone has told you. Some things you prove. Some things, you accept. I accept the beliefs of Christianity. You should accept that I pity you for having read God's word so many times but have not had the understanding to believe it.

Third: I didn't say 'your bible', I said your 'bible'.... a bible being a book... (note the lack of capital letter), and especially, I use it here to denote a religious text. (As in; the Koran is the Islamic 'bible'.)

Fair enough. I get it. I don't think my Moslem best mate would be extra-happy with you calling the Qu'ran a bible. Oops, no he's not. He says the term bible refers to a collection of books whereas the Qu'ran is one book.

Re: your example about sandwiches. Your argument falls down because YOU can only see Mommy in the kitchen. I can see that there COULD BE hundreds of people in the kitchen. I also know that I made that cheeseburger myself.
Dredd style: I knew you'd say that. And so in true engineering style I left in the 'no other interaction' clause (meaning: me interact with ma. No other interactions such as Uncle overhearing). (Does the Dilbert Engineer's Dance of Joy) And as an engineer... can I take a look at your kitchen?

Re: Your assertion that "God will not let the Bible in its taught form to be twisted by any human device whatsoever" is a nonsense, I'm afraid. No two denominations of christianity, let alone catholicism, can agree on what the whole bible means. And the English translation versions are abortions of the original language versions.
And again (does dance of mega-joy). The Bible's right. Humans just twist their teaching. Prophesied and happening. Hopefully the different denominations will get over their hissy-fits and agree that the truths are what matter

And, I'm really sorry to have to break it to you, but I have no interest in your vicar or his academic 'acheivements'... although i do wonder where you think the "most accomplished university in the world" and the "best School in England" are. I'm sure he's a very bright fellow, but, he is unfortunately, a christian, and therefore unable to give an objective analysis of scripture.
That would be Cambridge then (Eton being the school. Although apparently you can get the Art teachers to help you a little!). Although MIT and the other one are pretty good, we brits have to admit. Stanford, sorry. By objective you mean... horribly twisted by world views?

For your information, my Uncle Tony is a vicar, and a highly qualified one... and when I have had these debates with him, he has not thought me 'misguided', except in as much as I am not a christian.
A highly qualified vicar. Does he get a better salary?

I've decided that if a religion isn't less than 5 years old, it ain't worth listening to.

Enjoy! :D

Hmm. Oh what the heck.

Behold the Holy Church of Crossmanism!!!

Hmm. Oh what the heck.

Behold the Holy Church of Crossmanism!!!
ooo can i start one i shall call it bob

I consider eigenvalues and vectors demanding. No wait, did them yesterday (ok, still don't get them). I shouldn't really be describing you as angry. I'm sorry for that. As I'm guessing that you are an academic I challenge you to state that you have gone out and found direct, unequivocal evidence for everything that someone has told you. Some things you prove. Some things, you accept. I accept the beliefs of Christianity. You should accept that I pity you for having read God's word so many times but have not had the understanding to believe it.


Actually, most of the stuff I was taught at school was what SET ME on the road of questioning everything I read or hear.... specifically Chemistry, as taught at school.... which started out with bonding being explained by a kind of 'hooks' principle of valence bonding.... transformed a few years later to electron interactions, tyransformed later into probability density and how that shapes interactions....

You don't need to pity me... I was a christian, I was 'saved', I am extremely familiar with the 'text'. It doesn't make sense, and I am not willing to build my life around something I cannot be sure of. I feel sorry for you that you haven't got this far down the path yet.


Fair enough. I get it. I don't think my Moslem best mate would be extra-happy with you calling the Qu'ran a bible. Oops, no he's not. He says the term bible refers to a collection of books whereas the Qu'ran is one book.


Actually, bible literally means 'book', and one of the specific dictionary definitions of it is "the sacred writings of a religion". I am afraid your friend is in error. By the way, my English, Sikh and Hindu friends had no complaints with the idea of holy books as 'bibles'.


Dredd style: I knew you'd say that. And so in true engineering style I left in the 'no other interaction' clause (meaning: me interact with ma. No other interactions such as Uncle overhearing). (Does the Dilbert Engineer's Dance of Joy) And as an engineer... can I take a look at your kitchen?


You are welcome to look into my kitchen. Unfortuantely, you don't seem to be able to.


And again (does dance of mega-joy). The Bible's right. Humans just twist their teaching. Prophesied and happening. Hopefully the different denominations will get over their hissy-fits and agree that the truths are what matter


How can it just be 'humans' twisting 'their teaching', when the English versions don't agree with each other (and I mean the words on the page), and they don't agree with the Latin, and neither translation agrees with the Hebrew/Greek. If the English version is right, then the apostles and prophets were wrong. If the Greek/Hebrew was right, then the English version is wrong.


That would be Cambridge then (Eton being the school. Although apparently you can get the Art teachers to help you a little!). Although MIT and the other one are pretty good, we brits have admit. Stanford, sorry. By objective you mean... horribly twisted by world views?


No, by objective, I mean 'objective'. I would argue that your vicar friend has been 'horribly twisted' by church views.

I laugh at your assertion that Eton is the best school in England. Most expensive doesn't necessarily equate to 'best'. I assumed you meant Cambridge... but I don't think you necessarily have any evidence for your claim.... once again, expensive doesn't automatically equate to good.


A highly qualified vicar. Does he get a better salary?

I don't know. He said he wasn't in it for the money.

Actually, most of the stuff I was taught at school was what SET ME on the road of questioning everything I read or hear.... specifically Chemistry, as taught at school.... which started out with bonding being explained by a kind of 'hooks' principle of valence bonding.... transformed a few years later to electron interactions, tyransformed later into probability density and how that shapes interactions....
Damn, I'm glad I gave up chemistry. At least before it went into probability. That makes me laugh, I wondered why all my biochemist and chemical engineer mates started sounding a lot like mathematicians!! They used calculators more than Maths, Comp Sci and Physics put together!

You don't need to pity me... I was a christian, I was 'saved', I am extremely familiar with the 'text'. It doesn't make sense, and I am not willing to build my life around something I cannot be sure of. I feel sorry for you that you haven't got this far down the path yet.
Do you build your life around (okay not build around, but interact with) air, electricity, plant-life, nervous systems, and the Lewis-Duckworth system.(hands in the air, who knows how the L-D system works?) I'm sure you don't know quite how at least one of those works. Okay so the Lewis-Duckworth system relates to cricket. But still, not even brits know what the hell they're on about. My point, even if you don't know quite how something works you may still use it. I still pity you, in a nice way. Don't feel sorry for me because of that. Feel sorry for me because I've had to go on another University course. Pay to do work again. Yay.

Actually, bible literally means 'book', and one of the specific dictionary definitions of it is "the sacred writings of a religion". I am afraid your friend is in error. By the way, my English, Sikh and Hindu friends had no complaints with the idea of holy books as 'bibles'.
No the greek 'biblos' means book. The word Bible is taken as meaning a guide, like half a dozen people have recently proclaimed to me that some particular book on some obscure language is seen as the bible of the subject. If bible meant book then we wouldn't have any need for the word book, would we. On a random language point where did the Latin word for book come from? Nothing to do with subject, I've forgotten.


Being on a different continent will do that. My neck's not that long. I was just curious as to the size of aforementioned culinary facilities. Is it like the car in Chamber of Secrets?

[QUOTE]How can it just be 'humans' twisting 'their teaching', when the English versions don't agree with each other (and I mean the words on the page), and they don't agree with the Latin, and neither translation agrees with the Hebrew/Greek. If the English version is right, then the apostles and prophets were wrong. If the Greek/Hebrew was right, then the English version is wrong.
Various translation issues. Remember the Inuit Bible example? (was that you?). As a by the bye, the KJV was essentially a version commissioned by a strange, paranoid man from Scotland who promoted the smoking of tobacco for its health benefits. It was written by a bunch of people under no illusions of the fact that said monarch would have them killed in nasty ways if he didn't like any of what he read.

I laugh at your assertion that Eton is the best school in England. Most expensive doesn't necessarily equate to 'best'. I assumed you meant Cambridge... but I don't think you necessarily have any evidence for your claim.... once again, expensive doesn't automatically equate to good.
Know what you mean about Eton, no way as good as my school. As for the uniforms!! You're not an Otford or Emperial lecturer are you?! Not catching me paying £3000 for Uni however (think they're implementing that in 2006/7 or so). Although a previous uni was thinking of joining the £3000 trend. Definitely not a good university!!

Do you build your life around (okay not build around, but interact with) air, electricity, plant-life, nervous systems, and the Lewis-Duckworth system.(hands in the air, who knows how the L-D system works?) I'm sure you don't know quite how at least one of those works. Okay so the Lewis-Duckworth system relates to cricket. But still, not even brits know what the hell they're on about. My point, even if you don't know quite how something works you may still use it.


I have a fairly good understanding of how all of those 'function', with the exception of Cricket. I never liked Cricket.


No the greek 'biblos' means book. The word Bible is taken as meaning a guide, like half a dozen people have recently proclaimed to me that some particular book on some obscure language is seen as the bible of the subject. If bible meant book then we wouldn't have any need for the word book, would we. On a random language point where did the Latin word for book come from? Nothing to do with subject, I've forgotten.


We get the word Bible from the Medieval Latin 'biblia' which is derived form the Greek 'biblia', meaning a 'collection of writings'... originating in the word 'biblos' meaning 'papyrus', which comes from the name of the Phoenecian city of 'Byblos', from which city the Greeks imported their papyrus.

So - a bible is just a collection of writing, usually with the implication of being authoritative.


[QUOTE[You are welcome to look into my kitchen. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be able to.
Being on a different continent will do that. My neck's not that long. I was just curious as to the size of aforementioned culinary facilities. Is it like the car in Chamber of Secrets?
[/QUOTE]

Ah ha! But you don't know where MY kitchen is!

And my kitchen is more like the TARDIS, I suspect.


Various translation issues. Remember the Inuit Bible example? (was that you?). As a by the bye, the KJV was essentially a version commissioned by a strange, paranoid man from Scotland who promoted the smoking of tobacco for its health benefits. It was written by a bunch of people under no illusions of the fact that said monarch would have them killed in nasty ways if he didn't like any of what he read.


But the inconsistency is present in the Hebrew, also... even the original writing is not inerrant.

I have a fairly good understanding of how all of those 'function', with the exception of Cricket. I never liked Cricket.
Ok, for this I pity you. The crack of leather upon... well anyway. I'd argue that I have a fair understanding of how Christianity works. But you'd disagree because I've skipped a few pages of the manual. Read the manual for common LISP. You will go insane.

We get the word Bible from the Medieval Latin 'biblia' which is derived form the Greek 'biblia', meaning a 'collection of writings'... originating in the word 'biblos' meaning 'papyrus', which comes from the name of the Phoenecian city of 'Byblos', from which city the Greeks imported their papyrus.
Ok, I know I brought this up but Latin seems to have 5 words for book (as hastily gathered in my extensive 2 minute search)
codex
diurnus
libellus
liber
volumen
Depending on context (account book, diary, etc.). 'Biblia' wasn't given but then I didn't check for paper/papyrus. I think 'liber' is the path that traditional Latin-based languages have gone down. But English went scandinavian. Weird. How do you get to Mediaeval Latin. Mediaeval times (ok, UK history at least) are generally considered to be from a little after the Roman empire was vanquished (by real Goths, haha) till 1485. Or did mediaeval monks make some Latin up so it was easier?

Ah ha! But you don't know where MY kitchen is!
And my kitchen is more like the TARDIS, I suspect.

Wahey!! Doctor Who thread required!

Pardon me for being off topic, but I would like to give both Markreich and Grave_n_Idle recognition for their debate. You two did a tremendous job, without attempting to degrade each other. Nice job, gentlemen (or ladies to be fair.) If only more people would debate the way you two did, this board would be much more enjoyable. You both get the uttmost respect from me.

Pardon me for being off topic, but I would like to give both Markreich and Grave_n_Idle recognition for their debate. You two did a tremendous job, without attempting to degrade each other. Nice job, gentlemen (or ladies to be fair.) If only more people would debate the way you two did, this board would be much more enjoyable. You both get the uttmost respect from me.

Thank you.

I was very pleased with Markreichs participation. It seems that some people do understand WHY we debate, and HOW we can do it.

It saddens me that so many people hit the forum just to yell out their latest opinion, or to make the same point over and over, with their hands on their ears...

I always wondered... if they aren't learning ANYTHING... why are they here?

Ah, anyway - thank you... and thanks to Markreich.

Ok, for this I pity you. The crack of leather upon... well anyway. I'd argue that I have a fair understanding of how Christianity works. But you'd disagree because I've skipped a few pages of the manual. Read the manual for common LISP. You will go insane.


Ok, I know I brought this up but Latin seems to have 5 words for book (as hastily gathered in my extensive 2 minute search)
codex
diurnus
libellus
liber
volumen
Depending on context (account book, diary, etc.). 'Biblia' wasn't given but then I didn't check for paper/papyrus. I think 'liber' is the path that traditional Latin-based languages have gone down. But English went scandinavian. Weird. How do you get to Mediaeval Latin. Mediaeval times (ok, UK history at least) are generally considered to be from a little after the Roman empire was vanquished (by real Goths, haha) till 1485. Or did mediaeval monks make some Latin up so it was easier?



Wahey!! Doctor Who thread required!

urrrgghhh - Cricket... it is making me shudder just to think about it. We had to play at my school, and I hated it with a passion.

About the 'bible' thing... Medieval Latin was a largely church-based 'language'... becoming more and more seperate from the Classical language, and more and more entwined in the theology of the day.

(Although there has been something of a reversion now...)

Where words did not/or do not exist in a language, it is common practice to appropriate them from another language... which also happens even when a concept DOES exist... through a kind of linguistic drift. Example: the French answering the phone "Hello", when they already have similar concepts, from 'bonjour' to 'salut'.

So, in the highly academic (yet entirely theology-based) church, there is some drift between the classic languages - or so it appears, and a Greek concept is 'adopted' and 'latin-ised'.

About the 'bible' thing... Medieval Latin was a largely church-based 'language'... becoming more and more separate from the Classical language, and more and more entwined in the theology of the day.

Where words did not/or do not exist in a language, it is common practice to appropriate them from another language... which also happens even when a concept DOES exist... through a kind of linguistic drift. Example: the French answering the phone "Hello", when they already have similar concepts, from 'bonjour' to 'salut'.

Don't get me started on the French and their 'we don't like you but we'll happily steal words from your language cos we're too lazy to think up our own' attitude. That's just silly, largely because we stole them off someone else anyway. They'll just end up being like a piece of paper that's been photocopied too many times.

Ok, off topic.

Witchcraft is seen as being the tool of the devil, regardless of if the persons intentions are good. As a result the belief is you cannot use evil to create good, not in that sense anyway.

The second reason, which I shall probably be a bit unpopular for but is a reason is that Christianity had to get rid of opposing religions as it were for it to succeed and what better way to do it than to get people to hate the other religions and make them seem satanic.

This is a basic outline anyway and yes I am a fully pledged Christian as well as being a Goth, any problems? You know where I live.

This is in reply to the origional question, not anything that has been added on.

As others have said here, Witchcraft generally is not evil in and of itself. Such an idea is a holdout from the dark ages and the religious intolerance of the times.

I personally consider myself to be Wicca. I've been studying it on and off for years and it is the best faith for my beliefs. I'm basically a solitaire for those who might wonder. I have a pretty wide blend of ideas, and from my point of view religion is a tool for the soul, but a tool nonetheless. And as with any tool the "good" or "evil" in it is all in how one uses it.

So, in short, religion isn't evil. People are :P

Religion isn't good. People are.

Hence the saying, when you look in the mirror you see the Devil and God

I've never heard that saying, but I do like it.

Thank you.

I was very pleased with Markreichs participation. It seems that some people do understand WHY we debate, and HOW we can do it.

It saddens me that so many people hit the forum just to yell out their latest opinion, or to make the same point over and over, with their hands on their ears...

I always wondered... if they aren't learning ANYTHING... why are they here?

Ah, anyway - thank you... and thanks to Markreich.


I look forward to being able to debate with you two, although to some I am "uneducated", because I have yet to attend college. (18). Oh well!

Witchcraft is seen as being the tool of the devil, regardless of if the persons intentions are good. As a result the belief is you cannot use evil to create good, not in that sense anyway.

The second reason, which I shall probably be a bit unpopular for but is a reason is that Christianity had to get rid of opposing religions as it were for it to succeed and what better way to do it than to get people to hate the other religions and make them seem satanic.

This is a basic outline anyway and yes I am a fully pledged Christian as well as being a Goth, any problems? You know where I live.

This is in reply to the origional question, not anything that has been added on.

We know where you live? Your first post and no location given. Try again? ;)

I look forward to being able to debate with you two, although to some I am "uneducated", because I have yet to attend college. (18). Oh well!

Well, I keep somewhat erratic hours, but I hit the forums an average of at least once a day... so, if you debate long enough, we'll probably collide eventually. :)

I think, to a large extent, that education is a state of mind, rather than the pieces of paper connected to it... there are people fresh out of college without the capacity to lace their own boots, and there are people working in patent offices that hold the keys to the fundamental laws of the universe...

I'll make my judgements on your posts, not on your school.

ok i was wondering i personally have no religious beliefs but instead is searching for some and i saw witchcraft and did some research. Well I found out that the church is very against it but i wonder why i asked a very religious friend that and he said "because the bible sys it is wrong" then i asked why and got a shrug and asked if i still rooted for the chiefs so you religious people why are you against wicca and other witch craft even the ones that are against pain and suffering.

Shortly, the Bible is against witchcraft because one should be small and helpless and weak in front of god, and having mystic powers of any sort such as wicca or anything threatens the almighty-ness of god, or something like that.

Sorry, I cut the generalisations and myths out of your post. Hope that isn't seen as misquoting. Oh, except the Utopia part. Roll on utopia. Hmm the big Rock Party in the sky. If you do want to state opinions like that lot I suggest you explicitly say that they are opinions.

A tenth of all that you have, I believe. Actually when it's not your own to begin with it's easier. Like spending someone else's money (fun). And yes, we have pink envelopes, but they're not necessary. Just give us your credit card number and you will be saved. :D

(Never give out your credit card number or password in a forum debate. Especially to politicians. Or me)

I'm glad we can agree on some things, but I really don't see the need to state my own viewpoint as an opinion. That would be redundant and obvious. What would you expect, footnotes referring back to myself as the author?

I'm glad we can agree on some things, but I really don't see the need to state my own viewpoint as an opinion. That would be redundant and obvious. What would you expect, footnotes referring back to myself as the author?
Yes and full references to documented evidence. Write them on the back of a postcard to... Ahem. Point taken. I just got a little narked when whoever it was (was it you? can't remember) decided to proclaim glorious mistruths of Christian truth and set them down as fact.

Shortly, the Bible is against witchcraft because one should be small and helpless and weak in front of god,
Yes, it helps.
and having mystic powers of any sort such as wicca or anything threatens the almightiness of god, or something like that.
Not really. It just angers him that the life in question has been spent trying to acquire unnecessary powers from alternative sources. I'm preetty certain God could layeth the smackdown on any wiccan. Hell, he did it to Satan!!

Hell, he did it to Satan!!

Not according to the bible, he didn't.

Not according to the bible, he didn't.
Sure he did. Jesus died. Satan beaten. Sounds weird, but true. Cool huh?

Not really. It just angers him that the life in question has been spent trying to acquire unnecessary powers from alternative sources. I'm preetty certain God could layeth the smackdown on any wiccan.

And just why are they unnecessary?

And just why are they unnecessary?
Hey Crossman. Like I said to you at some point, why do you feel you need the abilities that studying Wicca can give you? What are these abilities? (matter of interest)

Sure he did. Jesus died. Satan beaten. Sounds weird, but true. Cool huh?

Everyone dies eventually... so I'm sure he must have... but Satan beaten? Where is that supported in scripture?

Yes and full references to documented evidence. Write them on the back of a postcard to... Ahem. Point taken. I just got a little narked when whoever it was (was it you? can't remember) decided to proclaim glorious mistruths of Christian truth and set them down as fact.

If it "narked" you that much, you should have addressed the person personally. Duked it out with them.
For the record- No it wasn't me, I wouldn't proclaim glorious mistruths because I am so completely detached from the bible and Christianity. I see it as revised fiction, with a little bit of truth sparsed in here or there. Relegion is simply theory.
I am the one who merely suggested that Kumi study philosophy, rather that take up relegion as a hobby or brand herself any sort of sect of religion.
By the way, thanks for the response.

If it "narked" you that much, you should have addressed the person personally. Duked it out with them.
For the record- No it wasn't me, I wouldn't proclaim glorious mistruths because I am so completely detached from the bible and Christianity. I see it as revised fiction, with a little bit of truth sparsed in here or there. Religion is simply theory.
I am the one who merely suggested that Kumi study philosophy, rather that take up relegion as a hobby or brand herself any sort of sect of religion.
By the way, thanks for the response.
Fair enough. It was a few pages back and was probably in answer to five or six people.
Minor point: are you sure theory has caused hundreds of thousands of people to die? I'd call that practicing. Practicing a complete misconception but practicing nonetheless.

Everyone dies eventually... so I'm sure he must have... but Satan beaten? Where is that supported in scripture?
Remember Jesus is God but was human at the same time. Wouldn't really have worked if he'd been sitting on the cross laughing at the dumb soldiers as they stabbed him with a spear for the 86th time.
"come on boys, one more stab you've nearly got me... no no no, you missed"

Anyhoo, John 3.16 says that anyone who believes can receive eternal life. Satan was trying to stop that.. ergo... And the belief thing: you can't truthfully say you believe Jesus died to save you and then just do what you feel like.

Minor point: are you sure theory has caused hundreds of thousands of people to die? I'd call that practicing. Practicing a complete misconception but practicing nonetheless.

Defintion:
theory
a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory" word reference .com

Religion would seem to fulfill that defintion. I agree more with the wording "accepted knowledge" in the definition, than "well-substantiated".

I would also call relegion theory because it is still a 'work in progress', as can bo noted in the way the bible, or the theory, is constantly re-written. ie. different version of the bible amongst various sects of all relegion.

Especially Christianity, where the whole premise of the relegion is based on the death of Jesus, so the re-occurring deaths within the bible appear to be an integral aspect of the theory.
As for more current deaths related, or resulting from, religion- these will problably be included in later editions. They have to keep booksells up somehow.

Fair enough. It was a few pages back and was probably in answer to five or six people.
Minor point: are you sure theory has caused hundreds of thousands of people to die? I'd call that practicing. Practicing a complete misconception but practicing nonetheless.


Remember Jesus is God but was human at the same time. Wouldn't really have worked if he'd been sitting on the cross laughing at the dumb soldiers as they stabbed him with a spear for the 86th time.
"come on boys, one more stab you've nearly got me... no no no, you missed"

Anyhoo, John 3.16 says that anyone who believes can receive eternal life. Satan was trying to stop that.. ergo... And the belief thing: you can't truthfully say you believe Jesus died to save you and then just do what you feel like.

I don't actually recall any dialogue that states that Satan was against anyone receiving eternal life... this whole 'jesus v's satan' thing sounds like the mythology of church-christianity, rather than anything that was scriptural.

By mythology, I mean the modern packaging that is part invention and part conjecture... like Jesus being a blue-eyed caucasian, or the fact that it snowed when he was born... you get the picture.

By mythology, I mean the modern packaging that is part invention and part conjecture... like Jesus being a blue-eyed caucasian, or the fact that it snowed when he was born... you get the picture.

I totally agree, a mythology which prevails throughout multiple cultures: the 'christ' figure is common. The bible is after all considered the Good Book. But again, I also condsider it to be theory, becuase people are using it to explain just about everything. What disturbs me are those that literally interpret the bible.

Equating Wicca with the Biblical sense of 'Witchcraft' is a mistake.

Wiccan magic isn't the accumulation of Otherworldly power to the self, so much as recognizing that people *are* powerful and learning about the ethics of the use of that power in all matters, not just magical ones.

In some ways, magic just makes that learning process more obvious.

The Biblical idea of magic is one of humans as essentially powerless, and only able to gain power by certain avenues, mostly involving having it given to them by either the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys:' ie, God or devils and demons.

Wicca's very different.

The respectful thing for Christians to do is this: if someone ASKS about their religion, then they share. Doing otherwise implies some kind of superiority/that other people can't think for themselves, and that pisses a lot of people (me included) off.


Yay to that!

It was individual priests that did it. Not the church,but indivduals.
A GREAT majority of priests are holy men. Only a few perverts out of every priest on earth.


Go to Rome and learn.

Its a real eye opener.

Nuff said.

Vader's Better :mp5:

Use The Force!!!!!

I don't actually recall any dialogue that states that Satan was against anyone receiving eternal life... this whole 'jesus v's satan' thing sounds like the mythology of church-christianity, rather than anything that was scriptural.
You agree that in Christian belief Satan is the less powerful antithesis of God thought right? That logically follows the thread that Satan tries to prevent God doing what he wants. God requires his creations to have free will. Satan doesn't bother with that. God wants his people to join him in heaven. Therefore Satan is against that. Clearer? Like a lot of issues it would be simpler if this was literally documented in the Bible, but like the other issues it would diminish the need of humans to turn to God for help. Which would be a bad thing.

By mythology, I mean the modern packaging that is part invention and part conjecture... like Jesus being a blue-eyed caucasian, or the fact that it snowed when he was born... you get the picture.
I'm surprised Coca-cola haven't got their hands on the Jesus franchise yet. You can imagine it can't you.. Santa for Christmas, Jesus for Easter. A tall white guy with neatly trimmed facial hair smiling out of billboards holding the contour bottle, "I'm not the real thing, this is.."

Equating Wicca with the Biblical sense of 'Witchcraft' is a mistake.

Wiccan magic isn't the accumulation of Otherworldly power to the self, so much as recognizing that people *are* powerful and learning about the ethics of the use of that power in all matters, not just magical ones.

In some ways, magic just makes that learning process more obvious.

The Biblical idea of magic is one of humans as essentially powerless, and only able to gain power by certain avenues, mostly involving having it given to them by either the 'good guys' or the 'bad guys:' ie, God or devils and demons.

Wicca's very different.
Ah yes, but one of these views is right, one's wrong. Christians believe one, Wiccans believe the other. To answer the original question, Christians believe Wicca is wrong exactly because of the relative powerless in which God made them. This should do two things: it should make Christians eager to point out to Wiccans the bits that they believe are wrong and it should make everyone else believe that Christianity is intolerant. God says 'if you speak my truth people will persecute you'. Bugger

Ah yes, but one of these views is right, one's wrong. Christians believe one, Wiccans believe the other. To answer the original question, Christians believe Wicca is wrong exactly because of the powerless in which God made them. This should do two things: it should make Christians eager to point out to Wiccans the bits that they believe are wrong and it should make everyone else believe that Christianity is intolerant. God says 'if you speak my truth people will persecute you'

So... since the bible ahs been used to persecute 'witches' for millenia... it must be the 'witches' that were speaking god's truth, right?

You agree that in Christian belief Satan is the less powerful antithesis of God thought right?


On a whole host of levels, no.

First: I agree no such thing. As an atheist, I believe in neither God nor Satan... I also have no confidence that Jesus was anything other than some poor bugger who said what he thought, and got nailed up for it.

Second: There can be only one god in a monotheism. Christianity sells itself as monotheistic, what with all the 'commandments' against worshipping other gods, etc. So there can BE no other gods in christianity... not even little gods, not even partial gods.

Third: Satan was an angel, not a god.

Fourth: The 'satan' of the new testament is the product of the authors misunderstanding old testament texts, and assuming that the term 'adversary' was actually one person's (angel) name.

Fifth: Most of the times 'satan' is used in the new testament, it is still read as 'adversary'.

etc.


That logically follows the thread that Satan tries to prevent God doing what he wants. God requires his creations to have free will. Satan doesn't bother with that. God wants his people to join him in heaven. Therefore Satan is against that. Clearer? Like a lot of issues it would be simpler if this was literally documented in the Bible, but like the other issues it would diminish the need of humans to turn to God for help. Which would be a bad thing.


Logic has nothing to do with that.

If god is all powerful, then satan can not BE powerful, otherwise there is some lack in god. If god is not all powerful, then satan may be god's equal, and you have a pantheism.

Like a lot of issues it would be simpler if this was literally documented in the Bible, but like the other issues it would diminish the need of humans to turn to God for help. Which would be a bad thing.

I do not need to turn to god. I can use my own brain. And if I can not do it alone there are lots of friends who are willing to help me. Why would I turn to a god for help and strength if I got it myslef over the last 10 painfull years?
As for relegion, to each his/her own, just don't bug me with anothers relegious beliefs.

By mythology, I mean the modern packaging that is part invention and part conjecture... like Jesus being a blue-eyed caucasian, or the fact that it snowed when he was born... you get the picture.
Oh dear. There's actually a new definition of mythology now? That means I have to be doubly careful how I use the word.

Ive usually associated things like wiccan, druidism, and other witchcraft type stuff as akin to satanic worship, or on a less extreme view, its just something that whiny preteens say they are so because they dont feel like sitting in church with mommy and daddy. And yes I know that some people legitamately (i know i cannot spell) practice it so Im not bashing anyone who is a wicca or druid or whatever. I personally believe its wrong because, yes I am a christian and let me explain before you start freaking out, (ex- OMFG, A cHrisTianN u sux0rz loloololololoo1111!!?!?111) in the bible the then king saul went to the witch at a place called Endor (there were no ewoks) to call the spirit of a long dead prophet (its still early in the morning were I am at so my brain is not at full capacity) the prophet who was taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire, anyways so the witch calls and the spirit actually shows up. The bible says that the witch was terrified at the spirirt. The prophet condemd the king for coming to pagans to try to commune with god. Thats why I think it is wrong. Attempting to communicate with the afterlife through use of spells and other such things.

But thats just me. :D

Sorry if this was all mentioned before...

The Christian Church is against wicca because it's Paganism. The Church has spent 2000 years trying to erase all pagan holidays and celebrations. Ever wonder why we celebrate Christmas in December? It coincides with the winter solstace, a pagan holiday. Ever wonder why we have Christmas trees? It was a pagan tradition.

Wicca is so not scary. It's different, yes. Scary, no.

Plus, we're so brainwashed into thinking witches are evil (ie: the wizard of oz, nursery rhymns and stories, being told witches worship satan, etc...) I highly recommend the McGuire novel Wicked.

Pagans don't even believe in Satan, much less worship him. Same with the Church of Satan...they don't believe Satan exists as Satan is a Christian concept.

One entry found for mythology.


Main Entry: my·thol·o·gy
Pronunciation: mi-'thä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French mythologie, from Late Latin mythologia interpretation of myths, from Greek, legend, myth, from mythologein to relate myths, from mythos + logos speech -- more at LEGEND
1 : an allegorical narrative
2 : a body of myths : as a : the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people b : MYTHOS 2 <cold war mythology>
3 : a branch of knowledge that deals with myth
4 : a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something <defective mythologies that ignore masculine depth of feeling -- Robert Bly> webster.com

Certainly applies to the bible, I don't think you have to be that careful with the word.

Ive usually associated things like wiccan, druidism, and other witchcraft type stuff as akin to satanic worship, or on a less extreme view, its just something that whiny preteens say they are so because they dont feel like sitting in church with mommy and daddy. And yes I know that some people legitamately (i know i cannot spell) practice it so Im not bashing anyone who is a wicca or druid or whatever. I personally believe its wrong because, yes I am a christian and let me explain before you start freaking out, (ex- OMFG, A cHrisTianN u sux0rz loloololololoo1111!!?!?111) in the bible the then king saul went to the witch at a place called Endor (there were no ewoks) to call the spirit of a long dead prophet (its still early in the morning were I am at so my brain is not at full capacity) the prophet who was taken up to heaven in a chariot of fire, anyways so the witch calls and the spirit actually shows up. The bible says that the witch was terrified at the spirirt. The prophet condemd the king for coming to pagans to try to commune with god. Thats why I think it is wrong. Attempting to communicate with the afterlife through use of spells and other such things.

But thats just me. :D
Um, is it communing with god or communicating with the dead that's wrong? Isn't communing with God what Catholics do when they do Communion? And they use rites and rituals, which are all spells are.

One entry found for mythology.

Main Entry: my·thol·o·gy
Pronunciation: mi-'thä-l&-jE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -gies
Etymology: French or Late Latin; French mythologie, from Late Latin mythologia interpretation of myths, from Greek, legend, myth, from mythologein to relate myths, from mythos + logos speech -- more at LEGEND
1 : an allegorical narrative
2 : a body of myths : as a : the myths dealing with the gods, demigods, and legendary heroes of a particular people b : MYTHOS 2 <cold war mythology>
3 : a branch of knowledge that deals with myth
4 : a popular belief or assumption that has grown up around someone or something <defective mythologies that ignore masculine depth of feeling -- Robert Bly> webster.com

Certainly applies to the bible, I don't think you have to be that careful with the word.
Your dictionary (encyclopedia?) seems to make no differentiation between mythology and myth.

#1 is a myth, #2 is a mythology (collection of myths), #3 is a poor defining of mythology (the study of #1), and #4 is a myth (different context than #1).

#4 seems to be the one that most confuses the line between myth and mythology. And in light of adding modern inventiveness to the defintion of mythology, I do think caution is called for.

Um, is it communing with god or communicating with the dead that's wrong? Isn't communing with God what Catholics do when they do Communion? And they use rites and rituals, which are all spells are.


Well I see what you are saying but I have to point out something, in the story the prophet condemed the witch because she using pagan practices to try and summon somone that was in the presence of God. So I mis-spoke, in the story she was not condemed for trying to commune with the spirit, but for trying to summon it from the afterlife. I apologize.

P.S.- I dont know about the catholics, Im protestant myself.

Oh dear. There's actually a new definition of mythology now? That means I have to be doubly careful how I use the word.

I just mean that there is a 'historic' element to christianity, a 'scriptural' element, and then another element which has been added.... which isn't directly supported by scripture or history...

To me, this is the 'mythology' of christianity.

It's just my way of trying to show christians that I am trying to discuss the EXTRA stuff added to christianity, rather than the root.

ok what does halloween mean to witches and do you guys take offense to girls dressing up as witches...

Why is Wicca bad?

Because it was a major religion in a region coveted by the Church. Therefore, Paganism had to be demonized.

One entry found for mythology.

My entry for mythology:

Somebody else's religion is mythology, while my mythology is religion.

'Nuff said.

First: I agree no such thing. As an atheist, I believe in neither God nor Satan... I also have no confidence that Jesus was anything other than some poor bugger who said what he thought, and got nailed up for it.
what I meant was that you accept that there's a faith called Christianity right? And in that faith there are two sides? etc etc.

Second: There can be only one god in a monotheism. Christianity sells itself as monotheistic, what with all the 'commandments' against worshipping other gods, etc. So there can BE no other gods in christianity... not even little gods, not even partial gods.
Nice one! Yes Christians may sell it as a monotheism but that does not take away the fact that humans will believe that other things are better. So your other gods there, are anything that takes greater precedence in people's lives than God: work, tv, stamp collection, etc. A Christian might take the PoV that your atheism is acting as a God!!

Third: Satan was an angel, not a god.
That's the widely accepted view. I'm open to that but have been told that there are actually no references to Satan as being an angel in the Bible. Have you found stuff to counter that in the scriptures? Did I say Satan was a god? Other than as defined previously?

Fourth: The 'satan' of the new testament is the product of the authors misunderstanding old testament texts, and assuming that the term 'adversary' was actually one person's (angel) name.
It's possible. It's possible that 'the serpent' as described in Genesis was used as a concept to depict a thought/temptation that Eve had. Or maybe the serpent was just a vessel through which a malevolent force spoke. Views...

Fifth: Most of the times 'satan' is used in the new testament, it is still read as 'adversary'.
Satan as a word is translated as 'The Accuser' is it not? Again, just something I've heard. Any satanists views on why the term satan is used in their tag if they don't believe in Satan? As far as I know Satanists revere the earth and nature. To that Christians would say 'worship not the gift but the giver'.

If god is all powerful, then satan can not BE powerful, otherwise there is some lack in god. If god is not all powerful, then satan may be god's equal, and you have a pantheism.
No lack in God. Humans are powerful to an extent. Some are more powerful than others. Read any story of the origins of a style of Gong Fu and you'll see acts of amazing power. My favourite's the Master who flicked a huge boulder with a tiny movement of his foot. This power may have come from elsewhere. The Master may have had ridiculously powerful legs naturally. Or are all humans naturally all as physically and mentally powerful as each other.

On a superficially evidential layer it can be accepted that if God and Satan exist then they may be as powerful as each other or one may be more so in both directions. Any entity with a rival would say to its followers that it is the more powerful. My university welcomes its students with a declaration that they have chosen the best university in the country, a declaration that is not substantiated by any evidence anywhere! The choice to believe in something comes from the intelligence of the person.

what I meant was that you accept that there's a faith called Christianity right? And in that faith there are two sides? etc etc.


I have heard of this faith. I do not believe that there are 'two sides', except in a purely "You are with us, or against us" fashion. I think people who make the image of satan into soem adversary to god, do not realise they are redefining their monotheism as a pantheism.


Nice one! Yes Christians may sell it as a monotheism but that does not take away the fact that humans will believe that other things are better. So your other gods there, are anything that takes greater precedence in people's lives than God: work, tv, stamp collection, etc. A Christian might take the PoV that your atheism is acting as a God!!


So, a complete lack of anything can be a god? So... god COULD BE a complete lack of anything? You are arguing round scripture here... if it says gods, it means gods. If it says idols, it means idols. If it means money, it says money. Surely?


That's the widely accepted view. I'm open to that but have been told that there are actually no references to Satan as being an angel in the Bible. Have you found stuff to counter that in the scriptures? Did I say Satan was a god? Other than as defined previously?


Well, if you accept (although I don't) that Lucifer and Satan are one... then he fell from heaven.

Also, 2 Corinthians 11:14 (although I believe this is error on the part of the author, fostered by Zoroastrian-influenced Jews) "And no marvel; for SATAN himself is transformed into an angel of light".


It's possible. It's possible that 'the serpent' as described in Genesis was used as a concept to depict a thought/temptation that Eve had. Or maybe the serpent was just a vessel through which a malevolent force spoke. Views...


The serpent HAS to be a serpent for the story to make sense... otherwise, just who did god curse the legs off of?


Satan as a word is translated as 'The Accuser' is it not? Again, just something I've heard. Any satanists views on why the term satan is used in their tag if they don't believe in Satan? As far as I know Satanists revere the earth and nature. To that Christians would say 'worship not the gift but the giver'.


I have seen "Accuser", and I have seen "Adversary". I personally think "adversary" comes closer... but, unfortuantely, I also believe it is very misunderstood... it is taken as the adverary of god, rather than of man.


The choice to believe in something comes from the intelligence of the person.

So... if you are MORE intelligent, you believe? or LESS?

Do the MORE intelligent students believe that it truly is the best university?
Or do the LESS intelligent students accept it most reasily?

My entry for mythology:

Somebody else's religion is mythology, while my mythology is religion.

'Nuff said.
No, that's "cult".

Mythology is not in contradiction with a religion. All organized religions have a base mythology, and it is an essential part of religion.

I just mean that there is a 'historic' element to christianity, a 'scriptural' element, and then another element which has been added.... which isn't directly supported by scripture or history...

To me, this is the 'mythology' of christianity.

It's just my way of trying to show christians that I am trying to discuss the EXTRA stuff added to christianity, rather than the root.
Like Jesus being a blue-eyed blonde; I understand. However, calling that "the mythology of Christianity" confuses the real mythology that Christianity is based in with these new modern myths that have grown up around Christianity, where the two have nothing to do with each other (even two different contexts of the word "myth").

Oh well. Carry on.

Actually, as I read it, the Bible doesn't condemn "witchcraft" or even more specifically wicca as we understand it today, except in the sense that it is incorrect (as it does with any other religion than Christianity or Judaism, depending which parts you're reading).

The Bible /does/ condemn using poisons or curses to hurt people, communing with the dead, and predicting the future by interpreting signs. However, the most famous verse "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Ex 22.18) shouldn't actually be translated "witch". That's not so much an /incorrect/ translation, as it is an easy to misunderstand translation. The original word is m'khashepah. This means (as I understand it) "a woman who uses spoken spells to harm others". That is who the Bible condems.

Every other time the Bible mentions witchcraft or sorcery, it's in a list of things that are wrong or sinful, but even those words in actuality take on the definitions I listed above, not our current use of the word.

Like Jesus being a blue-eyed blonde; I understand. However, calling that "the mythology of Christianity" confuses the real mythology that Christianity is based in with these new modern myths that have grown up around Christianity, where the two have nothing to do with each other (even two different contexts of the word "myth").

Oh well. Carry on.

Just the way my brain works (allegedly), I'm afraid... I consider all the 'blue-eyed Jesus' stuff to be the mythology of Christianity because I consider all the pre-christian basis in Hebrew, Zoroastrian etc. to be THEIR mythologies... and the roots of the Hebrew in Babylonian and it's compatriots, I think of as Babylonian mythology.

I guess that, to me, you have your story and then you have your mythology... and one persons 'mythology' becomes the 'story' of someone else. I think we are agreeing here, basically, just that I am attaching the mythology to a different generation of stories.

I have heard of this faith. I do not believe that there are 'two sides', except in a purely "You are with us, or against us" fashion. I think people who make the image of satan into some adversary to god, do not realise they are redefining their monotheism as a pantheism.

So, a complete lack of anything can be a god? So... god COULD BE a complete lack of anything? You are arguing round scripture here... if it says gods, it means gods. If it says idols, it means idols. If it means money, it says money. Surely?
Again one of those 'it would have been so much easier if the Bible had included a Glossary of Terms' type questions. I say that some people believe that idols are gods. Then it just depends on your definition of an idol. I'd say an idol is something to which you devote a large amount of effort, time, expense, resources etc., not just the little statue things in Indiana Jones movies. Asherah poles used to be worshipped didn't they? "O great rod of wood, show us your wishes..." (No Clinton jokes)

Well, if you accept (although I don't) that Lucifer and Satan are one... then he fell from heaven. Also, 2 Corinthians 11:14 (although I believe this is error on the part of the author, fostered by Zoroastrian-influenced Jews) "And no marvel; for SATAN himself is transformed into an angel of light".
That (if it's correct) is the writer telling the recipients to be suspicious of people claming they are teaching them God's law. Even the Devil may quote scripture, the Devil's Advocate etc etc. So maybe he's saying he is transformed from an Angel of darkness (tomb raider surely?) to an Angel of light.

The serpent HAS to be a serpent for the story to make sense... otherwise, just who did god curse the legs off of?

I have seen "Accuser", and I have seen "Adversary". I personally think "adversary" comes closer... but, unfortuantely, I also believe it is very misunderstood... it is taken as the adverary of god, rather than of man.
Or it could have been a big lizard which is now classified as a snake. Wonder if Adam had to come up with another name for it. Basilisk in Chamber of Secrets? Would an adversary of God not be an adversary of his creations?

So... if you are MORE intelligent, you believe? or LESS?

Do the MORE intelligent students believe that it truly is the best university?
Or do the LESS intelligent students accept it most easily?
From The Book of Dilbert, ch 5, v8

Dogbert: "When the year 2000 comes, your computers will think it's the year '00' and cause major problems. The Dogbert Consulting Company can fix the problem for only ten million dollars. Our work is guaranteed for one full year, starting today." (written in Sept '98 I think)

Pointy-Haired Boss: "But why would I care? The year '00' is before I'm born."

Dogbert: "Amazing... you'd actually have to be smarter to do something stupid."

Bad use of the word intelligence by me. But I did leave it open just to cover myself :D My intelligence is fair but any university who, firstly, get my entry year wrong, then issue me with a defective 'smartcard' are not getting my instant approval. Bakery's good though. I reckon the sports scientists go with what they get told though. Poor little jocks.

Again one of those 'it would have been so much easier if the Bible had included a Glossary of Terms' type questions. I say that some people believe that idols are gods. Then it just depends on your definition of an idol. I'd say an idol is something to which you devote a large amount of effort, time, expense, resources etc., not just the little statue things in Indiana Jones movies. Asherah poles used to be worshipped didn't they? "O great rod of wood, show us your wishes..." (No Clinton jokes)


But, in my opinion, you have to BELIEVE that an idol is a god. So, money may be a substitute for god, but it is NOT an idol, and most assuredly not a god.


That (if it's correct) is the writer telling the recipients to be suspicious of people claming they are teaching them God's law. Even the Devil may quote scripture, the Devil's Advocate etc etc. So maybe he's saying he is transformed from an Angel of darkness (tomb raider surely?) to an Angel of light.


Angel of light or darkness makes no difference... if you believe the bible to be a literal work of god, it quite clearly states that satan is an angel... also, an angel of light.


Or it could have been a big lizard which is now classified as a snake. Wonder if Adam had to come up with another name for it. Basilisk in Chamber of Secrets? Would an adversary of God not be an adversary of his creations?


And if it were a big lizard, then it still isn't Satan... just a lizard... and now a snake.

The way I read the bible, the satan is utterly subservient to god (he only torments Job because god tells him to), but very much AGAINST god's flawed little creation called man.

An adversary of god would surely be IN FAVOUR of man, because man is in a state of emnity with god, through sin, and needs grace to save him... and, as the old saying goes "my enemy's enemy is my friend". After all, if you were going up against 'the big guy', you'd want all the help you could get, right?


From The Book of Dilbert, ch 5, v8

Dogbert: "When the year 2000 comes, your computers will think it's the year '00' and cause major problems. The Dogbert Consulting Company can fix the problem for only ten million dollars. Our work is guaranteed for one full year, starting today." (written in Sept '98 I think)

Pointy-Haired Boss: "But why would I care? The year '00' is before I'm born."

Dogbert: "Amazing... you'd actually have to be smarter to do something stupid."


Ah, the Book of Dilbert. Now THERE is scripture even I can't argue against.


Bad use of the word intelligence by me. But I did leave it open just to cover myself :D My intelligence is fair but any university who, firstly, get my entry year wrong, then issue me with a defective 'smartcard' are not getting my instant approval. Bakery's good though. I reckon the sports scientists go with what they get told though. Poor little jocks.

Isn't Sports Science the equivalent of attending the London School of Economics? i.e. at LSU there is a sign above the toilet-paper dispenser that says "London School of Economics degrees... please take one"...

Angel of light or darkness makes no difference... if you believe the bible to be a literal work of god, it quite clearly states that satan is an angel... also, an angel of light.

And if it were a big lizard, then it still isn't Satan... just a lizard... and now a snake. 'heh heh heh, my name is Peter Mandelson, you may call me The Dark Lord...'
The way I read the bible, the satan is utterly subservient to god (he only torments Job because god tells him to), but very much AGAINST god's flawed little creation called man.

An adversary of god would surely be IN FAVOUR of man, because man is in a state of emnity with god, through sin, and needs grace to save him... and, as the old saying goes "my enemy's enemy is my friend". After all, if you were going up against 'the big guy', you'd want all the help you could get, right?
Why go up against him when you could just say 'sorry, I believe you now'? seems like a lot of effort to me.

Isn't Sports Science the equivalent of attending the London School of Economics? i.e. at LSU there is a sign above the toilet-paper dispenser that says "London School of Economics degrees... please take one"...
We had one of those at Bath, except they were MBA's (Management and Business award, I think). I kid you not, one of Bath's Sport Science modules was called 'throwing and catching'. Guess what they did for the first half of the term.

Conversely there was a Self Service Course Quitting facility in my dept. for any student who didn't worship the ideas of the lecturers and advertise their papers on their student websites.

The main belief of a "Witch" is described perfectly with the last eight words of the Wiccan Rede, which read "An ye harm none, do what ye will"

Witches are actually very nature centered people, they are very in tune with the environment and can be very pleasant people to be around. I would hope so, Im one myself.

Thats besides the point, you wanted to know why witchcraft is bad. Well, Christians believe that any religion besides their own is the work of the devil, not necessarily devil worship, but of his work. This if for a number of reason, the most common being that a major belief of Christianity being that the only way to Heaven and Salvation is through Jesus, therefore any other religion leads to Hell (or in some cases Purgatory). Christians believe that the Devil "tricked" these people into believing the alternate religions, and generally pity the people who follow them and therefore try to "save' them.

Anywho, Im not Christian, but I used to be.

Good luck!

Why go up against him when you could just say 'sorry, I believe you now'? seems like a lot of effort to me.
It's not like you have a choice --being alive is living in sin. Living in Nature.

Life and death, that's what being alive is. In the Garden of Eden there was no sin, there was no life. Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree and came alive. And earned death that comes with it. This was the serpent's gift --the natural life/death cycle of the Goddess religions.

It's not like you have a choice --being alive is living in sin. Living in Nature.

Life and death, that's what being alive is. In the Garden of Eden there was no sin, there was no life. Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree and came alive. And earned death that comes with it. This was the serpent's gift --the natural life/death cycle of the Goddess religions.

I think my favourite 'explanation' of the Eden story is that a boy and girl can get along quite happily until a 'serpent' raises it's ugly head.... :)

It's not like you have a choice --being alive is living in sin. Living in Nature.

Life and death, that's what being alive is. In the Garden of Eden there was no sin, there was no life. Adam and Eve ate from the fruit of the tree and came alive. And earned death that comes with it. This was the serpent's gift --the natural life/death cycle of the Goddess religions.
Is that a Satanistic/naturalistic view? fair enough. Christians just see it differently. They'd go down the technical route that there was life in Eden seeing as there were cells that were functioning in various organisms.

the Goddess? enlighten me.

Are you of the opinion that you cannot live(as in, have fun) without committing sins?

Is that a Satanistic/naturalistic view? fair enough. Christians just see it differently. They'd go down the technical route that there was life in Eden seeing as there were cells that were functioning in various organisms.

the Goddess? enlighten me.

Are you of the opinion that you cannot live(as in, have fun) without committing sins?
Haha, not Satanist view as far as I know, but then I don't know much about them. I did give it a Goddess religion spin.

Some Christian denominations see living as sin, as on this post from a thread called 'Faith is Sin':
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7308731&postcount=53
There, it is life apart from God, life on Earth, that is Hell. Heaven and the Garden are metaphors for states of mind where one exists in a condition of being with or in the presence of God. Hell is being apart from God.

I am of the opinion that sin is for Christians. If you don't believe in the Christian God, then you cannot sin against something you don't believe in. Not being a Christian, I don't worry about it too much. Oddly enough, I did define 'sin' once, when I was a child, in terms of a 'sin against humanity', which in itself is reflective of my adult concept of religion.

The Goddess religions in the Middle East are religions that existed prior to and concurrent with the rise of monotheism. They began with worship of a single Goddess-image and eventually evolved into the pantheons as the goddess gained a son-lover and/or a daughter, who themselves propagated. There were two styles of pantheons: earlier goddess religion ones, such as existed in Canaan and early Babylon, and where the head was a goddess with a son-lover who was her consort, and later patriarchal (Indo-European) ones where the son-lover had taken over as head of the god clan. The patriarchal ones are the ones that evolved into monotheism after they rejected "all other gods".

I could go on for hours about it, but here's a quick link to the pantheon of Canaan, which still practiced a goddess religion until well after 1 A.D.
http://www.barca.fsnet.co.uk/punic-gods.htm

I have seen "Accuser", and I have seen "Adversary". I personally think "adversary" comes closer... but, unfortuantely, I also believe it is very misunderstood... it is taken as the adverary of god, rather than of man.
I am a gamer. In gaming we have opponents, someone to pit ourselves against. I came to gaming rather late in life compared to some of my opponents, and so certain philosophies that they take for granted I had to learn. One, that I learned from Brad Himself, is that of the gamer who plays for the sake of the game. This gamer plays the game the best way he can. He learns all the rules, plays by the rules, and takes advantage of opponent's mistakes in order to win. This may sound ruthless, but in fact by playing this way he is showing his opponent a degree of respect, because it allows the opponent to improve himself through mistakes.

I think that Satan is a gamer, and specifically this type of gamer. The Adversary. He exists to be an opponent and to play the game to the best of his abilities, even if it means taking every advantage his opponent allows. The trick for the human is learning the rules of the game, which are never spelled out in full. (Kinda like Paranoia (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpg/series.php?qsSeries=19).)

I am a gamer. In gaming we have opponents, someone to pit ourselves against. I came to gaming rather late in life compared to some of my opponents, and so certain philosophies that they take for granted I had to learn. One, that I learned from Brad Himself, is that of the gamer who plays for the sake of the game. This gamer plays the game the best way he can. He learns all the rules, plays by the rules, and takes advantage of opponent's mistakes in order to win. This may sound ruthless, but in fact by playing this way he is showing his opponent a degree of respect, because it allows the opponent to improve himself through mistakes.

I think that Satan is a gamer, and specifically this type of gamer. The Adversary. He exists to be an opponent and to play the game to the best of his abilities, even if it means taking every advantage his opponent allows. The trick for the human is learning the rules of the game, which are never spelled out in full. (Kinda like
Paranoia (http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/rpg/series.php?qsSeries=19).)

AAAAHHHHH!!!! Paranoia!!! I used to play that when I was at school!!!!
Oh, the pleasure of giving someone a Termination Voucher for their birthday....

AAAAHHHHH!!!! Paranoia!!! I used to play that when I was at school!!!!
Oh, the pleasure of giving someone a Termination Voucher for their birthday....
You people and your newfangled games. Everyone knows Pacman rules

well im gonna saysomething i guess, I dont really like Wicca all that much cause Ive run into some real wierdos who called themselves wicca. they told me that they found me through their tarot cards and were going to put a spell on me. I dont know if they were real wicca or not, I didn't really care at that point. I told them were they could put their ouija board and to get away from me. Now I have nothing against the wiccans, I dont know enough about their religion to form a a critisim, plus i only know what i have been told by people who claim they were wiccan. One of my friends told me his mom is like a wiccan high priestess or something, another guy told me he was a black sorceror, I thought he had been playing a little too much Final Fantasy or something. Now Im just ranting and rambling so I think Ill stop before the boss catches me.