NationStates Jolt Archive

Not all views. There are significant things that she does not share with neocons.

In that case, it's still her responsibility to clarify that once she said the neocons "agree" with her.

In that case, it's still her responsibility to clarify that once she said the neocons "agree" with her.

Once. On one thing. And that makes her a neocon to you?

Hey, do you agree that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? That's also a typical neocon belief.

Once. On one thing. And that makes her a neocon to you?

Hey, do you agree that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? That's also a typical neocon belief.

Again, I assumed she was a neocon because SHE said she agrees with them. She didn't specify on what things, so - and that's linguistics 101 - it's an explainable mistake to assume that she's one. Now I know that she isn't one (assuming your description is reliable), but she didn't make a very good job of making it clear that she wasn't one once she said she and they agree.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck but turns out to be a genetically-engineered giraffe, it might be a mistake to assume it's a duck, but it isn't such a big mistake.

When will these barbarians learn....we're trying to civilize you, not oppress you!



Within limits, of course. It would be pretty disturbing (and illegal) if Hellenismos adherents started to embrace pederasty or forcing their women to stay at home...to say nothing of trying to get slaves.:eek:

Actually, we're a lot like most religions when it comes to reconstructing morals; most followers of Judaism and Christianity follow moral codes thousands of years old, but they have removed the elements like slavery or execution for minor crimes that pertained to the culture of the time. You reconstruct the religion as faithfully as possible but you update some of the aspects in order to fit modern culture; even the Greeks themselves did this when they eliminated human sacrifices early in their history.

Well I did say *basically* not *to the letter* ;o)

Can I sack Rome now? Oh wait.. the Irish never sacked Rome :o( But there's always a first! ;o)

Well I did say *basically* not *to the letter* ;o)

Can I sack Rome now? Oh wait.. the Irish never sacked Rome :o( But there's always a first! ;o)

We would've conquered Hibernia but our legions were too busy fighting the Parthians...

Ironically, however, it was the Irish who preserved many of the writings of Roman scholars and philosophers after the fall of the empire...the Irish saved what the Vandals, Ostrogoths and Gauls destroyed.

You mean, in the same way Christianity commandeers the ancient myths of the Hebrews, and concocts a 'hodge-podge' with other pagan practises of it's time?


Christianty comes from the Hebrews, so it doesn't commandeer anything there.

It certainly has concocted a hodge podge of pagan practises though over time. At least in it's institutionalised form.
I'm just as oposed to Christianity doing that as I am to Wicca doing the same.

Meh, I find the thought of many people that Paganism is peaceful, all flowery, and beats christianity (as if there is even a competition going,...?) pretty disturbing to be honest.

As I am sure was said before you cannot shelve them all in one box. For example I would say there is a gigantic difference between Nordic pagans and hellenistic pagans.

For example I had to study it for a course, not something I enjoyed but I needed a pass in it so I payed attention. Nordic paganism (germanic) was possibly one of the most brutal religions per se mixed with a very brutal culture, it was explained that religion developed this way because of the harsh weather conditions and hardships of life favored the war gods. One only needs to look into Scandinavian and Germanic folklore (for example the Beowolf saga, or Siegfried (to some degree)), the Nazis were quite caught up in it as well, preferring the old gods of north to what they termed the "jewish carpenter." Hitler was supposedly a pagan, his plan was to replace christmas with the winter celebration (I forgot the name for it, is scandinavian and hard to pronounce/write).

Then there was the hellenistic paganism (zeus, hades, poseidon, etc..) that was considerably less war orientated then the afore mentioned one. It was much more compatible with a warm climate, farm life, and since it seriously lacked in any type of moral predicament (no ten commandments, the Gods were dissaffectionate and unjudging as long as you did not affront them in some of the peculiar ways mentioned in the lores. The lewd Greek and Roman lifestyles of pederasty, orgies, and homosexuality could flourish.

Then there is also the only form of Paganism that survived to form a world religion, Hinduism. Which is different again, but traces more to the Nordic paganism (it is debated, but several similarities are seen) then to hellenistic paganism. In Hinduism I will admit I am not that knowledgable.

Now I read something interesting recently. Apparently that Christianity was also a warrior religion is not that far off the point. The group with the largest amount of converties were apparently soldiers serving in the army, the first gentile to be baptised was also a soldier and is mentioned in the bible, Cornelius (not sure?) I think his name was. It was explained the with hellenistic paganism you go to Hades to the underworld after you pass away more or less, but in christianity you go to heaven. Much more enticing for soldiers facing their death every day. Also many children of nobles joined it forsaking their whole inheritance to live the life of a hermit to live the teachings as they were prescribed, no greed, no pride, etc..
Also what brought much apparent fame among the soldiers at least was the battle where Constatine fought his decisive battle for the Roman Empire and he had his soldiers draw the christian symbol on their shields. Apparently the other army had the advantage, but on the next morning Constantine's army swept away the enemy in a complete victory with a lot less losses then expected. And as we know us humans to be, rumors spread among soldiers, etc.. More converted.

Also the fall of Rome has little to do with Christianity. For example quite the opposite. The deeply christian parts of the Empire where christianity had the strongest foothold urban and rural, which later formed the Byzantine Empire remained another thousand years.

Then there was the hellenistic paganism (zeus, hades, poseidon, etc..) that was considerably less war orientated then the afore mentioned one. It was much more compatible with a warm climate, farm life, and since it seriously lacked in any type of moral predicament (no ten commandments, the Gods were dissaffectionate and unjudging as long as you did not affront them in some of the peculiar ways mentioned in the lores. The lewd Greek and Roman lifestyles of pederasty, orgies, and homosexuality could flourish.

There were moral codes in Greek and Roman religions; they were different than ours in some ways but also had similarities. Many of the things we see as evil such as stealing, rape, assault and murder were as equally condemned then as they are now. These cultures preferred to focus on the core concepts of moderation, hospitality, and piety rather than a written code of conduct. We have to remember that Greco-Roman philosophy believed that man was inherently capable of developing morality through logic without the intervention of the Gods; this is much more akin to modern-day humanism in its outlook than the morality of the Bible, which was said to be divinely inspiried. Myths served as a means of teaching morality as well as religious beliefs; however, if you look at the myths you see that the Gods do not teach morality but rather the heroes know it inherently.

But then again, pederasty and orgies were not commonplace; they were an indulgence of the wealthy and had very little to do with the religion practiced by the common people. It's also important to note that these indulgences flourish wherever there is a wealthy elite that is above the law; the Christian nobility of Byzantium, Venice, and France were all equally as prone to indulge in pederasty and orgiastic sexuality. The condemnation of it was almost nonexistent, especially given the moral position of the Papacy during the Renaissance.

Greek culture was not perfect and neither was Roman; their acceptance of different forms of sexuality, empasis on education and respect for other cultures' beliefs was admirable, but at the same time they allowed things like slavery, gladiatorial combat, and pederasty. People like me, who do follow pagan beliefs, realize that we are not in ancient Athens and so our beliefs have to accomodate this reality. It's the same with Christians or Jews...the Bible condones slavery and stoning of children for disobedience, but they don't follow that because the Torah was written by a Bronze Age nomadic culture to be accessible to the people of the time.

Also the fall of Rome has little to do with Christianity. For example quite the opposite. The deeply christian parts of the Empire where christianity had the strongest foothold urban and rural, which later formed the Byzantine Empire remained another thousand years.

It's marginal at best. If anything, it simply shifted the base of power in the Empire, which enabled the Byzantines to remain strong while the Western part collapsed in the 5th century; the Christianization of the Roman elite further strengthened the Eastern Empire and enabled it to gain significant influence

However, Christianity was spread by force in the Western Empire and was later forced on the Germanic and Gallic tribes in Germania and Sarmatia; there were converts in these areas, but it was nothing compared to the East. Personally, I feel this has to do with the fact that Christianity was very similar to the religious beliefs of the cultures in the Eastern empire and so was more readily adopted. Recall that monotheism had been a part of the Eastern religious sphere for a long time prior to Christ.

We have to remember that Greco-Roman philosophy believed that man was inherently capable of developing morality through logic without the intervention of the Gods; this is much more akin to modern-day humanism in its outlook than the morality of the Bible, which was said to be divinely inspiried.

"Divinely inspired," yes - but lots of philosophers influenced by Greek philosophy argued that it was also rationally based.

It's the same with Christians or Jews...the Bible condones slavery and stoning of children for disobedience, but they don't follow that because the Torah was written by a Bronze Age nomadic culture to be accessible to the people of the time.

I don't know... I went along with that logic for a while, but eventually it reached the point where my own conception of morality and the religious conception of morality were so far apart that I was forcing it, and I knew it.

Hellenistic religion might be easier to look at this way, though, since it was not inspired by a perfect and omnipotent deity.

"Divinely inspired," yes - but lots of philosophers influenced by Greek philosophy argued that it was also rationally based.

However, those arguments arose easily 1500 years or more after Christ (I'm thinking Erasmus); they were part of a revival of Greco-Roman philosophy during the Renaissance and so the new philosophers tried to combine Christian theology and this rational philosophy. I'm of the opinion that these attempts generally failed and so evolved in to the secular systems of the philosophes during the Enlightenment. They had a lot closer ties to the ancient Greek philosophers than their religious predecessors.


I don't know... I went along with that logic for a while, but eventually it reached the point where my own conception of morality and the religious conception of morality were so far apart that I was forcing it, and I knew it.

That's really the way I feel; I see religion and morality as complementary but not necessary for each other. Religion, or lack of it, can have no bearing on your morality because human beings can naturally discover it on their own by simple logical observation.

At the same time, however, the Gods are not moral in our sense. Their motivations are their own, and we can't know them; they may try and shape events in this world, but they only do so when they want to. I believe that there are an infinite number of Gods, but we don't need them to live properly or need to worship all of them. The Gods we acknowledge are the ones who help us; it's really a quid pro quo relationship in many ways.

I think the afterlife is what you believe it to be; the Gods send you wherever your decisions in life and religious beliefs would place you. However, religious belief has nothing to do with the kind of afterlife you enjoy; a bad person will be punished and a good person rewarded.

Hellenistic religion might be easier to look at this way, though, since it was not inspired by a perfect and omnipotent deity.

That's one of the reasons why Hellenistic polytheism appealed to me; I had previously believed that mankind was capable of developing morality on his own, but I also felt that there were Gods higher than us and that they were both multiple in number and had individual personalities. I then began to learn more and more about polytheism until I settled upon the Greek religion; it appealed to me, and as I learned more and more about it I began to see how it fit my worldview.

Spiritual experiences, simple contemplation and the fact that prayers are answered if the Gods are respected all reinforce this belief for me. Perhaps the multiple answered prayers, spiritual experiences, and my perception of the Gods is coincidence or psychological, but I do feel that I have found my path and the Gods I worship are alive.

However, those arguments arose easily 1500 years or more after Christ (I'm thinking Erasmus); they were part of a revival of Greco-Roman philosophy during the Renaissance and so the new philosophers tried to combine Christian theology and this rational philosophy.

Not the ones I'm talking about. I'm thinking particularly of Thomas Aquinas and his notion of natural law (much influenced by Aristotle), but I don't think he was the first. Christian (and Muslim) philosophy had been influenced by the Greeks for a long time; consider the time period and place of its birth and expansion.

I'm of the opinion that these attempts generally failed

I agree. I would say the same of all attempts to rationally demonstrate an ethical system.

and so evolved in to the secular systems of the philosophes during the Enlightenment. They had a lot closer ties to the ancient Greek philosophers than their religious predecessors.

I don't know about that. Alasdair MacIntyre's book After Virtue makes an interesting argument for the exact opposite, arguing that Aristotle's notion of a human telos, common in one form or another to many ancient civilizations and borrowed by a number of religious philosophers, was lost by the Enlightenment philosophers, and that the consequence was the descent into moral relativism.

That's really the way I feel; I see religion and morality as complementary but not necessary for each other. Religion, or lack of it, can have no bearing on your morality because human beings can naturally discover it on their own by simple logical observation.

Can we? How?

At the same time, however, the Gods are not moral in our sense.

Why can they get away with this? What is it about them that absolves them of moral obligation?

I think the afterlife is what you believe it to be; the Gods send you wherever your decisions in life and religious beliefs would place you. However, religious belief has nothing to do with the kind of afterlife you enjoy; a bad person will be punished and a good person rewarded.

So are atheists sentenced to oblivion? Or are they enlightened after death, and sent where they want to go?

That's one of the reasons why Hellenistic polytheism appealed to me; I had previously believed that mankind was capable of developing morality on his own, but I also felt that there were Gods higher than us and that they were both multiple in number and had individual personalities. I then began to learn more and more about polytheism until I settled upon the Greek religion; it appealed to me, and as I learned more and more about it I began to see how it fit my worldview.

Spiritual experiences, simple contemplation and the fact that prayers are answered if the Gods are respected all reinforce this belief for me. Perhaps the multiple answered prayers, spiritual experiences, and my perception of the Gods is coincidence or psychological, but I do feel that I have found my path and the Gods I worship are alive.

Pagan religion has its attraction. It has the advantage of making a lot of sense.

Silly, harmless, occasionally annoying.

Not the ones I'm talking about. I'm thinking particularly of Thomas Aquinas and his notion of natural law (much influenced by Aristotle), but I don't think he was the first. Christian (and Muslim) philosophy had been influenced by the Greeks for a long time; consider the time period and place of its birth and expansion.

That's a good point; I was thinking more along the lines of the Humanists of the classical revival during the 15th-17th centuries.

I don't know about that. Alasdair MacIntyre's book After Virtue makes an interesting argument for the exact opposite, arguing that Aristotle's notion of a human telos, common in one form or another to many ancient civilizations and borrowed by a number of religious philosophers, was lost by the Enlightenment philosophers, and that the consequence was the descent into moral relativism.

I'd have to look in to that; I always thought that the Enlightenment was the product of philosophical differences between the evolving Humanist movements and Christian theology.

Can we? How?

Perhaps if we think our existence has an overarching purpose that is not the product of a deity but rather the natural evolution of our species and our consciousness; it's a hard argument to make because the concept of "purpose" inherently implies a sentient inspiration for the purpose.

Why can they get away with this? What is it about them that absolves them of moral obligation?

I wouldn't say it is absolved, but rather their moral code is different; they are not mortals, so their morality is dealing with scales of time and moral actions far greater than any of us can imagine or accomplish.

Gods are punished; Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, Celtic and many other pagan religions in Europe all possessed stories of Gods being punished for misdeeds. In other world religions like Chinese religious Taoism, there are Gods and heroes who are forced to suffer time in hell for misdeeds, and the concept. The same is true of most polytheistic religions; their mythologies have Gods or heroes punished for evil deeds by their fellows

So are atheists sentenced to oblivion? Or are they enlightened after death, and sent where they want to go?

Good question...personally, I feel that total obliteration is something reserved for only the truly evil. If you're not that evil, you would have a choice of afterlifes; the religious could go to the "heaven" of their Gods, recieve total enlightenment, or be reincarnated. Atheists could choose oblivion, total enlightenment, or reincarnation; they couldn't go to a religious heaven unless they are reincarnated. Oblivion for an atheist would be an illusion; you would still exist, but you would have no perception that you exist. It could end, however, if the Gods feel that it is necessary.

But then again, speculation about the afterlife is difficult because we know nothing about it other than in a mythological or religious sense.

Pagan religion has its attraction. It has the advantage of making a lot of sense.

That's why I follow it.

I'd have to look in to that; I always thought that the Enlightenment was the product of philosophical differences between the evolving Humanist movements and Christian theology.

Yes, but some of the differences between the "evolving Humanist movements and Christian theology" were also differences between the "evolving Humanist movements" and elements of Greek philosophy, at least as it was interpreted by Christian theology. One of those elements was Aristotle's notion of natural purpose.

Perhaps if we think our existence has an overarching purpose that is not the product of a deity but rather the natural evolution of our species and our consciousness; it's a hard argument to make because the concept of "purpose" inherently implies a sentient inspiration for the purpose.

But that cannot be confirmed through logical observation, and does not give us morality. If the "purpose" of humanity were to systematically slaughter one another, I would not consider that to be "moral."

I wouldn't say it is absolved, but rather their moral code is different; they are not mortals, so their morality is dealing with scales of time and moral actions far greater than any of us can imagine or accomplish.

Gods are punished; Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Norse, Celtic and many other pagan religions in Europe all possessed stories of Gods being punished for misdeeds. In other world religions like Chinese religious Taoism, there are Gods and heroes who are forced to suffer time in hell for misdeeds, and the concept. The same is true of most polytheistic religions; their mythologies have Gods or heroes punished for evil deeds by their fellows.

So it's a difference in perspective more than in obligation?

Good question...personally, I feel that total obliteration is something reserved for only the truly evil. If you're not that evil, you would have a choice of afterlifes; the religious could go to the "heaven" of their Gods, recieve total enlightenment, or be reincarnated. Atheists could choose oblivion, total enlightenment, or reincarnation; they couldn't go to a religious heaven unless they are reincarnated. Oblivion for an atheist would be an illusion; you would still exist, but you would have no perception that you exist. It could end, however, if the Gods feel that it is necessary.

So how do monotheists cope with this? Surely the Gods know of the others' existence?

Actually, Baptists are Christians. So are Catholics, Seventh-Day Adventists, Pentecostals, Methodists, Presbyterians, Calvinists, and many more.

It's called a heterodoxy for a reason. They aren't all the same, but they are definitely Christians.

The whooshing noise was my point (the same one you stated) going over your head at high velocity.

Humanity CANNOT survive without it. It is IMPOSSIBLE for humanity to survive without the comfort that thinking there are higher powers looking out for us, that they are the cause of all things in the world, that it isn't the evils of man, brings us.

What possible proof do you have of that?

Without religion, most people feel no need for morals, and, well, voila.

That is also completely untrue. There are plenty of atheists now and they aren't running around killing everyone. Some of them are but I doubt there is a higher percentage of atheist criminals/people without morals than Christians.

The whooshing noise was my point (the same one you stated) going over your head at high velocity.

The whooshing noise you hear is the hot air coming out of your mouth.

You love to defend alternative faiths, but can't wait to slam Christianity as though it were a single entity.

Christianty comes from the Hebrews, so it doesn't commandeer anything there.

It certainly has concocted a hodge podge of pagan practises though over time. At least in it's institutionalised form.
I'm just as oposed to Christianity doing that as I am to Wicca doing the same.

Christianity is NOT the same religion as that of the Hebrews. Tanakh pretty much denies the possibility of a 'christianity', and is fairly conclusive in it's assurance that Jesus cannot be 'Messiah'... so - whether or not the first Christians were Jews, Christianity does not 'come from the Hebrews', and very much DOES commandeer the religion of Israel.

Add to which, of course, the church AFTER the living ministry of Jesus, continued to change the message of Jesus, into it's almost unrecognisable Pauline version.

Christianity is NOT the same religion as that of the Hebrews. Tanakh pretty much denies the possibility of a 'christianity', and is fairly conclusive in it's assurance that Jesus cannot be 'Messiah'... so - whether or not the first Christians were Jews, Christianity does not 'come from the Hebrews', and very much DOES commandeer the religion of Israel.

Add to which, of course, the church AFTER the living ministry of Jesus, continued to change the message of Jesus, into it's almost unrecognisable Pauline version.

Aye. The gospels of Judas and Mary Magdalene are much more similar to Celtic Paganism than they are to American Christianity. Wouldn't surprise me a wee bit if it comes out that the Culdees had knowledge of these gospels and recognized them as well as the "four".

What i like about "Wicca" is that it teaches to worship the Earth. I dislike, or don't care about pretty much anything else. I would still prefer a hypothetical child to come home and tell me that he/she became "wiccan" than "LDS", "Christian" or "Muslim". I'm myself much more likely to date a moderate Wiccan over a fundie Atheist. Fundie wiccans are just as bad as any other fundies, and the only christians i really liked through history are the Culdees, and they were wiped out by the Catholic Church is the Renaissance, because they were considered heretics.

Christianity is NOT the same religion as that of the Hebrews.

No argument there.
There are significant differences between them.


Tanakh pretty much denies the possibility of a 'christianity', and is fairly conclusive in it's assurance that Jesus cannot be 'Messiah'... so -

That would be the common Jewish opinion, but Christians and Messianic Jews would have a different opinion.
Even your choice of words, "pretty much" and "fairly conclusive" show that you recognise this difference of opinion evern if you don't agree with it.


whether or not the first Christians were Jews, Christianity does not 'come from the Hebrews', and very much DOES commandeer the religion of Israel.


No, since ALL of the original players in the Christian story are Jews, Jesus Christ, the disciples, Paul, etc. it can only be seen as something that does "come from the Hebrews", there's no othe rplace that it can have come from. As such, it doesn't commandeer anything, it just takes a very different path from their point of divergence.

We would've conquered Hibernia but our legions were too busy fighting the Parthians...

Ironically, however, it was the Irish who preserved many of the writings of Roman scholars and philosophers after the fall of the empire...the Irish saved what the Vandals, Ostrogoths and Gauls destroyed.

Which is just one more reason why the Irish are so awesome! How the Irish saved civilization! yaaay!

That would be the common Jewish opinion, but Christians and Messianic Jews would have a different opinion.
Even your choice of words, "pretty much" and "fairly conclusive" show that you recognise this difference of opinion evern if you don't agree with it..


What you call "Messianic Jews' are Christians. The just don't call themselves that.

It isn't really a matter of opinion... the Old Testament says that Messiah will not change the message... and Jesus does. Thus - he cannot be messiah. It's that simple.

I'm not saying he wasn't special, magical... the son of god, or anything. Just - he can NOT be the Messiah of which the Jews spoke.

Of course - as an Atheist I doubt any of the god stuff anyway... and as a skeptic, I find it hard to credit the literal existence of ANY 'Jesus' character at all.


No, since ALL of the original players in the Christian story are Jews, Jesus Christ, the disciples, Paul, etc. it can only be seen as something that does "come from the Hebrews", there's no othe rplace that it can have come from. As such, it doesn't commandeer anything, it just takes a very different path from their point of divergence.

Rubbish. You are looking at the blood in a man veins as though it has some bearing on his religious views. I suspect the 'message' of Jesus has more in common with the earliest incarnation of Buddhism (in that part of the world about... 600 BC) than with the Old Judaism.

In that case, it's still her responsibility to clarify that once she said the neocons "agree" with her.

5.-It is not quite lonely, really, lots of people hear what I have to say, and that's more than enough for me. Actually, certain movements called "neo-cons" over there in the USA seems to start agreeing with me.

I'm not a neocon, of course. I even said that neocons agreed with me, not that I agreed with them. As someone else already pointed in this thread, I just agree with them regarding one point in particular. I am clearly against most of their other views, although. Almost everything they say, I even have a custom of debating with Deep Kimchi, for example, over anything else, including geopolitics, gun control, abortion, civil rights and so forth.

You got us confused about your gender because, in my experience, most women tend to be way more polite and articulate than you are

However, your own inability to respect differences was shown in the fact that I "must be polite and nice" just because I belong to the "soft gender" or the "weak gender". A big mistake in an argument from someone who is beating a five year old with Tyson's fists, don't you think?

So you know the different tendencies of the Yoruba-based religions, no? If you live in Brazil then you have equal footing with me regarding that fact. Grave robbing, for just giving a tiny example, because I won't enter in the kidnapping part, is a crime where I do live, in Venezuela. Santeros and Paleros do it on a regular basis around here. Even as certain followers or "blessed" by several Orishas do not indulge in such practices, they still regard them as "necessary", for those who do it. If your religion needs to commit criminal acts with your worship, then it should be outlawed, for me that's that simple. If your christianity "demands" you as a "need" to blow out abortion clinics, then it must be outlawed.

Perhaps you are more familiar with the candomblé priests and followers over there in Brazil, where they are more common. Nothing wrong with them, actually I see them as the "bright side" of those beliefs. The Cuban branch of Santería although, (the proper "santeros", as a matter of fact) is a different issue. I won't even say anything about Haiti voodoo (vudú) priests, as they are slandered enough, and with really good reasons.

Still, try to act as someone who knows at least as much as the other as the other person, not ten times, as you delusion. I conducted a media investigation on the rites of the Sorte Mountain, and a study of the Universidad Central de Venezuela regarding the influence of Cuban Santería in the religious spectre of this country. Having an opposite view than mine do not give you "more knowledge" over this issue.

I'll give this a rest, with my points already explained. You can have the final word on this if you want.

I'm not a neocon, of course. I even said that neocons agreed with me, not that I agreed with them. As someone else already pointed in this thread, I just agree with them regarding one point in particular. I am clearly against most of their other views, although. Almost everything they say, I even have a custom of debating with Deep Kimchi, for example, over anything else, including geopolitics, gun control, abortion, civil rights and so forth.



However, your own inability to respect differences was shown in the fact that I "must be polite and nice" just because I belong to the "soft gender" or the "weak gender". A big mistake in an argument from someone who is beating a five year old with Tyson's fists, don't you think?

So you know the different tendencies of the Yoruba-based religions, no? If you live in Brazil then you have equal footing with me regarding that fact. Grave robbing, for just giving a tiny example, because I won't enter in the kidnapping part, is a crime where I do live, in Venezuela. Santeros and Paleros do it on a regular basis around here. Even as certain followers or "blessed" by several Orishas do not indulge in such practices, they still regard them as "necessary", for those who do it. If your religion needs to commit criminal acts with your worship, then it should be outlawed, for me that's that simple. If your christianity "demands" you as a "need" to blow out abortion clinics, then it must be outlawed.

Perhaps you are more familiar with the candomblé priests and followers over there in Brazil, where they are more common. Nothing wrong with them, actually I see them as the "bright side" of those beliefs. The Cuban branch of Santería although, (the proper "santeros", as a matter of fact) is a different issue. I won't even say anything about Haiti voodoo (vudú) priests, as they are slandered enough, and with really good reasons.

Still, try to act as someone who knows at least as much as the other as the other person, not ten times, as you delusion. I conducted a media investigation on the rites of the Sorte Mountain, and a study of the Universidad Central de Venezuela regarding the influence of Cuban Santería in the religious spectre of this country. Having an opposite view than mine do not give you "more knowledge" over this issue.

I'll give this a rest, with my points already explained. You can have the final word on this if you want.

You see, then you should lobby for prohibition of the ACT of grave-robbing, not the RELIGION. Because Christians blow up abortion clinics sometimes (prohibit and - as you yourself said - kill christians), muslims kill people sometimes (prohibit islam and kill its followers), goths that claim to be occultists kill cats sometimes (prohibit all branches of occultism even though there's no foundation for sacrifice in occultism), and I'm pretty sure somewhere, somehow, an atheist has also killed for his belief. That leaves us with buddhism, until you find out some crime committed by a buddhist, then down goes each and every person in the world. As you can hopefully see, driving your point to its final consequences results in everyone but - possibly - atheists and buddhists getting either killed or forcefully converted.

Oh, and I didn't think you HAD TO be polite and nice on account of your gender. I thought that people of your gender are, in general, more polite and nice. It was not an idea of obligation, at all.

Your points were well explained, dear. That's why I could tell they were bad.