*Real* Christians

[Mr. Nudge]

PS: Ozrat, go read: www.whywiccanssuck.com

Whywiccanssuck, ay? Perhaps they're AVAILABLE, Ay? These wiccans, do they GO? Ay? Ay?

*Wink Wink*
*Nudge Nudge*

 

[Dove]

Aye Nudge, many wiccans suck. And many are good at it.

 

[John Uskglass]

Aye Nudge, many wiccans suck. And many are good at it.

Yeah, I am sure chicks just love obese 20something Goths with deadend jobs and a self pitying streak long enough to encircle the earth. Probably just as much as they love 16 year old, sociophobic, dyslexic, Byzantophiles.

 

[Dove]

Bwahaha! Obese... Self Pitying...

Yeah, that doesn't describe me very well. Although dead end job does, but it's just temporary. I had to do something to pay the bills.

Btw: I know at least one chick that digs me, so

 

[Sander]

Yeah, I am sure chicks just love obese 20something Goths with deadend jobs and a self pitying streak long enough to encircle the earth. Probably just as much as they love 16 year old, sociophobic, dyslexic, Byzantophiles.

...

Why? Just.....why?

 

[Brother None]

Never played it. Is it still available?

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

http://www.blizzard.com/blizzclassic/vikingsdemo.shtml

Even has a demo

I'm serious, I had this game on our first PC after the Atari 520ST. It's a brilliant game.

 

[WaterGirl]

Aye Nudge, many wiccans suck. And many are good at it.

Yeah, I am sure chicks just love obese 20something Goths with deadend jobs and a self pitying streak long enough to encircle the earth. Probably just as much as they love 16 year old, sociophobic, dyslexic, Byzantophiles.

You're just jealous because nobody will screw your God-loving ass.

 

[Katja]

Yeah, I am sure chicks just love obese 20something Goths with deadend jobs and a self pitying streak long enough to encircle the earth.

I don't think I've ever seen an obese goth. The goths I know are usually underweight. Maybe that's just Vancouver though.

Only a very small minority of the goths I've met are self pitying. I know significantly more non-goths that whine about their lives.

I'm not defending them as I'm pointing out inconsistancies (that possibly only apply to Vancouver - no idea about other parts of the world). So don't gang up on me about these points, I'm only generalizing them to this region.

 

[Brother None]

I don't think I've ever seen an obese goth. The goths I know are usually underweight. Maybe that's just Vancouver though.

Probably is. All goths seem to have a weight defect, tho'. I know fat goths, I know skinny goths, I know no normal-weight goths.

Only a very small minority of the goths I've met are self pitying. I know significantly more non-goths that whine about their lives.

Whining and self-pity seems somewhat tied to gothicness, you can't deny that

But it should be turned around. Self-pity is not a result of being a goth. People that are self-masturbating self-pitying fucks do tend to turn goth, because of the whole "ooh, look at me, I'm different"-thing.

You're just jealous because nobody will screw your God-loving ass.

pwned!

And she's right, CC, you aren't really in any position to criticise other people's sex lives. Ehehehe

Sander, please change your av.

 

[Malky]

I know a lot of normal sized goths.

You're just jealous because nobody will screw your God-loving ass.

ZING!

 

[victor]

You're just jealous because nobody will screw your God-loving ass.

ZING-DINGDUN-DUN-ZING-BLING-BLING!!!

Maybe that was just too much...

There is no such thing as an overweight goth, CCR, you need to find a distinction between real life and your sexual fantasies. j/k

 

[John Uskglass]

Aye Nudge, many wiccans suck. And many are good at it.

Yeah, I am sure chicks just love obese 20something Goths with deadend jobs and a self pitying streak long enough to encircle the earth. Probably just as much as they love 16 year old, sociophobic, dyslexic, Byzantophiles.

You're just jealous because nobody will screw your God-loving ass.

:moon:

You don't make fun of someone when they are self-depricating.

 

[Sander]

Probably is. All goths seem to have a weight defect, tho'. I know fat goths, I know skinny goths, I know no normal-weight goths.

Wait, you KNOW goths? I thought it was pretty much non-existant in NL (Since I've only seen one goth around, like, ever, and that says a lot, since my school's about twenty metres away from an art school. Which means loads of odd types.)
Plus, that guy is not overweight (I think).

Sander, please change your av.

...

Why?

 

[Wooz]

Sander, please change your av.

...

Why?

Because you look uglier on a profile view, and a Sander post without your ugly face making a goofy grin, viewed en face isn't the same anymore.

 

[Brother None]

You don't make fun of someone when they are self-depricating.

Yes you do

You make more fun of them than they do themselves, then it's ok

Wait, you KNOW goths? I thought it was pretty much non-existant in NL (Since I've only seen one goth around, like, ever, and that says a lot, since my school's about twenty metres away from an art school. Which means loads of odd types.)

I know piles of them, they have their own "places to hang out" in Rotterdam. Don't confuse your backword little village with real cities, boy, Amsterdam and Rotterdam are teeming with goths. People I know personally asides, quite a number come through my store every day. From really weird type to the more modest types (less girly make-up and stupid hairdo's)

...

Because you look uglier on a profile view, and a Sander post without your ugly face making a goofy grin, viewed en face isn't the same anymore.

...

Exactly.

 

[Sander]

I know piles of them, they have their own "places to hang out" in Rotterdam. Don't confuse your backword little village with real cities, boy, Amsterdam and Rotterdam are teeming with goths. People I know personally asides, quite a number come through my store every day. From really weird type to the more modest types (less girly make-up and stupid hairdo's)

Meh. Never did know that. Ah well.

Still, I would suspect a lot more goths then, seeing as how I encounter people from that bloody art school constantly. Ah well.

...

Exactly.

I've changed it. Happy now?

 

[Wooz]

I've changed it. Happy now?

No. The requirements have not been fullfilled

 

[Elissar]

for some reason sanders av just creeps me out.

 

[Ozrat]

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.

Since when do you respond to everything anyways? That's an expected constant from you.

I just think that while I am depending on them for everything, I should respect thier beliefs and my expectations.

First you say that its against the Ten Commandments. Then you say that its because of your age while breaking a different Commandment (taking God's name in vain) while saying so, and now you're back to respecting your parents? Why not just take one stance and be done with it?

Good metaphore there.

Actually, it wasn't. I accidently implied that you alleged sociophobia is somehow relevant to your ability to debate religion when I should have said that its as relevant as my hearing loss is to looking at visual art. Meaning: there is no correlation whatsoever.

Sets of morals tend to spring up in civilized areas.

Wrong. Sets of written morals tend to spring up in them because, after, thats where literature tends to spring up as well. Name a single society that doesn't have a set of morals despite having no written language.

China certainly was not humane by any stretch of the imagination.

Ever? Under any situation? I think you're stretching a bit here...

hell, even a favorite example of Christanity=GENOCIDE, Native America, saw the humanizing of the Mesoamerican area.

The Spanish happened to invade during massive social and cultural changes in the Mesoamerican region that were happening at the time. Even if the Europeans hadn't come around, the violent Aztec invasions of their neighboors would not have lasted much longer anyways. If the Spanish hadn't met up with the Aztec and had contact with, say, the Classic Mayan that were around just a couple of centuries earlier, it would have been a different story about the natives. The Europeans, however, would have still been in the mindset that what gold was there was rightfully theirs and would have brutally fought even the slightest resistance that was between them and the riches of Mesoamerica.

Must I also remind you how these and other exploring Christians literally burned masses of the natives for no reason either? Interesting stuff.

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.

Say what? It's a good point, yet its "not fair"... Hmmm, not very logical...

And what is this coffee thing you threw in?

But it's diffirent. Theyre New Wavers.

Irrelevant. Doesn't matter if you're a Roman Christian, a Chinese Christian or a Native American Christian, does it? Some "versions" are "newer" than the others, yet they are behind the same faith.

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

Ehehehe, classic. I'll have to remember that one.

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.

I see, so all Christians should follow the Bible, yet the Bible is full of stories that really shouldn't be taken seriously... And if they shouldn't be taken seriously, we should make up our own interpretations... Couldn't EVERYBODY be a Christian then? Where do you draw the line?

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.

No, they have the same purpose as the Christian incense does; to add to the atmosphere of prayer or meditation. There are a lot of Pagans out there who don't use incense at all, you know.

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

I doubt they're doing it in, say, Satan's name or they wouldn't be Christian. Unless you're saying that there's a meaning to "in my name" that I'm not aware of and that you haven't bothered to write out for me.

Now really, I think we can all agree what a Devil generally is.

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.

As Dove said in another thread, implying that Pagans believe they have psychic powers is insulting to their faith. Besides, what do you think all those Christain masses and prayer groups were doing during the days following 9/11? Same thing.

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

Then Churches, the Vatican and the Pope do not make sense either.

By Rollers I meant Rollers.

?

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.

Funny, I don't see that under any definitions of Paganism... Besides, I recall God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son and sheep.

Oh, and "my" Paganism? Didn't we go through this already?

3) Know anything about the Azteks, the Vikings, the Magyars or the Roman war practices?

War is war. They're inconsequently going to be violent and inhumane no matter what religion or ideology is behind it.

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

So you hate Paganism because its a bunch of New Wavers, yet you also hate it because its supposedly too old to be humanistic... Pick one and stick to it.

Besides, Humanitarianism is not the same thing as being Humane, which is what I was going for.

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

Why? I'm only giving you what you asked for; a real debate based on rationalism and logic. Don't blame me if that comes back into your face in a way you didn't plan it.

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.

Ehehehe... Let's recap, shall we?

I bring up a single statistic about people in our North American society in general with the suggested implication that you just might be one of the third of the population that is unable to display an ability for critical thinking. Just one statistic from the year of statistics and theories that I have listened to this soft-spoken professor give out, and yet you have somehow come to the conclusion that she must therefor be a "Vial-sucking" one who meant for that to be hurtful to somebody like you. Not mention that this is a statistic that has been founded upon decades of Sociology research.

Not very logical or rational. If you were to display some well thought out logic about this, then I wouldn't think that you fall under this statistic.

And who is this "Vidal" that you speak so bitterly about?

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.

You mean you haven't before?

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.

Not God though. What you mean is god or gods.

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

Now really, Nazis now? Have you gotten that desperate?

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

I meant what specific discussion were you referring to? I don't have the time to read an entire book or to research what others online have to say about it, especially when I don't know what in particular you're referring to in the first place. Explain yourself and what you're trying to say is what I was asking.

NMA? Now isn't that calling the pot calling the kettle black?

RPGCodex? WTF?

CCR Profile
Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Total posts: 1161
[2.59% of total / 2.21 posts per day]
Last Posted: Wed Mar 24, 2004 4:36 am

Ozrat Profile
Joined: 27 Jan 2004
Total posts: 19
[0.04% of total / 0.31 posts per day]
Last Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:01 pm
Before that: Thu Feb 26, 2004 6:11 pm

I think that says enough.

Allah is the Arabic word for God, I have every right to translate it.

Funny coming from somebody who usually has a lot of issues as with how Islam is interpreted or translated.

And the Crusades where a liberating movement, as the entire population of the Levant during the Crusades where Christian, Jihad does nothing but enslave.

The Crusades are just as liberating as the Jihad, and the Jihad is just as enslaving as the Crusades were. My point stands the same.

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

Now this is cute. Really.

You throw a bunch of half-thought-through ideas and statements and me and I take the time to explain to you with logic as why they are flawed. And you want me to "keep it down"? I will if you don't have anything that I can disprove. Besides, you won't even be doing this thread if you had kept to your earlier words.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5230

Okay Watergirl. Explain to me why it is more likely that
the world is made of 5 Elements, and that there are spirits all around
us, or that you have the power with spells to do completely impossible
stuff, then that there is a being that created us all? IF you can
explain that to me rationally, Ill stop bitching.

...

Also, I'd love to hear why a nature god, something human in almost all
respects, and is if anything more proveable to be false then the god of
Christanity, is more logical.

Been there, did that. Did you "stop bitching"? Nope.

"Wiccan" is not a culture, nor a sub culture. There are no
established practices among Wiccans

Then why are you always claiming that they practice certain things?

Watergirl has, on diffirent occasions, implied that I was
schizophrenic for beleiving in a higer being that, you know, did not
live in the forest, or that the 5 elements are more rational then
anything in Christain belief or doctrine.

She did not imply that you were schizophrenic, as we pointed out to
you. YOU, however, freely used that exact same term in this thread to
describe your own fellow Christians just because they interpret a
single passage out of the Bible differently than you.

Either you really didn't understand how to read what she said to you in the right context, or you deliberately misquoted her to tarnish her reputation.

And then you brought your whole Paganism argument back here after
Watergirl kindly answered your request for her to rationalize her
beliefs.

Now in this thread...

I cannot perform miracles, nor can any living man, and I
belive that. However, wiccans and pagans think they can with magic.
That is why my faith is more rational.

I really hate the action of betraying God for a religion
that was rightfully wipedout a thousand years ago for being inhumane
and barbaric. I do not like the tendancies nor the doctrines of some
other faith, but I despise New Age spirituality.

All religions try to worship God. 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 or the belief
that the Jews made Christanity to weaken Germans, all of them belive in
a father God that made everything.

Though prove me wrong on the last part....paganism at
least used to mean a life without morals.

I've settled all of these claims for you.

What's more, your original stance in this thread was that Serpent Handlers were inferior to Orthodoxy and that I was supposedly trying to make all Christianity look bad in association. I managed to get you to completely reverse what you said in a matter of posts. It eventually got to the point that your entire debate ended up being only that its a separate branch of Christianity and that it all depends on how you interpret the Bible which shouldn't matter if you're Christian anyways.

In response, you brought Paganism into this all by yourself as a way to change the topic. And when I started proving you wrong on just about every point you could come up with, you resorted to associating it with the Nazis. How weak is that?

Here's the deal CCR; you can either stop making such outrageous statements about Paganism and other religions without anything to really base them upon, or you can continue to do so and proven wrong once again with more logic and reasoning.

 

[Ozrat]

It can't be both? I don't get that. Those are two fairly good reasons, thus I should be able to use both to justify my fear of going to the Church I want too.

Well, it could be both if you were being consistent about it. But I doubt it anyways since you have no problem breaking the other Commandments as I've proved before.

But they tend to be somewhat underdeveloped, ie pedophilia, cannabalism, necrophilia, all of which exsist in some cultures without a written language, yet in none with one.

Bullshit. All of those exist even in our Western society. Jeffery Dahlmer anyone? He did live in your city of Chicago, y'know...

Perhaps, but I would still not call it "humane" by most standards. Chinese peasents envied Russian surfs, and they practiced some of the least humane (like foot binding, castration, though my beloved Byzantines did the 2nd as well) practices I can think of until the beggining of the 20th century.

I see. So circumcision and the stimulation of drowning a baby (babtism) are perfectly humane... Different strokes for different folks.

That is a good point. But I think we can both agree that, at that time, the Spanish where more humane then the Aztecs, which is amazing as the Spanish where also really, really bad.

No, I can't agree, but that's irrelevant anyways. Both sides commited brutal practices against other groups of people.

That, sadly, falls more under Genocide then religious practice, unlike the Inquisition.

Still "humane" Christians though.

You try to prove me wrong by just ignoring half the argument.

And Turkish Coffe=7h3 W1n

What half? All I said was that its irrational for you to claim one religion to be mentally unstable when the exact same points can be used on any religion.

I wasn't asking what your opinions on coffee were. I was asking what you were trying to say.

Irrelevant. They still follow the same moral guidlines, they still go thru the same ceremonies. Wiccan tradition draws on some of the not very well understood pagan traditions, but if anything less then the Christian traditions take on Judiasm, which, by that argument, makes Christanity 5000 years old, or Islam 7,000 years old as it draws on some of the Vedic traditions of Zoroastrianism. Wiccanism (sp?) is a new faith if anything is a new faith.

Teh Funney.

Now you're trying to justify Christianity being more than twice as old as it really is? May I remind you that just because Wicca was around before its followers had a written language does not mean that modern Wiccans do not follow the same principals? After all, modern Christians are not practicing the religion the same way the original Christians were.

Besides, evidence of a Wiccan or Pagan belief go back tens of thousands of years when you look at artifacts such as the Godess figurines that can be found universally all over Europe and other areas.

I did'nt say seriously. Just that quite a bit of it is metaphore. And that means that instead of spending your entire life looking for an event where a Samaratin helped a Hebrew after an attack, you should try and learn from the story.

Okay then. So if we shouldn't interpret that piece as Jesus saying it, then how should we interpret it? After all, it did say that and that's why my original point was.

And again, this goes back to the argument that the Wiccan faith is a new one.

And again, you'd be fighting a lot of archeological and anthropological evidence that contradicts this.

Psychic powers, magic....I don't think there is that much of a diffirence. Anyway, sorry if that offended Dove, as I am trying to tone down the rhetoric, as I hope this is seen in the above post.

There is though. And thanks for trying to tone it down.

And Christains/Muslims/Jews where praying to kind of bring something to God's attention (though that is not the best way to put it), not using thier own powers.

Wiccans aren't using their own power either; they're requesting the spirits and God/Godess to.

If your house is consecrated ground, and you have a priest

Funny, considering that you said "But it makes no sense that only certain people in a certain area can channel God like that" before in your previous post.

A consecrated ground is a "certain area", and priests are "certain people". Either you're saying that only certain people in certain places can do it, or anybody can do it. Which one is it going to be now?

Christaintiy is the traditional nemesis of Paganism. I don't think that is particularly offensive.

Actually, its the other way around. I don't recall Pagans ever collectively declaring war against the Christian religion. Christianity, however, has officially condemned them for a very long time.

That was a test of faith, not an attempt to feed God as it was in some of the Pagan religions, secondly he did not need to sacrifice his son.

Fair enough about his son, but a sacrifice is still a sacrifice.

But it change's the way it is fought. When Christanity comes on to the seen, War is no longer defeat them, rape the women, kill the boys and men, then take the rest into slavery as it was in almost all Pagan socities. It became more defeat them but be nice thing, like Chivalry and such. Most of the time.

They were/are both still fought in the name of a religion, which was my point. War is war; what happens during a holy war or how it happens is irrelevant to this point. And once again you're making a false claim against Pagan societies.

I don't like paganism for a comination of the two, get it?

Got it. Just wanted a clarification of your views.

I am 16. I am supposed to be angry, ignorant, biased....all that stuff.

Bullshit. Age has nothing to do with your behavior. It can affect your understanding and your mental capacity, especially when it comes to adult topics, but it has no inherant influence on behavior or logic. After all, I can think of at least one important mathematician who developed an important proof when he was only twelve years old. And if you feel like fighting this point, you'd once again be foolishly arguing what decades of research has taught us.

And I just want people to respect that I am still learning, and that I have enough time to develop into someone who does not spend most of the day on these boars arguing with pagans, like you did with that 1/3 statistic.

Are you labelling me a Pagan again?

And I don't see how, or even why, you are still arguing this "1/3" statistic.

You do not understand how that could be interperated as extremely offensive to anybody, do you?

Nope, I don't. I can see how some people might come to certain conclusions upon hearing such a statistic and might even fall to the power of suggestion that it applies to them though.

That is among the most pretentious statstics I have ever seen, and if you don't understand that, maybe you should check into being one a member of the "retarted 1/3rd".

Why? Where is your logic behind this?

And not having metacognitive skills does not mean the same thing as being "retarted" (nice typo, btw). It simply means that there's a lack of ability to look at things critically and to formulate one's own conclusions without being lead to one by somebody else. Big difference.

Because this statistic is among the most offensive imagineable, I therefore had every right to assume that your proffesor had quite a bit in common with Gore Vidal, who is among my least favorite people in the world. How was I supposed to know she was also the scource of your other statistics?

So it is simply because my professor repeated one statistic that is the result of several deacades of research by professionals all across North America that you have come to the conclusion that she is very similar to somebody else that you do not like. Especially somebody who isn't involved in the field of Sociology anyways.

Not rational or logical at all.

Again, you are confusing critiquing Islam with that Edward Said like OREINTALISM=IMPERIALISM, AMERICANS=OPRESSORS OF POOR ARABS!" "argument" that is falt out wrong.

Actually, I covered the Orientalism topic a couple of times last year and I found that to only be a small part of the main argument, which is that people tend to view other cultures through either romantisized or deomonized tinted glasses.

But I don't see why you brought this up anyways. I was talking about how you shouldn't be claiming that I use statistics out of context when you have done so yourself before.

I am almost always the one who belives the translators

Bad idea.

I find it silly that you still think you know more abous Islam then myself.

Never claimed such a thing now nor before. I just said that you should stop making such extreme claims against religions with such weak support. But it sounds like you're going to be doing this anyways.

I tried to keep it very subded in this one, hope it shows.

Yes, it does. It took me some effort, but I think I finally got that into your head.

/edit There was a post before mine that I was quoting, I don't know where it went?

Must've deleted it.

Good thing I still have it though!

Edit: Oh great, now Dove's post is gone too.

Since when do you respond to everything anyways? That's an expected constant from you.

I typically try fairly hard. I was not going to here, as this is getting really, really long.

First you say that its against the Ten Commandments. Then you say that its because of your age while breaking a different Commandment (taking God's name in vain) while saying so, and now you're back to respecting your parents? Why not just take one stance and be done with it?

It can't be both? I don't get that. Those are two fairly good reasons, thus I should be able to use both to justify my fear of going to the Church I want too.

Wrong. Sets of written morals tend to spring up in them because, after, thats where literature tends to spring up as well. Name a single society that doesn't have a set of morals despite having no written language.

A good point.
But they tend to be somewhat underdeveloped, ie pedophilia, cannabalism, necrophilia, all of which exsist in some cultures without a written language, yet in none with one.

Ever? Under any situation? I think you're stretching a bit here...

Perhaps, but I would still not call it "humane" by most standards. Chinese peasents envied Russian surfs, and they practiced some of the least humane (like foot binding, castration, though my beloved Byzantines did the 2nd as well) practices I can think of until the beggining of the 20th century.

The Spanish happened to invade during massive social and cultural changes in the Mesoamerican region that were happening at the time. Even if the Europeans hadn't come around, the violent Aztec invasions of their neighboors would not have lasted much longer anyways. If the Spanish hadn't met up with the Aztec and had contact with, say, the Classic Mayan that were around just a couple of centuries earlier, it would have been a different story about the natives. The Europeans, however, would have still been in the mindset that what gold was there was rightfully theirs and would have brutally fought even the slightest resistance that was between them and the riches of Mesoamerica.

That is a good point. But I think we can both agree that, at that time, the Spanish where more humane then the Aztecs, which is amazing as the Spanish where also really, really bad.

Must I also remind you how these and other exploring Christians literally burned masses of the natives for no reason either? Interesting stuff.

They did this to the natives of the Carribean islands, yes. That, sadly, falls more under Genocide then religious practice, unlike the Inquisition.

Say what? It's a good point, yet its "not fair"... Hmmm, not very logical...

And what is this coffee thing you threw in?

You try to prove me wrong by just ignoring half the argument.

And Turkish Coffe=7h3 W1n

Irrelevant. Doesn't matter if you're a Roman Christian, a Chinese Christian or a Native American Christian, does it? Some "versions" are "newer" than the others, yet they are behind the same faith.

Irrelevant. They still follow the same moral guidlines, they still go thru the same ceremonies. Wiccan tradition draws on some of the not very well understood pagan traditions, but if anything less then the Christian traditions take on Judiasm, which, by that argument, makes Christanity 5000 years old, or Islam 7,000 years old as it draws on some of the Vedic traditions of Zoroastrianism. Wiccanism (sp?) is a new faith if anything is a new faith.

Ehehehe, classic. I'll have to remember that one.

I thought it was fairly good too.

I see, so all Christians should follow the Bible, yet the Bible is full of stories that really shouldn't be taken seriously... And if they shouldn't be taken seriously, we should make up our own interpretations... Couldn't EVERYBODY be a Christian then? Where do you draw the line?

I did'nt say seriously. Just that quite a bit of it is metaphore. And that means that instead of spending your entire life looking for an event where a Samaratin helped a Hebrew after an attack, you should try and learn from the story.

Make sense?

No, they have the same purpose as the Christian incense does; to add to the atmosphere of prayer or meditation. There are a lot of Pagans out there who don't use incense at all, you know.

Not the traditional pagans. The Norse, I don't think ripped open ribcages and displayed the intestins in the shape of a Raven's wings for metaphore.
And again, this goes back to the argument that the Wiccan faith is a new one.

I doubt they're doing it in, say, Satan's name or they wouldn't be Christian. Unless you're saying that there's a meaning to "in my name" that I'm not aware of and that you haven't bothered to write out for me.

Now really, I think we can all agree what a Devil generally is.

I don't get your point. Christians belive that praying can help them become closer to God, while most Wiccans belive that they can influence the world with magic.

And considering that faith healing is still popular after being universally condemend by most Churches, I'd say that where Devils are and what damage they do is the important argument, and many Christains disagree on that.

As Dove said in another thread, implying that Pagans believe they have psychic powers is insulting to their faith. Besides, what do you think all those Christain masses and prayer groups were doing during the days following 9/11? Same thing.

Psychic powers, magic....I don't think there is that much of a diffirence. Anyway, sorry if that offended Dove, as I am trying to tone down the rhetoric, as I hope this is seen in the above post.

And Christains/Muslims/Jews where praying to kind of bring something to God's attention (though that is not the best way to put it), not using thier own powers.

Then Churches, the Vatican and the Pope do not make sense either.

If your house is consecrated ground, and you have a priest, who knows how to do it, and a supply of bread, wine and holy water, then maybe. But it's alot more convinent to just go to Church.


By Rollers I meant Holly Rollers, I used another name for the Snakehandlers.

Christaintiy is the traditional nemesis of Paganism. I don't think that is particularly offensive.

Funny, I don't see that under any definitions of Paganism... Besides, I recall God telling Abraham to sacrifice his son and sheep.

That was a test of faith, not an attempt to feed God as it was in some of the Pagan religions, secondly he did not need to sacrifice his son.

War is war. They're inconsequently going to be violent and inhumane no matter what religion or ideology is behind it.

But it change's the way it is fought. When Christanity comes on to the seen, War is no longer defeat them, rape the women, kill the boys and men, then take the rest into slavery as it was in almost all Pagan socities. It became more defeat them but be nice thing, like Chivalry and such. Most of the time.

So you hate Paganism because its a bunch of New Wavers, yet you also hate it because its supposedly too old to be humanistic... Pick one and stick to it.

Besides, Humanitarianism is not the same thing as being Humane, which is what I was going for.

This is not some weird doublethinking situation, as one does not exclude the other. I don't like paganism for a comination of the two, get it?

Why? I'm only giving you what you asked for; a real debate based on rationalism and logic. Don't blame me if that comes back into your face in a way you didn't plan it.

I am 16. I am supposed to be angry, ignorant, biased....all that stuff. And I just want people to respect that I am still learning, and that I have enough time to develop into someone who does not spend most of the day on these boars arguing with pagans, like you did with that 1/3 statistic.

I bring up a single statistic about people in our North American society in general with the suggested implication that you just might be one of the third of the population that is unable to display an ability for critical thinking. Just one statistic from the year of statistics and theories that I have listened to this soft-spoken professor give out
,

You do not understand how that could be interperated as extremely offensive to anybody, do you? That is among the most pretentious statstics I have ever seen, and if you don't understand that, maybe you should check into being one a member of the "retarted 1/3rd".
Because this statistic is among the most offensive imagineable, I therefore had every right to assume that your proffesor had quite a bit in common with Gore Vidal, who is among my least favorite people in the world. How was I supposed to know she was also the scource of your other statistics?

You mean you haven't before?

Again, you are confusing critiquing Islam with that Edward Said like OREINTALISM=IMPERIALISM, AMERICANS=OPRESSORS OF POOR ARABS!" "argument" that is falt out wrong.

Not God though. What you mean is god or gods.

The God of Isreal? Nope. A supreme god? Yep. Almost all of them do, from Lagos too Mount Altay.

Now really, Nazis now? Have you gotten that desperate?

Yep, I did there for a second. But I still have no problem saying that the Nazi party had a definate fetish for all things relating to Germanc paganism.

I meant what specific discussion were you referring to? I don't have the time to read an entire book or to research what others online have to say about it, especially when I don't know what in particular you're referring to in the first place. Explain yourself and what you're trying to say is what I was asking.

It was an argument between a fairly intellegent, wise missionary and an important leader of the Village. In it, the Ibo leader explains that all the other gods where ultimatly just a way to help to understand the supreme God.

Now, it might not be that clear in all other religions, but most traditional Pagan beliefs hold that there is some kind of Father-God, more powerful then any of the others.

Funny coming from somebody who usually has a lot of issues as with how Islam is interpreted or translated.

Nope. I am almost always the one who belives the translators, who spend thier entire lives striving to transalte the Koran. Sander and yourself think that all the translators are just trying to prove that Islam=t3h suxxorz.

The Crusades are just as liberating as the Jihad, and the Jihad is just as enslaving as the Crusades were. My point stands the same.

Nope, it does'nt. The Crusaders took the Levant and tolerated Islam, while the Fatmids, Ayyubids and the Mamalukes did everything they could to wipe out Christanity, which at this time was a huge majority in the Levant and Egypt.

Here's the deal CCR; you can either stop making such outrageous statements about Paganism and other religions without anything to really base them upon, or you can continue to do so and proven wrong once again with more logic and reasoning.

After this I am taking a break for a few reasons, but I find it silly that you still think you know more abous Islam then myself.

I tried to keep it very subded in this one, hope it shows. Think it's better for everybody if we try to wind this down instead of just dropping it.