*Real* Christians

[Sander]

I have, but you need thiests too keep "institutionalized athiesm" down, just like we need you to keep up science and shit.

Ugh. And what do you have to base this claim on?
Why, nothing of course!
Tsch. I have yet to personally meet the first person who thinks institutionalised atheism is a good thing, and I don't know that many religious people, CCR.
Furthermore, things such as "free speech" are definitely NOT principles of Christianity, but of the Western morals (remember the Index Librorum Prohibitorum?). So I wonder how you can claim that somehow, theists are needed to keep atheism down.

And yes, they could now be considerd seperate, though they are still fairly deeply interwined, and situations that try to seperate Western morals from Christian morals, like Communism, are just as bad as without Western morals.

Ugh. Communism never tried to do that, y'know. Stalin tried to kick out every theist, because he thought of them as an attack on his power.
Communism claims that religion is something that keeps the people dozed, and can make them accept a lot of odd things.
Non-Stalinist Communism also tried to seperate the church from the state, but not forcefully.

Anyway, this still doesn't prove (or even suggest) that trying to seperate western morals from christian morals leads to bad things.

Oh, one last thing, the two are no longer intertwined, since Western moralism is now seperate from Christian moralism. If Christian moralism goes one way, Western moralism doesn't necessarily go the same way...

I agree with most of the rest of your post. Though prove me wrong on the last part....paganism at least used to mean a life without morals.

No. Paganism used to mean non-Christianity.

 

[Ozrat]

Your Religious Antropology professor is an asshole. By claiming the these folks are in contact with a supreme being on a regular basis he is, in fact, claiming that:
(1) A supreme being exists
(2) that one can recognize this supreme being.

...

So maybe it's a supreme being. Ok, but if so than we can't identify it yet. By claiming it is means you are taking all other variables that are yet undiscovered and putting them in a big category called "contact with supreme being."

Perhaps I brought across the wrong message last night when I was paraphrasing my prof in the wee hours of the morning. Allow me to try again.

Something that would be closer to what he said would be more along the lines of that he held a great amount of respect for the Serpent Handlers because they all are capable of individual spiritual fulfillment. He did not in any way imply that this is indeed the most correct denomination out there, or that it should be thought that way.

I fail, however, to understand why that if a religion that supports the belief of a supreme being can exist, why are they not also able to recognize it if He or whatever decides to materialize or show some other sign? After all, it/they was supposedly perfectly capable of creating the universe and everything within, was/were it/they not?

Like I said, this professor isn't showing a strong bias towards This prof holds an equal amount of respect for the Shaolin Monks as they also are capable of a high form of enlightenment and can also perform physically impossible feats as well. Its not the fact that they are of a certain denomination; its how they are all capable of enjoying the high levels of spiritual benefits of their beliefs repeatedly on a regular basis.

That is, of course, not to imply that religions that are more heirarchical in terms of who is capable of having and practicing enlightenment abilities. I think he was just making a point that faiths that aren't as institutionalized as, say, being Catholic or Islamic because this goes against what many university students learned from various sources as they grew up. Is it not healthy in the discourse of religion to acknowledge this?

Would it have been better if I had paraprased it as "these people believe without a reasonable doubt they are in contact with their supreme being on a regular basis. These people do not depend on others to tell them what to believe and how to feel. They are allowed to express themselves wholely and completely"?

I do recall something in the bible about the danger of testing one's faith.

A common point and misperception that is frequently brought up in the discource of Serpent Handlers.

http://www.les.appstate.edu/courses/appalachia/religion/snake.htm

Of those that do handle serpents, they are not testing their faith, nor do they feel that they are testing God, as many Christians have accused them of doing. They will not handle snakes unless they are "annointed" or that the power of God was sufficient to protect them. Serpent handlers say that they are "annointed" to pick up serpents and that without this divine intervention, they would be bitten. They feel that they are protected because they take the Bible literally.

In serpent handling churches, no one is required to handle the snakes, and in most no one under the age of 18 is allowed to handle snakes. When they do handle snakes, it is in the summer and fall months when the rattlers, cottonmouths, and copperheads wh ich are commonly handled can be caught. Church members capture their own snakes. Some snakes are used more than once while others aren't, depending on their health.

However strange serpent handling may seem to the casual observer, the practice from a traditional perspective is comprehensible. Taking into consideration the people's values and their particular religious tradition, even though you may reject the speci fic doctrine, you can understand why they believe it. If we are aware of their traditions personally or vicariously, we can understand why they take up serpents. We must remember that serpent handling is not a deviant civic practice of a relatively small group of people that should be ignored, tolerated, viewed as a spectacle, or legally terminated. Serpent handling is a complex traditional religious belief of a group of American Christians which should be respected for what it is.

You got a professor that almost blew up a gastank,

You're telling me you've never seen an accident-prone teacher before? Humans aren't perfect.

another one that is pretty biased for a "religion anthropology" teacher

Even after the above explanation of what he was trying to say?

and then, apparently, an anthropology teacher that tries to convince you that hunter-gatherers had it better than us.

Bullshit. Since it didn't seem to get across to you guys when I explained it four times before, I'll try once again for the fifth time.

I did not say anywhere that they had it better than us. I said that they did not have it as hard as most people in modern society would like to believe. I said that they are well adapted to their environments and that under normal circumstances they are not under such pressing hardships that I've repeatedly heard here that they must suffer through. Isn't that the case for any established lifestyle though?

My defending the hunter-gatherer lifestyle is in no way supposed to mean that they had it better. That would be doing something crazy like saying that one religion is better than another.

Ozrat, I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but your Uni blows big balls.

Because you don't agree with what I've paraphrased as a student who can't really hear that well and by what my personal views are? Then how did it get to be a prestigious university institute? Not really a good or reliable standard to measure it by. And people fuck up all the time; it's human.

A Mexican describes in detail the workings of Aztec Paganism to an extent not even my Mexican friends would have any clue about.

Mexican, or hispanic? Either way, it's not expected for you and I, people who are (mainly; I'm part Mohawk) not descended from the indigneous population of a continent to know in detail the fundamentals of the religious practices of what once existed here. I hardly find that it would be suprising for any other nationality, and I'm puzzled as to why you would find it to be so.

Can I just go off topic for a second-just a second-without it making me more disgusting in your eyes?

You mean by ignoring the very topic of a thread that was explicitly directed towards you for several posts over the entire first page? That's not going off-topic for a second, that's trolling and being disprespectful, which I also admit that I was probably doing at the same time. Agreed?

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553277472/qid=1080236732/sr=2-2/ref=sr_2_2/104-8210810-2431132

Good book. And Christanity belives that God made that stuff, hence it does have a spirit.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry into Values? Skimmed through it once; looked kinda interesting. But how is that supposed to address my explanation of my spiritual views and how this energy fully explains Paganism and similar beliefs? Am I to infer from this that you cannot deny what Paganism is based on then? Is what WaterGirl once told you finally justified in your eyes?

On a side note, I'd appreciate it if Dove, WaterGirl or somebody else could confirm whether or not this explanation is a satisfactory for what they were attempting to convey to CCR earlier.

Christianity is more than welcome to have faith that God made "that stuff". By "that stuff" I'm assuming that you're referring to the energy concept that I brought up and not motorcycles like it could be interpreted.

I never said how or why this energy is everywhere, as science has yet to come up with a rational explanation. By acknowedging that it is up to the individual to speculate on this matter, which is quite often done through their respective beliefs. Be it Pagans, Wiccans, Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Bhuddists, virtually every spritual view does offer an explanation on this matter in one way or another.

Its only fair that you can give Dove and WaterGirl the same amount of respect for their spirit beliefs that you demand for your God belief, correct?

It's not your place to question my descisions. I respect the fact that my parents take extremely good care for me, thus I go along with what my parents want for a little while.

So by social values and your own values you feel that it is too soon and is wrong to move away from your parents and that while you're living under the same roof you might as well just conform to them? That's an individual decision and I'll respect you for that.

But you're still more or less implying that money can compensate you for this drawback rather than, say their love.

Also, I am slightly sociophobic, so give me a fucking break from this, will you?

So you have a social disorder (extreme shyness/isolationism), eh? Once again, my condolences, but is that supposed to somehow be a method to excuse away what you've been saying all this time? I fail to see why you had to bring this up. What does your sociophobia have to do with refusing to follow what you truely believe? I don't use my loss of hearing to justify not listening to music (which isn't the case). After all, totally deaf people can sense music by other senses.

God, every one of my statements you have to twist until it furthers your agenda.

You refuse to do something that might be considered disrespecting your parents because its against the Ten Commandments, but yet you'll still use God's name in vain. Does that mean you are able to selectively chooose from them? Talk about "twisting until it furthers your agenda".

"My agenda"? I was trying to find out why you refuse to follow your true faith. I was explaining what I knew and trying to find a logical explanation out of all of it. That's my opinion, which I'm using appropiately to further this debate.

And you have to be fucking kidding me about "humanistic culture". Last I checked "humanistic culture" was non exsistant before Christanity and in athiest socities like Cambodia, the USSR or Maoist China. Unless you want to argue that certain humanistic values, like cutting open a person's rib cage, and spreading thier intestins into the shape of an eagle for Odin, are "humanistic".

Unless I'm somehow wrong here, what you're saying is that only (certain?) Christian societies are capable of being humanistic, and therefore every single non-Christian society is incapable of doing so. Are you implying that every single other cultural basis has been practicing methods of torture and sacrifice until Christianity came along to whip them into shape?

Haven't we call you on this point before? I'm more than willing to hear any explanation you have on this matter.

Because it fits under a little thing called schizophrenia. By that logic, anyone who thinks they are the actualization of the Maqis de Sade's penis is not automatically insane.

This is not logical at all. By claiming that these people are schizophrenzic, you are also giving the rational logic that freely allows association of various mental disorders to all forms of religion.

More on this later.

Why not now before we all forget that you decided to postpone addressing this point in detail until an undetermined later time?

Nope. The belivers are equal, so are the rights, but the history of the Church may be spotted. They are equal as belivers, thus, unlike, say, the Baptists, I don't think they are going to hell for not following the correct practice word for word.

So only certain interpretations of the Bible are correct? Wouldn't that mean that alot of Christian denominations are therefore wrong in comparison with each other? They might not go to hell, but they're still fundamentally wrong in their faith because they're not doing the "correct practice"?

Okay, that was stupid of me, but your way of arguing must be the most annoying ever, and I am really, really tired of you either insulting my faith (these people are more Christain then you are, and are more logical in thier faith), or my intellegence later on.

Once again, this is exactly how other people feel when you insult their faiths and intelligence. To paraphrase a famous (physically) dead dude: Do unto others as thou wouldst want unto you...

You where implying that Christanity was not the faith that I have loved for years, and instead it was primarily composed of that kind of people.
That's called trolling, buddy.

Please refer to my above point.

God can do it. God can do anything. But God never commands in the scriptures for people to use snakes. God never commands people to roll on the floor. God never made anybody speak in tounges. These people do it themselves.

What tells you this? You mean that these people are actually decieving themselves by praciting a Christianity sect that you previously said is just as capable of interpreting the meaning of the Bible as anybody else?

Besides, you're right. God never said that; Jesus did.

http://www.les.appstate.edu/courses/appalachia/religion/snake.htm

Sepent handlers are fundamentalists, and to the dedicated believers they are just carrying out the words of Jesus in St. Mark 16:17-18:
"And these signs shall follow them that believe: in my name they shall cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues: they shall take up serpents and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick and they shall recover."

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1998/58/58h025.html

"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." These were Jesus' last words on earth, according to Mark's Gospel (though only in the later manuscripts).

Wouldn't it be quite Christian to be following the last dying words of Christ Himself? After all, its in the Bible.

And I have no idea why you are arguing with me on this, as you obviously agree.

Wrong. Obviously I don't agree with you on this. And neither does Jesus or the Bible apparently.

That is the obvious fucking conclusion, as my attempts to kill you with my mind are obviously not fucking working.

Gosh darn it, there goes that potty mouth of yours again. What happened to some respect and diplomacy?

So you think insense, getting around a pentigram, lighting candels, and praying to Thor is what Christains do?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there several Christian ritual that employs the burning of incense and candles while also having a Crucifix and Altar as the focus point of their site of worship for the Holy Trinity? Why would all Pagans and Wiccans worship Thor? That's fundamentally wrong considering that, besides the elemental sprits, there is a God and a Godess. Thor is in Viking Paganism and mythology only.

Damn, if that is what Christians do, what the fuck kind of religion have I been practicing?

Under that definition, Christianity apparently.

Almost all Christains belive that you cannot simply channel God with "I COMPEL THESE DEAMONS TO GET OUT!". GOD does it.

That's funny: I could've swon that Jesus said "In my name shall they cast out devils" in Mark 16:17-18.

Thus applying your magical powers to some earthquake in Izmir is useless, as man has no magical powers.

Thus what? You didn't even provide anything that would back up this point. And you're once again displaying a severe lack of understanding about the Wiccan faith and the Wiccan Rede that it is based on. Instead of having ten fundamental moral rules like Christianity, Wiccans only have one.
http://www.witchvox.com/basics/rede.html

"Harm" is defined as "physical or mental damage" and to this we can add "psychic damage" as well. To inflict harm on another is simply not a thing that a Witch would do. Aside from the obvious karmic repercussions, Witches have a deep and abiding knowledge of the workings of the Universe. All things are connected to all other things- we are related to all Life, the Earth and the Stars. We know that all that we do affects everything else in the Web of Life. We are very conscious of this responsibility. We are known as "The Craft of the Wise" because of our knowledge of energies and the natural and spiritual laws that govern the workings of the Universe. To work within these laws is wisdom, to work against them is chaos. Because we hold this knowledge, we know and are willing to accept responsibility for our actions and what will result from them. We do not believe in a fictional devil that "made us do it". WE make the choices, and so, we make our choices very carefully. The image of a witch dressed in flowing robe running around "zapping" people or casting random spells across the countryside is a fictitious one. All spells that Witches actually perform are directed to a very specific end, developed after much thought and should always end with the phrase "for the good of all and the harm of none". No one here on this earth can possibly be sure of all the possibilities which fall under "the good of all", but by asking that the spell be performed under this guideline, we save ourselves and others a lot of unnecessary trouble. If it is indeed "for the good of all", it will come to pass. If it does not manifest, then perhaps we have asked wrongly or do not have all the information. In either case, we have spared ourselves and others from karmic backlash and the "three-fold return" of which much lately has been made in media sources.

Not only is it extremely against the faith to cause something like an earthquake, you're also missing the point that magic is only to be used as a last resort after all other reasonable avenues of action have been exhausted.

The word of God is not limited to a specific part of the world or the Universe. Stop twising my words.

Then why can't God be bothered to focus on a specific geographic area every once in a while?

This is a really long post, so I am afraid I might have called them Rollers once,

Several times actually. Review your own posts.

but have now chaged it to Snakes, which is actually shorter.

Why not Serpent Handlers, which is what they have decided to call themselves? I'm not describing members of your faith as "Bible-Thumpers" or "Crucifixers" because it would be considered wrong for me to use an incorrect terminology, which goes the same for you as well.

I really hate the action of betraying God for a religion that was rightfully wipedout a thousand years ago for being inhumane and barbaric.

"Betraying God"? "Rightfully wiped out"? "Inhumane and barbaric"?

Care to elaborate on these three extreme claims that you are making here? What are they based upon? I, along with other people here, have repeatedly requested you to do so.

I do not like the tendancies nor the doctrines of some other faith, but I despise New Age spirituality.

I can respect your opinion to not agree with other religions and faiths, but you seem to be harboring a hatred for this "New Age spirituality". Afterall, didn't it arise out of our "humanistic" culture? Isn't it based upon a code that specifically states that harm cannot be performed upon anything? What's so wrong about this form of religion that is so inherently bad (according to you)?

Hell yes you did. Read the first post. Think of it from my perspective. I already adressed this above.

Good. Now how about you think about it from my perspective as well as others when you do very similar things yourself? Ooops, your hipocracy is leaking!

And I made a joke.....so what?

A very insulting joke.

I was really tired, and I personally think that these Serpent Handelers are somewhat crazy.

Again, too bad about you not getting enough sleep lately, but that's no excuse. And once again, that is what you think.

And saying that you where a being a bit of a trolling bitch is not as bad as doubting my ability to "one of every three adults are incabable of performing independant metacognative thinking".

Why would that be? After all, there is an inherent 33% chance that you just might be one of them. And even if it were to be the case that you're not amongst the bottom third of people in this ability, I have seen absolutely nothing from you that would suggest to me that you are within the top third either. If you are not a mindless conformer nor a person with extraordinary cognitive skills, they you are amonst the average at best. Hey, just statistics...

O, and he's a Vidal-esque pretentious shithead who thinks probably has an obsession with his weird version of the intellectual ubermesch he thinks he is.

"He"? Try "she". And why are you flaming one of the sweetest and smartest old ladies that I've ever had the pleasure of meeting just because she regurgitated some statistics about metacogntive abilities of the general Western population? Not very rational at all...

All religions try to worship God.

No they don't. And especially not God. After all, I thought you told me it was highly offensive for you that I was using the name of God in an equally casual way.

If you look closely at even every Pagan religion that was based more upon thousands of years of tradition then a literal reading of the AD&D manual

Highly insulting, and has no relevance whatsoever.

or the belief that the Jews made Christanity to weaken Germans,

They were able to see two thousand years into the future? Once again, this is bullshit.

Matter of fact, I was just reading Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart with a discussion on just that subject.

Oh, name-dropping, how nice. Care to tell us anything about it that's relevant?

Problem being Baptism, as only Christains and some Jews practice it.

You mean the act of Babtising, or the Baptist denomination? And what exactly seems to be the problem? We're not psychic you know.

And the Jihad is not the best way to celebrate love of God.

Please, stop flattering yourself; It's Allah, remember? And its just as valid a way to "celebrate" Allah as the Crusade is to "celebrate" God.

You forgot the crazy Polish chick.

I see... So a person with an extreme point of view who repeatedly refused to acknowledge several valid points that opposed what she was saying (why does that seem so familiar?) is somehow supposed to represent my University as well... Hmm... Where did you say you were planning on going to University again?

True dat. Ozrat seems to be used to flaming, not debating.

Was flaming. If there's a display of respect for what I'm saying while also making a counter-argument, then I am more than willing to return that exact same curtesty.

I agree with most of the rest of your post. Though prove me wrong on the last part....paganism at least used to mean a life without morals.

No. Paganism used to mean non-Christianity.

Even though it came thousands of years before Christanity even arose?

 

[welsh]

I see, a misquote. Ok.

Actually Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a great book, but difficult. Worth spending time getting to read over the summer, perhaps at the lack for the deaf.

Anyway, his second book, Lila, actually gets into the idea of the distinction of spirituality and religion and their basic opposition. This is a theoretical construct though and not actual fact. In reality the religious and the spiritual may strive on different elements, but often overlap for individuals.

But Ozrat you seem to be assuming that a devout catholic can't have spiritual experiences? Yet we know of numerous occassions when certain Catholics have known spiritual/physical experiences that were considered miraculous. One finds those practices among charismatic catholics.

But I am a little confused here. A theory is drawn by the idea of explaining phenomena through generalizable findings and hypothesis testing. What you seem to be talking about is belief, but belief in this circumstances is applying a construction on phenomena that you can't otherwise explain. Belief and Theory are not the same thing. Religious beliefs seek to apply a positive construction and explanation while science tears itself down through the process of theory construction, testing, destruciton and reconstruction.

Anyway, this discussion seems to have begun and to have developed due to personal issues between Oz, Sander and CCR.

I will advise you guys to strive not to make this a personal issue and thereby turn this to a flamefest.

I don't mind a little offensive bickering. But let's chill this down bit, ok?

 

[Brother None]

Actually Pirsig's Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a great book, but difficult. Worth spending time getting to read over the summer, perhaps at the lack for the deaf.

...

No, no it isn't.

It was pretty easy to get through, and easy to understand. But it seems more like random figments of the man's imagination than anything. What a hacked-up piece of crap that was, like there aren't enough "there are 2 kinds of people on this world..."-comparisons already

Eeegh

Read it twice, tho', it contains some interesting thoughts, especially his stuff on perception, objective and subjective...

Anyway, this discussion seems to have begun and to have developed due to personal issues between Oz, Sander and CCR.

Heh, yeah, no shit, despite his explanations to the contrary, Ozzy's initial post had little else going for it, motive-wise, than "pissing CC off"

And CC and Sander just don't get along

I will advise you guys to strive not to make this a personal issue and thereby turn this to a flamefest.

Now you know that's just wistful thinking, for a flame-intended thread to turn nice. No way this won't degrade at one point or the other...

 

[Ozrat]

Worth spending time getting to read over the summer, perhaps at the lack for the deaf.

Huh?

Yet we know of numerous occassions when certain Catholics have known spiritual/physical experiences that were considered miraculous.

I'm aware of that, but CCR did claim that it was impossible for (at least other) religions to do so.

I will advise you guys to strive not to make this a personal issue and thereby turn this to a flamefest.

I don't mind a little offensive bickering. But let's chill this down bit, ok?

PM me if anything I say seems a bit too much, okay?

Now you know that's just wistful thinking, for a flame-intended thread to turn nice. No way this won't degrade at one point or the other...

I might have started it that way, but like I just said to welsh it isn't going to end like that on my part.

I do, however, have yet one more reasonable question to ask CCR before he responds.

Since it is against your values to turn against your parents religious beliefs while you are still under their roof, I'm assuming that they are not in the practice of Orthodoxy, your preferred religion, themselves. I'm also assuming that if your parents did indeed follow one form of Christianity or another they would be going to that church and you would be in tow simply for the respect that you said you have for them.

But you said that you don't go to church... Your parents aren't a bunch of those *ATHIESTS* now, are they? What are their religious views?

 

[welsh]

Kharn- well I did read Zen as a novel and really did enjoy it and got a lot out of it. One of the lessons in problem solving I got out of that and it's served me well.

(1) Anything that has been done can be done again. The question is how.
(2) Often the way to answer a problem is first developing the right frame of mind.

Ok, Ozrat, you've got me in yet another bad spelling moment. Sorry. And do not expect me to monitor this. I have better things to post- (like hot chicks).

I hope it's not wistful thinking but an issue of maturity. This thread started bad and despite a few bright spots, has stayed that way.

 

[Brother None]

(1) Anything that has been done can be done again. The question is how.
(2) Often the way to answer a problem is first developing the right frame of mind.

Well true dat.

I know what he means when he talks about centering yourself by fixing up stuff. There's a lot of sense in that, though I never tried it with a motorcycle.

 

[John Uskglass]

If you don't mind Ozrat, I am not going to respond to your response to Kharn and Ozrat's post, and might not respond to everything as, let's face it, this is getting really, really long.

But you're still more or less implying that money can compensate you for this drawback rather than, say their love.

I just think that while I am depending on them for everything, I should respect thier (my father is a very weird Liberal Mormon, my mother is Mormon but really a closeted Anglican) beliefs and my expectations. If I where to find out I was going to die, I'd start attending an Orthodox church, and would despertly want to be baptized. But that ain't gonna happen.

After all, totally deaf people can sense music by other senses.

I am going to Istanbul as something of an attempt to understand Orthodoxy, so I actually am. Good metaphore there.

Haven't we call you on this point before? I'm more than willing to hear any explanation you have on this matter.

Nope. The Zoroastrians had it (outside, ofcourse, of the tendancy to have Harems of young boys, but hey, that was the swinging 609 BCs) had something, as well as alot of socities. Sets of morals tend to spring up in civilized areas.

But Christanity did alot to humanize the world. Turkey being a favorite example of Christian values influencing for the better, China certainly was not humane by any stretch of the imagination, hell, even a favorite example of Christanity=GENOCIDE, Native America, saw the humanizing of the Mesoamerican area.

This is not logical at all. By claiming that these people are schizophrenzic, you are also giving the rational logic that freely allows association of various mental disorders to all forms of religion.

That's a good point, but ultimatly unfair. For instance, Coffee is a good thing. Turkish Coffee is better. But I don't want to eat coffee beans. You are ignoring the amount;you are selecting what to look at, and what not too.

So only certain interpretations of the Bible are correct? Wouldn't that mean that alot of Christian denominations are therefore wrong in comparison with each other? They might not go to hell, but they're still fundamentally wrong in their faith because they're not doing the "correct practice"?

By far the most important practice is baptism, hence they have just as much a chance of getting into heaven.

Once again, this is exactly how other people feel when you insult their faiths and intelligence. To paraphrase a famous (physically) dead dude: Do unto others as thou wouldst want unto you...

But it's diffirent. Theyre New Wavers.

Seriously, I'll admit irrationality at this point. Not an excuse, however, to stoop to my irrational level.

Besides, you're right. God never said that; Jesus did.

*cough*parables, Godhead *cough*

The Bible is full of parables. And Othodoxy belives in truth, not fact, like Catholiscism. They are, by thier very definition, not for a literal interpertation of the Bible.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there several Christian ritual that employs the burning of incense and candles while also having a Crucifix and Altar as the focus point of their site of worship for the Holy Trinity? Why would all Pagans and Wiccans worship Thor? That's fundamentally wrong considering that, besides the elemental sprits, there is a God and a Godess. Thor is in Viking Paganism and mythology only.

We don't think it has a power in and of itself. Insense and stuff help the spiritual expiriance. While with Pagan magic, it all has an actual purpose.

That's funny: I could've swon that Jesus said "In my name shall they cast out devils" in Mark 16:17-18.

Key part being in my name. It's diffirent. And it applys only to Devils, and what a Devil is is up to debate.

Thus what? You didn't even provide anything that would back up this point. And you're once again displaying a severe lack of understanding about the Wiccan faith and the Wiccan Rede that it is based on. Instead of having ten fundamental moral rules like Christianity, Wiccans only have one.

I was pointing out that getting in a circle and trying to help people half across the world with your psychic powers is not Christian by any definition.

Then why can't God be bothered to focus on a specific geographic area every once in a while?

Course he can. Good point. But it makes no sense that only certain people in a certain area can channel God like that.

Several times actually. Review your own posts.

By Rollers I meant Rollers.

Why not Serpent Handlers, which is what they have decided to call themselves? I'm not describing members of your faith as "Bible-Thumpers" or "Crucifixers" because it would be considered wrong for me to use an incorrect terminology, which goes the same for you as well.

Good point. SHers from now on.

Care to elaborate on these three extreme claims that you are making here? What are they based upon? I, along with other people here, have repeatedly requested you to do so.

1) They choose a religion not only other then Christanity, but traditionally opposed to everything Christanity stands for, without any kind of outside pressure
2) You have no idea what traditional "paganism" is. Paganism means cutting open a man's rib cage and spreading out the intestins in the shape of the Raven's wings for the God Odin. Your paganism is not that, and thus is a new religion. Paganism of that age was dark, depraved and evil.
3) Know anything about the Azteks, the Vikings, the Magyars or the Roman war practices?

Afterall, didn't it arise out of our "humanistic" culture?

Nope. It claims to come from pre-humanistic times, therefore it cannot be called humanistic.

What's so wrong about this form of religion that is so inherently bad (according to you)?

It claims to act for a faith that was inhumane, barbaric, and opposed to every good thing Christianity did.

Why would that be? After all, there is an inherent 33% chance that you just might be one of them. And even if it were to be the case that you're not amongst the bottom third of people in this ability, I have seen absolutely nothing from you that would suggest to me that you are within the top third either. If you are not a mindless conformer nor a person with extraordinary cognitive skills, they you are amonst the average at best. Hey, just statistics...

I am 16 fucking years old, give me a goddamn break.

And you of all people should know that all statistics-particularly statistics from pretentious, Vidal-sucking professors, have a purpose, and that one more obviously then some had a very, very, pretentious, hurtful one.

"He"? Try "she". And why are you flaming one of the sweetest and smartest old ladies that I've ever had the pleasure of meeting just because she regurgitated some statistics about metacogntive abilities of the general Western population? Not very rational at all...

If I where to pull a statistic out of my ass- say that 1/3 of Muslims are literate in a language- you would have sufficent grounds to call me an ass. Case here is the same, only worse.

No they don't. And especially not God. After all, I thought you told me it was highly offensive for you that I was using the name of God in an equally casual way.

Yeah, they do. All religions before the new wave belive in a highest being that came out of nothing, save maybe Buddhism, and the vast majority of Buddhists belive in some kind of God.

They were able to see two thousand years into the future? Once again, this is bullshit.

Neopgaganism and Paganism are, as I said, two almost completely diffirent things. The most obvious form of Neopganism in the 20th century is in the Nazi party.

Oh, name-dropping, how nice. Care to tell us anything about it that's relevant?

Book on Colonialism. I assume you hace acces to a website other then NMA and RPGCodex, so look it up yourself.

You mean the act of Babtising, or the Baptist denomination? And what exactly seems to be the problem? We're not psychic you know.

Baptism is essential, but also speaks for another state of mind of repentance, something also found in Islam, but diffirent. Not in any religion outside of those three.

Please, stop flattering yourself; It's Allah, remember? And its just as valid a way to "celebrate" Allah as the Crusade is to "celebrate" God.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. Allah is the Arabic word for God, I have every right to translate it. And the Crusades where a liberating movement, as the entire population of the Levant during the Crusades where Christian, Jihad does nothing but enslave.



Try to keep the respons smaller this took me along time.

 

[Dove]

I was pointing out that getting in a circle and trying to help people half across the world with your psychic powers is not Christian by any definition.

"Psychic powers" yeah, great research work.

1) They choose a religion not only other then Christanity, but traditionally opposed to everything Christanity stands for, without any kind of outside pressure
2) You have no idea what traditional "paganism" is. Paganism means cutting open a man's rib cage and spreading out the intestins in the shape of the Raven's wings for the God Odin. Your paganism is not that, and thus is a new religion. Paganism of that age was dark, depraved and evil.
3) Know anything about the Azteks, the Vikings, the Magyars or the Roman war practices?

1) You are incorrect. Why? Because you have absolutely no idea why I chose to be a pagan.
2) You=Narrowminded. I have absolutely no idea where you came up with this, but it's incorrect (again).
3) Of course I do. And it has absolutely no basis on what I believe.

Yeah, they do. All religions before the new wave belive in a highest being that came out of nothing, save maybe Buddhism, and the vast majority of Buddhists belive in some kind of God.

I do? (incorrect again)

The most obvious form of Neopganism in the 20th century is in the Nazi party.

No, although they did try to use "occult" resources to help them win the war. However there is a report somewhere stating that the largest gathering of witches in any one place ever recorded was on the coast of England. Using magic to turn back the invading Nazis, and causing their rockets to go off target.

I'm going to disregard all other comments, they don't pertain to me, and I don't want to get in to this discussion any more than I have to.

 

[John Uskglass]

Psychic powers" yeah, great research work

It's called sarcasm.

2) You=Narrowminded. I have absolutely no idea where you came up with this, but it's incorrect (again).

Okay. Show me an example of Paganism thousands of years ago that did not include such barbaric practices as human and animal sacrifice?
You are NOT Pagan in the traditional sense. YOUR RELIGION IS NEW.

3) Of course I do. And it has absolutely no basis on what I believe.

They where all barbaric. They where all Pagan. All traditional Pagan socities are barbaric.

I do? (incorrect again)

I said all traditional religions. You don't. Good for you. But traditional Paganism in almost all it's forms does.

No, although they did try to use "occult" resources to help them win the war

O, okay, so the Runes on the SS's jacket are Apocrapyl, and Hermann Goring actually didnot make people give birth over acient Viking areas to assist in their reincarnation. Good to know.

However there is a report somewhere stating that the largest gathering of witches in any one place ever recorded was on the coast of England. Using magic to turn back the invading Nazis, and causing their rockets to go off target.

There where alot more Nazis, and they had a total hard on for paganism. Face it, alot of modern paganism is directly linked to extreme nationalism, as in the case of the Turkish Grey Wolves, and to reject the religion of a people a thousand miles away.

 

[Llama-God]

I am Asatru, a 'Norse Pagan'. I am not nationalistic at all.


To say Pagans are Nazis is very very stupid, remember that Hitler wanted Christian artifacts, does that mean all Christians are Nazis? No, but it's debatable to judge their actions as such.

And you think the vikings were barbaric? hahahahahahaha, you are fucking stupid.

Give me examples of how they were "barbaric" compared to Christians.

 

[Sander]

Even though it came thousands of years before Christanity even arose?

Before Christianity the concept of paganism did not exist.

On paganism:
Paganism is NOT the same as cutting open people and sacrificing people to gods. Paganism is, simply, whatever Christians consider paganism to be. Which is almost every non-Christian religion that is not part of the great religions. Paganism is not a religion, it was a way to simply denote all of the religions practiced by so-called "uncivilized" tribes.

To say Pagans are Nazis is very very stupid, remember that Hitler wanted Christian artifacts, does that mean all Christians are Nazis? No, but it's debatable to judge their actions as such.

He never said that. he said that Nazis were Pagans, this does not make all Pagans Nazis.
It's like saying all animals are cows, because a cow is an animal.
The Nazis liked the occult, and liked myths. They did not really practice a religion, but they were "pagans". This does not make all pagans nazis, though. And this certainly doesn't automatically link all pagans to extreme rightness, CCR.

Okay. Show me an example of Paganism thousands of years ago that did not include such barbaric practices as human and animal sacrifice?
You are NOT Pagan in the traditional sense. YOUR RELIGION IS NEW.

Well, how about, approximately half of the religions?
A lot of tribal religions did not, in fact, involve sacrficing people or animals. They more frequently involved certain illicit substances, and rites to manhood, though.

They where all barbaric. They where all Pagan. All traditional Pagan socities are barbaric.

...

Ignorance.
The Norsemen were, in fact, highly civilised and had a very well-developed society, CCR. They were not barbaric.
Plus, barbaric basically means not-Greek. Ehehehe.

Lastly: I think the main mistake you are making, CCR, is that you keep talking about paganism as if it has ever been a religion. This makes for very uncomfortable and basically false generalisations.
Plus, you ignored my post on atheism and morals. Ah well.

 

[John Uskglass]

Give me examples of how they were "barbaric" compared to Christians.

You have no idea what you are talking about. None. They practiced human sacrifice, they burned the slave wives with the master, they slaughtered entire monastaries, they are the primary reason the renissanse did not happen in the 11th Century.

Your pathetic Astaru, do they practice human sacrifice like the Norse to the god Odin? You have less in common with the Vanargians then the Scientologists.

The Nazis liked the occult, and liked myths. They did not really practice a religion, but they were "pagans". This does not make all pagans nazis, though. And this certainly doesn't automatically link all pagans to extreme rightness, CCR.

It links alot of it.


Hitler thought of the Grasal as a German artifact, moron. Not everything from Indiana Jones is history worthy.

 

[welsh]

I am Asatru, a 'Norse Pagan'. IAnd you think the vikings were barbaric? hahahahahahaha, you are fucking stupid.

Give me examples of how they were "barbaric" compared to Christians.

ahh the vikings...

Hmmm......

Check out these guys-

Would you invite them to a nice fancy dinner at a posh restaurant?
No

Would you want to party with this lot?
Yeah!

maybe not-
Perhaps the Vikings were best left on ice-

and so we have learned from them....

But really know so little.

We do recall they had great boats.

But in the end found the new world because they got lost

And while they might have gone Bezerker when they got pissed,
really, they were kind of cool and we do miss them.

and don't forget Odin's wife-

Yes, freinds, viking chicks are hot (and what else is there to do on those cold nordic nights).

A civilized religion? Perhaps, perhaps not? But more fun? You decide.

 

[Brother None]

But in the end found the new world because they got lost

...

welsh

Do you have any idea how fucking cool that game was?

I mean it, one of the best platform games ever made

 

[Ugly John]

it also used to be Interplay's

 

[welsh]

Never played it. Is it still available?

(looks like a successful derail in progress....)

 

[Mr. Nudge]

Is it still available?

AVAILABLE! Very good, very good! Ay? Ay? Ay?

*Wink Wink*
*Nudge Nudge*

 

[welsh]

And here I was thinking Nudge would say something about the vikings being men, manly men, wearing manly clothes and doing manly things in manly way.... with other men.... out in the ocean on a manly boat....... (you can guess how this is going).

 

[Sander]

Oh, yeah, that game was quite good. Hmm...

PS: Ozrat, go read: www.whywiccanssuck.com
Seriously. You're sounding like exactly what is described there, except for the part where you're not an actual (or claim to be an actual) wiccan.