A Wiccan looks at Christianity.

[technomage]

I made the following comment in my blog, and got asked to clarify it:

As some of you know, I am persuaded that Christianity is wrong in many respects, including the nature of the Creator, and humanity's relationship with the Creator. Yet I also see Christianity as a useful path for those who choose to follow it: I feel that they are in for some tremendous suprises when they die, but also feel that, for the most part, Christianity teaches people how to live a good life here on earth.

I long ago decided that I do not want to shake people's faith in Christianity if that's where they're happy. But I have to wonder: am I doing people any favors by not at least showing them where the problems are?

OK, as a precondition for this clarification, let me say this: the following post is purely hypothetical. I don't intend for any conclusions to be made, and I don't intend for this post to be interpreted as an argument against Christianity. I am simply presenting my own views.

There's been a lot of ink spilled, and a lot of electronic gates toggled, in the arguments between Christianity and other faiths. Lists of supposed Bible contradictions, countered by apologetics; logical arguments back and forth, replied to by other logical arguments; claims and counter-claims of all sorts. For a large part, I consider many of these things to be weak evidence:

* debates such as the evolution/creationism debates or various historicity issues argue about issues of interpretation, not about the core validity of Christian scriptures.
* Debates concerning the supposed contradictions are debates about the doctrine of infallability, not about the Bible itself.
* Debates on certain events--specifically, the life and ministry of Jesus--are fruitless, in that they must be accepted or rejected using the Bible as the sole (or, at least, primary) source of information.

None of the above arguments can ever be resolved without resorting to faith, or rejecting faith. Yet the Bible makes certain truth claims that can be verified. One of the primary "truth claims" from the Bible is that Christians have certain traits that non-Christians do not have. If a non-Christian posesses these traits, then all truth claims in the Bible fall under question.

If I were to continue along this line of argument, I would look at Galatians 5, and at the entirety of 1 John. I would examine whether or not the claims that are exclusively presented of those who are "born of the spirit" or are "children of God" are present in non-Christians.

However, what I must do at this point is pour myself another cup of coffee and let my hands rest. :coffee:

Justin

[Solly]

Long cup of coffee...

[technomage]

Long cup of coffee...
I wasn't going to explore the issue: I was offering the OP as a point of consideration, and as a clarification of something I wrote in my blog. :wink:

Justin

[Spinyn00bman]

If a non-Christian posesses these traits, then all truth claims in the Bible fall under question.

Justin

Hi Justin.

I was wondering if you could expound on why you feel that is?

I have read many of your posts on these boards and you seem to be a genuine and intelligent guy. If you get a chance, please explain why you feel what you do.

Tanks:sigh:

[technomage]

Hi Justin.

I was wondering if you could expound on why you feel that is?

I have read many of your posts on these boards and you seem to be a genuine and intelligent guy. If you get a chance, please explain why you feel what you do.

Tanks:sigh:

Hi, Spiny,

A lot of the truth-claims of the Bible are not verifiable on an objective basis. One of the major verifiable truth-claims of the Bible is that only Christians posess certain traits. If it could be established that a non-Christian genuinely posessed these traits, that would call the authority of the Bible into doubt.

Spiny, the problem is this: I've often considered the above paragraph of assertions myself, but I'm not sure if it is morally the "right" thing to do to attempt to persuade others that it is true. Am I doing people a greater service by keeping silent, or by expounding on the above paragraph?

Justin

[Amazing Rando]

Hi, Spiny,

A lot of the truth-claims of the Bible are not verifiable on an objective basis.

Hey Justin, good to see you back. :smile: I'd dispute the notion that an "objective" basis is even possible when studying things like the Bible.

One of the major verifiable truth-claims of the Bible is that only Christians posess certain traits. If it could be established that a non-Christian genuinely posessed these traits, that would call the authority of the Bible into doubt.

You mentioned looking at 1 John in its' entirety. May I ask- what would you do with the truth claim presented in 1 John 2:22 that
"Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son. "

Or weren't you thinking of that one in particular? :huh:

Spiny, the problem is this: I've often considered the above paragraph of assertions myself, but I'm not sure if it is morally the "right" thing to do to attempt to persuade others that it is true. Am I doing people a greater service by keeping silent, or by expounding on the above paragraph?

Justin

I'd say that if you're convinced that Christianity is mistaken regarding its attributes of the Creator, and if you felt that you were in posession of more correct ideas about the Creator than the Bible, I would say that, especially given a desire to know the Creator and make him known, you'd be doing a great disservice by keeping the truth to yourself.

As you know, evangelism is a perogative of the highest importance in the Christian worldview because of our belief that the Creator wants to be known by everyone in his most explicit revelation he's given to us. Does your view of the Creator not include a desire on his part to have a relationship with everyone?

[Spinyn00bman]

Hi, Spiny,

A lot of the truth-claims of the Bible are not verifiable on an objective basis. One of the major verifiable truth-claims of the Bible is that only Christians posess certain traits. If it could be established that a non-Christian genuinely posessed these traits, that would call the authority of the Bible into doubt.

Spiny, the problem is this: I've often considered the above paragraph of assertions myself, but I'm not sure if it is morally the "right" thing to do to attempt to persuade others that it is true. Am I doing people a greater service by keeping silent, or by expounding on the above paragraph?

Justin

I can't speak for others Justin, but if I was worried that my faith was weak, a place like TWEB is the LAST place I would be. I would surround myself with likeminded friends and not bat an eyelash at the outside world.

Sadly, this is what many Christians do. Not me.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts if you would like to share.

[technomage]

Hey Justin, good to see you back. :smile:

It's good to be back, my friend.

I'd dispute the notion that an "objective" basis is even possible when studying things like the Bible.

Well, some of the Bible's claims are suitable for testing on an objective basis: for instance, there is the claim that Pontius Pilate was the procurator for Judea during the purported trial and execution of Jesus of Nazareth. We have no extra-Biblical text or archaeological resources to verify the trial and execution of jesus, but we can certainly verify objectively that Pilate was procurator of Judea during that time.

You mentioned looking at 1 John in its' entirety. May I ask- what would you do with the truth claim presented in 1 John 2:22 that
"Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist–he denies the Father and the Son. "

Yes, I have. That is the crux of the problem.

How can that passage be compared with 1 John 4:7-8 that says "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." What happens if you have someone who demonstrates love in their heart, but who is not Christian--or perhaps even goes farther than I do, and specifically states that Jesus is not the Christ?

Taken literally, 1 John states definitively that non-Christians are not capable of agape. Yet I stand before you, as a non-Christian who is capable of agape. According to 1 John, I do not exist!

I'd say that if you're convinced that Christianity is mistaken regarding its attributes of the Creator, and if you felt that you were in posession of more correct ideas about the Creator than the Bible, I would say that, especially given a desire to know the Creator and make him known, you'd be doing a great disservice by keeping the truth to yourself.

As you know, evangelism is a perogative of the highest importance in the Christian worldview because of our belief that the Creator wants to be known by everyone in his most explicit revelation he's given to us. Does your view of the Creator not include a desire on his part to have a relationship with everyone?

Well, that's the crux of that problem: Wicca is no more a "correct" understanding of the Creator than Christianity is. Both are flawed, human paths to understanding the Mystery ... neither is objective truth, and neither can even pretend to be the "complete" truth.

It is not Christianity that I disagree with, so much as the Christian claims to exclusivity. Yet that message of "By no other name" is so intrinsic to Christianity that to argue against the doctrine, I argue against the entire path.

Justin

[technomage]

I can't speak for others Justin, but if I was worried that my faith was weak, a place like TWEB is the LAST place I would be.

Hi, Spiny,

It's not so much a fear of tearing down someone who is weak in their faith--though that is an important facet to my reticence. The fundamental question is this: even if I am right, do I have the moral authority to make the attempt?

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Justin, Greetings in Morrigan's name
First of all I would have to say that Noone in our faith is under any imperative to do anything but stay what ever ethnic color you are, and Die. that's it...that being said, From My understanding of Wicca (And some of it is flawed) I can safely say that My understanding of what is being posted is simply a dissemination of information.
easy version your just airing out your beliefs and you are not asking for someone to convert in any way shape or form. that being said, I can pretty much tell you that people who are firm in their beliefs are going to remain in their beliefs, those who are weak in their faith may or may not be influenced but they arent your concern unless they come to ask you to teach them about wicca.
Does this help?

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

What happens if you have someone who demonstrates love in their heart, but who is not Christian--or perhaps even goes farther than I do, and specifically states that Jesus is not the Christ?

Christians are actually called to be agnostic about their motives, though:

1 Corinthians 4:3-4 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself. My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent...

So this would imply that Christians should also consider it true that unbelievers, as well, cannot tell what their own motives may be.

Taken literally, 1 John states definitively that non-Christians are not capable of agape. Yet I stand before you, as a non-Christian who is capable of agape. According to 1 John, I do not exist

Well, no, the conclusion would not be that such a person does not love, and I would also make that statement about myself, as far as what I am able to do on my own, "for love comes from God." That's really the essence of the question, isn't it, does love come from God, or can we love on our own?

Blessings,
Lee

[One Bad Pig]

How can [1 John 2:22] be compared with 1 John 4:7-8 that says "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." What happens if you have someone who demonstrates love in their heart, but who is not Christian--or perhaps even goes farther than I do, and specifically states that Jesus is not the Christ?

Taken literally, 1 John states definitively that non-Christians are not capable of agape. Yet I stand before you, as a non-Christian who is capable of agape. According to 1 John, I do not exist!
Justin,

After reading the chapter, it looks like you're taking this out of context. AFAICT, the chapter deals with identifying people/spirits who claim to speak for/come from God, not a distinction between Christians and non-Christians in general.

It is not Christianity that I disagree with, so much as the Christian claims to exclusivity. Yet that message of "By no other name" is so intrinsic to Christianity that to argue against the doctrine, I argue against the entire path.

Justin
If Jesus is not the only way, it makes the ordeal of the cross pointless.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

The ordeal of the cross Is meaningless to us outside of the faith. Sort of like Our broomsticks and wands are meaningless to you, They are Symbols of Our religion and without Our religious symbology to Interpret them they are just Sticks with funky stuff on them.
That being said, Something that Fundementalists need to understand is we dont see the same symbols the same way. For us the cross was used to justify the slaughter of our fellow pagans and to commit acts heinous in nature. For Us the cross is just two pieces of wood nailed together with No more significance than say, two pieces of wood nailed together. Just like Our symbols are equally meaninglerss to you.

If you require My belief for your god's sacrifice to mean soemthing to you then you have bigger problems than just Us Not believing in your religion and it's symbols.

[Undomiel]

Hi Justin :)

This is my understanding of Agape. It's not ours. We aren't generating it. It comes through us from the Holy Spirit, and pours out to others. It's perfect love, outside human understanding, because try as we might, even our best attempts at selflessness such as perfect love, are still deeply entwined in human motivations. We are capable of good and loving acts within certain parameters, but Agape is something we cannot generate on our own. We become channelers in a sense, of the perfect love of God. In order to have the Holy Spirit use us in this fashion, we have to accept Him in the first place. In order to accept Him, we have to Believe in Jesus and Receive the Holy Spirit.

I have no doubt that you are capable of doing great acts of loving kindness to others, but this is not the same as Agape. Agape is not ours to give, we merely act as vessels for it, and most times probably don't even realize when we are being used for that purpose (which makes sense if you think about it).

[technomage]

After reading the chapter, it looks like you're taking this out of context. AFAICT, the chapter deals with identifying people/spirits who claim to speak for/come from God, not a distinction between Christians and non-Christians in general.

OBP, if I were to interpret the entire chapter according to vv 1-6, I would agree. However, the chapters are not all of a piece: each time the author of 1 John starts a passage with "Dear Friends" or "Dear Children," he's changing sections and usually changing themes. The section starting with v 7 and continuing through the end of the chapter deals with love between Christians.

If Jesus is not the only way, it makes the ordeal of the cross pointless.

Did it? Paul was of that opinion, but is it possible that he was wrong?

Justin

[One Bad Pig]

The ordeal of the cross Is meaningless to us outside of the faith. Sort of like Our broomsticks and wands are meaningless to you, They are Symbols of Our religion and without Our religious symbology to Interpret them they are just Sticks with funky stuff on them.
Your broomsticks and wands are equivalent to someone who had done no wrong voluntarily undergoing ultimate suffering?

That being said, Something that Fundementalists need to understand is we dont see the same symbols the same way. For us the cross was used to justify the slaughter of our fellow pagans and to commit acts heinous in nature. For Us the cross is just two pieces of wood nailed together with No more significance than say, two pieces of wood nailed together. Just like Our symbols are equally meaninglerss to you.
So, do you see the cross as meaningless or as a symbol of religious hatred? Pick one.

If you require My belief for your god's sacrifice to mean soemthing to you then you have bigger problems than just Us Not believing in your religion and it's symbols.
Your belief is not required, no. However, the claim of "many pathways to God" makes our way meaningless, which is why we don't accept that claim.

[technomage]

The ordeal of the cross Is meaningless to us outside of the faith.

Cu, I have to disagree: the ordeal of the Cross is no different from the sacrifice of the Sacred King. Indeed...


He can die on a cross, He can die in the fall,
He can sleep the whole winter, and not die at all,
But whatever He does, as a general rule,
He'll come back in the springtime, the Greatest of Fools.

For us the cross was used to justify the slaughter of our fellow pagans and to commit acts heinous in nature.

It was also used to justify the end of slavery, the end of human sacrifices, and many of the social justice and social relief programs that work today to releave the misery of the world. :shrug: One cannot judge a religion solely by its failures, my friend, but by looking at failures and successes together.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Your broomsticks and wands are equivalent to someone who had done no wrong voluntarily undergoing ultimate suffering?In many ways Yes, The story of your god's suffering is very similar to the stories of Mithras, Heracles and many other gods who decended into the underworld for one reason or another, it is also highly similar to the story of the goddess Innanna who went to the underworld and was stripped of her royal clothing and then Killed to be raised again by the other gods. It is also similar to the Myth of Osiris who was killed by His brother set. All in all it feed into the whole Life-Death-Rebirth-life cycle that most of the major religions and ancient mythologies have in common.

So, do you see the cross as meaningless or as a symbol of religious hatred? Pick one. To me personally, having seen the horrific things chrsitianity and christians have done, I choose both. Your interpretation fo the cross is meaningless to me since In my People's history, and the History of My fellow pagans and witches, the cross has been a Symbol of hatred and murder.

Your belief is not required, no. However, the claim of "many pathways to God" makes our way meaningless, which is why we don't accept that claim.
Noone is telling you to accept the claim, frankly We pagans dont give a flying furry fruit what christians do as long as it does not harm us. (Unfortunately we know you guys (Fundementalists of any religion) have a History of being jerks when the oppurtunity arises

[technomage]

Hi Justin :)

Greetings, Undomiel,

This is my understanding of Agape. It's not ours. We aren't generating it. It comes through us from the Holy Spirit, and pours out to others. It's perfect love, outside human understanding, because try as we might, even our best attempts at selflessness such as perfect love, are still deeply entwined in human motivations.

Precisely. I do not say that I am capable of agape to indicate that it comes through me: I mean that the Creator can (and does) used me to pour out this Love to others.

Justin

[One Bad Pig]

OBP, if I were to interpret the entire chapter according to vv 1-6, I would agree. However, the chapters are not all of a piece: each time the author of 1 John starts a passage with "Dear Friends" or "Dear Children," he's changing sections and usually changing themes. The section starting with v 7 and continuing through the end of the chapter deals with love between Christians.
He's still talking about people who claim the mantle of Christianity, AFAICS. Non-Christians aren't necessarily bad people; they're just not good enough (IOW, perfect) to get into heaven without Christ.
If Jesus is not the only way, it makes the ordeal of the cross pointless.
Did it? Paul was of that opinion, but is it possible that he was wrong?
It would also make Jesus a liar, meaning Jesus was not perfect, so his sacrifice is not sufficient. Either Jesus is the only way, or He is not a way.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Unfortunately Justin In matters of theological debate you need to point out the failures because Many christians choose to ignore them.

[technomage]

Unfortunately Justin In matters of theological debate you need to point out the failures because Many christians choose to ignore them.

I think you'll be pleasantly suprised with this bunch. Yes, there are Christians here who would try to deny or minimise the wrongful deeds of Christians in times past, and even today, but Lee, Undomiel, and One Bad Pig are most definitely not afflicted with that sort of historical blindness.

There are some really good folks around ehre with a gold cross icon in their profiles, my friend. Give them a chance, and I am confident that you will agree.

Justin

[Durthorin]

Hi, Spiny,

It's not so much a fear of tearing down someone who is weak in their faith--though that is an important facet to my reticence. The fundamental question is this: even if I am right, do I have the moral authority to make the attempt?

Justin


As a teacher once told me, "Consider the Karma."

Danu Bless, Dur

[One Bad Pig]

In many ways Yes, The story of your god's suffering is very similar to the stories of Mithras, Heracles and many other gods who decended into the underworld for one reason or another, it is also highly similar to the story of the goddess Innanna who went to the underworld and was stripped of her royal clothing and then Killed to be raised again by the other gods. It is also similar to the Myth of Osiris who was killed by His brother set. All in all it feed into the whole Life-Death-Rebirth-life cycle that most of the major religions and ancient mythologies have in common.
Only in superficial ways are there similarities, and these are far outweighed by the differences. See here (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html) for an in-depth look at several alleged similarities.

To me personally, having seen the horrific things chrsitianity and christians have done, I choose both. Your interpretation fo the cross is meaningless to me since In my People's history, and the History of My fellow pagans and witches, the cross has been a Symbol of hatred and murder.
I understand that you think the Christian interpretation is meaningless, but you cannot see the cross as merely two pieces of wood AND a symbol of the horriffic things Christians have done in Christ's name. If it's merely two pieces of wood, it doesn't symbolize anything.

Noone is telling you to accept the claim, frankly We pagans dont give a flying furry fruit what christians do as long as it does not harm us. (Unfortunately we know you guys (Fundementalists of any religion) have a History of being jerks when the oppurtunity arises
There are those who want us to accept it, though. I am not a fundamentalist (are there Wiccan fundies?), so please do not lump me in with them (of course, fundies do not have a monopoly on jerks, either).

[nafzigpa]

Hi Justin!

This is my first time talking about anything like this with someone on the internet (besides people I know via email). :)

I just read what I think is your latest posting? (and nothing else) and I thought you raised good points and questions regarding galatians 5 and the 1 john passages. I am a Christian, and my off the cuff response is that many of the debates we see in 'mainstream' christianity aren't even about the right things. I'm assuming the part of galatians 5 that you're pointing to is the 'fruits of the spirit' passage. I know enough people (some Christian some not) to know that those aspects paul talks about are present in the lives of both believer and non believer. the biggest jerk I have ever known in my life claimed christianity while one of the people I'd like to imitate most claims atheism.

However, (I wish I could see your post as I write...I haven't figured that out yet) I think what Paul is trying to get at in galatians is more that there is no law against those things, rather than a follower of Christ will have these things and a non believer will not, know what I'm saying?

I think many Christians could and should get over their obsession with personal salvation (salvation is up to God to define and hand out) and start living in the alternative reality (kingdom of God) that is proclaimed again and again on practically every page of the New Testament.

sorry this is getting long...that just reminded me of something else i think you said, about Christianity being a way to live better in this world and not much else and how a lot of us would be surprised after we die. I think you're right about a lot of people being surprised--the parable of the sheep and the goats (you come across as a guy who knows the Bible fairly well...do you know this story?) demonstrates that pretty clearly. I am convinced that my (our) typical understanding of salvation is pretty skewed, as far as the pie in the sky when you die mentality. That has more to do with greek philosophy than biblical testimony. but that's another conversation i suppose.

it's hard to think of other stuff you wrote. Maybe someday I'll figure out how to do this a little better. Talk to you later?!

Patrick

[Undomiel]

I'm a fundie on some things and not a fundie on other things. That's probably true about most of us.

[Spinyn00bman]

Justin,

Thanks for your reply.

I also have read the passage and have to agree with OBP on this. Contextually it makes more sense to me. I simply don't see the contradiction.


Cu Mhorrigan,

I was going to jump on your comparisons with Mithra, Heracles, Et al.
OBP beat me to it. I have read these stories. To compare them as being similar is a SUPREMELY DIFFICULT stretch. NO figure in history made the claims or did the things Jesus did.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

J
Cu Mhorrigan,

I was going to jump on your comparisons with Mithra, Heracles, Et al.
OBP beat me to it. I have read these stories. To compare them as being similar is a SUPREMELY DIFFICULT stretch. NO figure in history made the claims or did the things Jesus did.

Heracles Claimed to be the son of a god, as has Cu-Culhain, Mithras, And others. While many of them never claimed to be the "One true way" (Unfortuntely since the bible is a book of propaganda, I have to hold the claims suspect. I have no reason to believe the claims of a group of hebrew shamans who wanted to assert their dominance in matters of religion.) It is no stretch if you look at the stories and actually compare the results of each of them.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Justin, Fanatical Christians Judge us all the time by the actions of our ancestors and the Pagans who were not necessarily the smartest apples in the bunch. As far as Many of them are concerened, We are evil no matter what we say. as far as they are concerened They are our enemies and unfortunately that will not change as long as they believe we are evil.
Take the fundementalist's assertion that you either hate his god or love his god. As far as He is concerened if we do not grovel at the feet of His god and his pastors, then you HATE his god. Even though you make it clear you couldnt care about His god one way or another. that While the religion may work well for the fundie, it did not work for you..In HIs mind you then switch from potential convert, to Evil infidel. Essentially the doctrine of "If you dont love our God you then hate our god" then gives them an excuse to lie to, cheat steal from and if possible Kill you. there are too many examples of History to support that view and just blithely set it aside.

[Undomiel]

Heracles Claimed to be the son of a god, as has Cu-Culhain, Mithras, And others. While many of them never claimed to be the "One true way" (Unfortuntely since the bible is a book of propaganda, I have to hold the claims suspect. I have no reason to believe the claims of a group of hebrew shamans who wanted to assert their dominance in matters of religion.) It is no stretch if you look at the stories and actually compare the results of each of them.

Heracles wasn't a "son of God," but a "Demi-God." He was the offspring of an Angelic Being, who was a "son of God." A bit of semantics, but necessary in this case to differentiate. A son of God was an Angel. A human hybrid (part angelic being, part human) was a "Demi-God," which the bible refers to as a "Nephilim" ("giants") in Genesis 6.

[technomage]

Justin, Fanatical Christians Judge us all the time by the actions of our ancestors and the Pagans who were not necessarily the smartest apples in the bunch.

And would you continue this cycle of wrongdoing by returning the same behavior to them? Will you judge all Christians by the standards of behavior of those whom you despise? Will you condemn Christianity as a whole, simply based on the history you were taught in Paganiosm 101--much of which was inaccurate, and some of which is outright lies?

Or will you decide to act in an ethical fashion towards those you meet--regardless of their faith? Will you decide to act in an honorable fashion, regardless of the provocation? Will you do what is right, no matter the cost? Doing the right thing--regardless of what the people around you are doing--is no guarantee of preferential treatment by the Universe, or even by the people around us. But we will at least know we acted with magnanimity and honor, and if the universe--or our neighbors--sometimes seem insensible to this, let us keep acting that way until they notice.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Only in superficial ways are there similarities, and these are far outweighed by the differences. See here (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html) for an in-depth look at several alleged similarities.Ive read more than enough propaganda during my stint as a christian. While I can appreciate your desire to make your religion unique compared to all others, the truth of the matter is that Most of Christian theology and beliefs come from pagan sources. From the trinity, to the idea of salvation, to the "Gifts of the Spirit".

[quote]I understand that you think the Christian interpretation is meaningless, but you cannot see the cross as merely two pieces of wood AND a symbol of the horriffic things Christians have done in Christ's name. If it's merely two pieces of wood, it doesn't symbolize anything.Yes and No, Our ritual knife holds many facets of meaning. It is both for use in worship, and in spiritual protection, and to help direct our focus. One object can have several shades of meaning so yes it is possible to see the cross as both two sticks of wood nailed together, and a symbol of the horrific things christians have done through out the years.

[quoe]There are those who want us to accept it, though. I am not a fundamentalist (are there Wiccan fundies?), so please do not lump me in with them (of course, fundies do not have a monopoly on jerks, either).
true and yes there are wiccan fundies, atheist fundies, Muslim fundies, jewish fundies etc.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Heracles wasn't a "son of God," but a "Demi-God." He was the offspring of an Angelic Being, who was a "son of God." A bit of semantics, but necessary in this case to differentiate. A son of God was an Angel. A human hybrid (part angelic being, part human) was a "Demi-God," which the bible refers to as a "Nephilim" ("giants") in Genesis 6.you are using your own Myth to interpret OUR stories, so of course it will have a different meaning to you (Nephellim). However Our myths are just as able to stand alone just as your book is.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Well having been a fundementalist christian at one time, I am much harder than most would be on fundies. Most of my information on christianity comes from chrsitian sources themelves, and my personal experience in the church.
Yes I know the salem trials were started by a bitter and angry young girl who wanted attention. and yes I know the Inquisition was nothing more than an attempt to fund the spanish governemnt and the catholic coffers. However, it does not take away from the fact that these are the events in church history that the church has not, as a whole, acknowledged.
It was also these events (Amoung others) that kind of made people remember christianity not as a religion of kindness love and peace, but as a religion that divides (As is the case in Ireland), Conquers (as is the case in the crusades, and in the age of the european empires), and Kills tose who will not bow the knee.
My purpose is not so much to continue the cycle of violence, but that people need to remember that the fanatics (Not the "Normal" Christians) within the christian church are not going tosee us as anything but potential converts or evil things to be tormented and killed.

[technomage]

Cu, do yourself a favor and shut up long enough to pull your head out of your ... er, um, well, wherever.

The more you post, and the more errors I see in your assertions (and in your history, but we'll cover that later), the more I believe that you were a Fundamentalist: you've left the building, but kept the habits. And I honestly do not mean that as an insult, but as an honest analysis of what I have seen of your behavior. For the love of the Gods, Cu, I am doing everything I can to break down some of the stereotypes that Christians have encountered about Neo-Pagans ... and here you come, contributing to those stereotypes, and bringing shame on the all of us in the eyes of the cowans.

Please contact me by PM before you post any more. We need to have a serious chat. And no ... that's not an order, I'm not your Priest. That's a request from someone who's trying to do the right thing.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

I sent you the PM but this needs to be said since you decided to address this publically.
Numberone, My beliefs are my own. I do not speak for wicca or paganism except where I can safely be assured that the opinion can be shared by consensus. two, you are right you are not my High priest, I do not necessarily have to answer to you. (Even if you were, You would also pretty much know why I say the things I do. and understand that I will speak my mind without fear or reservation.) Now if you would Like to COORDINATE our debate then cool. but keep in mind I say things that most would be afraid to.

[Undomiel]

you are using your own Myth to interpret OUR stories, so of course it will have a different meaning to you (Nephellim). However Our myths are just as able to stand alone just as your book is.

Actually, you mistake my position on this subject. I believe ALL (or nearly all) the ancient religious texts are legitimate representations of what the people saw and experienced. I don't consider any of them to be MYTHS, including the pagan histories regarding Zeus and company. I just use the Bible as my starting platform because I find it contains the key to understanding the rest of history, backwards thru Sumer and forwards thru today.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Keep in mind however, that each Mythological and religius system is based on the culture that it derives. that while the bible is your starting point, keep in mind that it is written from a Jewish perspective, and may not understand the perspective of groups like the celts.
I would Highly reccomend the book "The power of Myth by Joseph campbell and Bill moyers." (Personally it's more interesting to watch the series on PBS or DVD, or to listen to it on CD.) It may help to understand certain understandings that the bible may not have.

[Undomiel]

Keep in mind however, that each Mythological and religius system is based on the culture that it derives. that while the bible is your starting point, keep in mind that it is written from a Jewish perspective, and may not understand the perspective of groups like the celts.
I would Highly reccomend the book "The power of Myth by Joseph campbell and Bill moyers." (Personally it's more interesting to watch the series on PBS or DVD, or to listen to it on CD.) It may help to understand certain understandings that the bible may not have.

I've studied alot of this indepth. What I did to correlate the historical perspectives on these topics was to contrast and compare the histories that were occuring around the hebrews of Akkadia, Babylon and ancient Sumer with the biblical texts, both orthodox and psuedopigraphical (Book of Enoch I, Book of Jasher, Book of Jubilees, Book of Giants, War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, etc). The ancient writings of the Sumerians, Ugarits, Akkadians, Egyptians, Nubians, and Babylonians, all tie in very neatly with the biblical texts because they were all experiencing similar events.

The mythology that Joseph Campbell refers to is the epic journey of the hero, which is symbollized by the passage of the Sun, Planets and Stars through the sky. While this is true in part, it is NOT true in whole. The sons of God were not just heavenly bodies but actual beings. They were other creations of God, who I believe exist bodily in the universe and which we have encountered throughout history in one form or another. My personal opinion is that they are what we often refer to today as Aliens. The good ones didn't interfer with our genetic development because that had already been set in place by God. This is what the Star Trek series referred to as the "Prime Directive", et.al, hands off'a'da merchandise. The bad ones DO interfer with our genetic development because they aren't interested in our salvation, longevity or continued existence in any dimension you might care to name. To them, we are inferior beings who serve no better purpose than to act as vessels for their hybrid offspring or in some cases, food.

[Spinyn00bman]

Cu, do yourself a favor and shut up long enough to pull your head out of your ... er, um, well, wherever.

The more you post, and the more errors I see in your assertions (and in your history, but we'll cover that later), the more I believe that you were a Fundamentalist: you've left the building, but kept the habits. And I honestly do not mean that as an insult, but as an honest analysis of what I have seen of your behavior. For the love of the Gods, Cu, I am doing everything I can to break down some of the stereotypes that Christians have encountered about Neo-Pagans ... and here you come, contributing to those stereotypes, and bringing shame on the all of us in the eyes of the cowans.

Please contact me by PM before you post any more. We need to have a serious chat. And no ... that's not an order, I'm not your Priest. That's a request from someone who's trying to do the right thing.

Justin

Sadly Justin, there seems to be people of this kind in EVERY group.

:whack:

[technomage]

Sadly Justin, there seems to be people of this kind in EVERY group.

Nah ... I really think Cu's a good egg. Give him some time....

:whack:

Ouch! Where's the smiley-asprin?

Justin

[Amazing Rando]

Well, some of the Bible's claims are suitable for testing on an objective basis: for instance, there is the claim that Pontius Pilate was the procurator for Judea during the purported trial and execution of Jesus of Nazareth. We have no extra-Biblical text or archaeological resources to verify the trial and execution of jesus, but we can certainly verify objectively that Pilate was procurator of Judea during that time.

Okay, given. :yes: But how in the world does one verify a claim like,

Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

How does one objectively "prove" that the love of the Father is not in the person who loves the world? To my understanding, you physically can't. These types of claims are beyond the realm of "objectivity."

Yes, I have. That is the crux of the problem.

How can that passage be compared with 1 John 4:7-8 that says "Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love." What happens if you have someone who demonstrates love in their heart, but who is not Christian--or perhaps even goes farther than I do, and specifically states that Jesus is not the Christ?

Taken literally, 1 John states definitively that non-Christians are not capable of agape. Yet I stand before you, as a non-Christian who is capable of agape. According to 1 John, I do not exist!

I think you need to take into mind the holistic approach John is taking here. The two need to be placed side by side, considered together. For John's mindset, separating the two was impossible. I think what he was trying to get at was that if you say that Jesus is not the Christ, then loving as God does is not possible. I know that comes off as a slap in the face to your worldview, but that's what I think he's getting at.

Obviously, if one lifts 1 John 4:7-8 from the rest of the text, then you can very rightly claim offense because I've no doubt that you are a loving person in your heart. But look at the verses that follow:

5They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. 6We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

7Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

13We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in him and he in God. 16And so we know and rely on the love God has for us.

First he says that "we" (whoever we is) are from God, and if you listen to us, you're from God, but if you don't listen to us, you are not from God.

Then comes the passage you quoted, in which those who love are said to be from God, and those who do not love do not know God.

Immediately after in verse 10, he qualifies his statement by explaining the type of love he's talking about, namely giving his only son to turn aside the punishment for our sins. Then, he connects God's actions in giving his son with the very reason we are to love one another. It's a causal relationship in verse 11. And finally in verses 14 and 15, he testifies that God has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world (pointing back to the model and cause of our human love), and that if anyone acknowledges that Jesus is God's Son, then God lives in him, and him in God. John's saying here that you cannot just take one of his criteria to be "born of God." The one in John 4:7-8 is a necessary and qualifying condition of the one he lays out in verse 15, because to deny that Jesus is the Son of God is to deny the very purpose for loving one another. Since God loved us, he sent his son to die for us and therefore, we ought to love one another.

By that same token, anyone who acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, but does not love is not born of God (and yes, this would rule out a great deal of professing Christians). The two qualifications are inseperable.

Well, that's the crux of that problem: Wicca is no more a "correct" understanding of the Creator than Christianity is. Both are flawed, human paths to understanding the Mystery ... neither is objective truth, and neither can even pretend to be the "complete" truth.

It is not Christianity that I disagree with, so much as the Christian claims to exclusivity. Yet that message of "By no other name" is so intrinsic to Christianity that to argue against the doctrine, I argue against the entire path.

Justin

Gotcha. As you know, The biblical worldview is that we were created with the specific purpose of having a relationship with the Creator. But I ask you- does the Wiccan conception of the Creator desire to be known? Does he (or she, or it) desire a relationship with his creation, or is he detatched, not really interested in what he has made as the old Deist model used to propose? Or something else entirely? I ask because if the creator is interested in having a relationship with his creation, it would follow that he would take the initiative to make himself known, and begin that relationship himself.

[Undomiel]

Addendum: The ancient Mayan, Incan, Hindu and Far Eastern histories are also in agreement on many points, with the biblical and pseudopigraphical texts. There's a reason they all agree on so many points, and sure isn't because it's mythology.

[technomage]

Hi Justin!

Hi, and welcome to TWeb!

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to reply to you ... I actually lost the post with all the conversations I'm participating in. :blush:

However, (I wish I could see your post as I write...I haven't figured that out yet) I think what Paul is trying to get at in galatians is more that there is no law against those things, rather than a follower of Christ will have these things and a non believer will not, know what I'm saying?

Hmm. Good point: as you have no doubt noticed, the phrase "...against such things there is no law" is ignored far too often. But it looks to me like the emphasis is on "living by the spirit," so where Paul is opposing living according to the flesh (where one is a slave to the Law) with living by the Spirit (where one is free from the penalties of the Law), the specific phrase is more along the lines of "Look, in living by the spirit, you are not violating the Law, because the fruit of the Spirit is not contrary to the Law."

I think many Christians could and should get over their obsession with personal salvation (salvation is up to God to define and hand out) and start living in the alternative reality (kingdom of God) that is proclaimed again and again on practically every page of the New Testament.

Absolutely! And Patrick, I'll tell you something: if the Christianity of the Church today dealt with living that "Kingdom of Heaven" that is here now, rather than with endless fights and division on who has the best Christian definition of what the Kingdom will be someday,I for one don't think I would have ever left.

sorry this is getting long...

Waitaminit, Patrick ... after seeing some of my four- and five-page posts, this post isn't long at all! :teeth: Seriously, if something's on your heart, say it, and don't worry about how long it goes.

I think you're right about a lot of people being surprised--the parable of the sheep and the goats (you come across as a guy who knows the Bible fairly well...do you know this story?) demonstrates that pretty clearly. I am convinced that my (our) typical understanding of salvation is pretty skewed, as far as the pie in the sky when you die mentality. That has more to do with greek philosophy than biblical testimony. but that's another conversation i suppose.

I tend to agree ... and don't get me wrong. The ideas I'm presenting in this (and the other) threads are the best ideas I have, but I'll guarantee you that I am no more "right" as a Wiccan than I feel Christianity is "right." As I said, I feel that both are equally wrong, because they are both human-invented attempts to understand a Creator that is fundamentally beyond human understanding.

it's hard to think of other stuff you wrote. Maybe someday I'll figure out how to do this a little better.

Hey, you've done great, especially for a first post. I look forward to hearing more from you.

Justin

[Arnold]

Nah ... I really think Cu's a good egg. Give him some time....

Justin, the guy is a real kook - check out this quote from this the Schiavo Tragedy Revealed True Agenda, Frightening Power Of Religious Right, Says (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50955&page=1) thread (post #13):


Do you view the dominionists like falwell robertson and dobson to be "Men of god?"
If so then yes you would view any criticism of them as Bigotry because you agree that we unbelievers should be treated as second class citizens at best, or at worst, a group requiring a "Final Solution" like Hitler proscribed for the jews.


Don't waste your time...

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Ah so arnold what about that statement is not true? you still havent refuted it.

[Arnold]

Ah so arnold what about that statement is not true? you still havent refuted it.

LOL! Are you truly that nutty that you believe the stuff you write, or are you just here to yank people's chains?

[Cu Mhorrigan]

LOL! Are you truly that nutty that you believe the stuff you write, or are you just here to yank people's chains?
I'll let you figure it out. ;)
But, yes, personally (And then I will let this particular topic remain on it's original thread) I firmly believe that the Dominionist movement in evangelical/fundementalist/pentecostal circles is a collossal BAD IDEA. It's nothing more than the Nazi Movement given a religious face. Now I return this thread back to it's original topic.

[technomage]

Justin, the guy is a real kook

Arnold, if the Dominionists gain political power, there's a very good chance that people like me, and like Cu, will wind up with a very uncomfortable choice--convert, flee the country, or die. I have to say that I'm more than a little unsure that someone who doeasn't want to be placed in that kind of a situation is a "kook."

Justin

[Undomiel]

Arnold, if the Dominionists gain political power, there's a very good chance that people like me, and like Cu, will wind up with a very uncomfortable choice--convert, flee the country, or die. I have to say that I'm more than a little unsure that someone who doeasn't want to be placed in that kind of a situation is a "kook."

Justin

If the dominionists gain political power, almost everybody would have to flee the country, as most folks who live here believe in your right to worship how you see fit.

[Arnold]

Arnold, if the Dominionists gain political power, there's a very good chance that people like me, and like Cu, will wind up with a very uncomfortable choice--convert, flee the country, or die. I have to say that I'm more than a little unsure that someone who doeasn't want to be placed in that kind of a situation is a "kook."

Justin

Sheesh Justin - the guy accused me of wanting to cull unbelievers like Hitler did to the Jews. You don't think that is just a bit over the top?!?

(Incidently I don't support Falwell, Robertson or Dobson. That was just a presumptive false accusation on his part.)

But don't bother to answer my question - it was rhetorical. I'll just leave you to your pagan discussion.

[technomage]

Sheesh Justin - the guy accused me of wanting to cull unbelievers like Hitler did to the Jews. You don't think that is just a bit over the top?!?

(Incidently I don't support Falwell, Robertson or Dobson. That was just a presumptive false accusation on his part.)

First and foremost, Cu's original assertion about bigotry was in response to a statement by Jinx, not to you.

Secondly, Cu's statement was conditional: "If you support these men, then you agree with their position on this issue." Now, Cu does engage in begging the question (in that he does not establish that Falwell, Robertson or Dobson would support Hitleresque repression against non-Christians), but frankly you completely ignored that conditional, assumed that a statement that wasn't even in response to you was a direct accusation, and further ignored that by Cu's statement, the shoe didn't fit anyway.

You're the one who picked up the gauntlet on this one, Arnold--and very frankly, you may be the one who owes the apology.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Jstin there is a fourth option if the country becomes a theocratic state, we pagans go live with the natives and start fighting the second they start dragging us to the "stakes".

[Arnold]

First and foremost, Cu's original assertion about bigotry was in response to a statement by Jinx, not to you.

Secondly, Cu's statement was conditional: "If you support these men, then you agree with their position on this issue." Now, Cu does engage in begging the question (in that he does not establish that Falwell, Robertson or Dobson would support Hitleresque repression against non-Christians), but frankly you completely ignored that conditional, assumed that a statement that wasn't even in response to you was a direct accusation, and further ignored that by Cu's statement, the shoe didn't fit anyway.

You're the one who picked up the gauntlet on this one, Arnold--and very frankly, you may be the one who owes the apology.

Justin

Well maybe you can explain post #54 - he couldn't.

But really Justin - I am getting the feeling that you think there is going to be a cull also.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

It's pretty much a given considering the History of religion and politics, When a particularly fanatical and violent sect gets controll there is always a culling of the undesireables. It happened during Nazi Gernamny, the MacCarthy Era, The Inquisition, the Witch Trials, Athiest Communism in the USSR, China and Cuba....While most often than Not it's about money, the undesireables are always the scape goats. It is never actually Called a culling but more like "Cleaning up our nieghborhood", "Protecting the family" "Protecting the state from it's enemies".
If you HOnestly lok at hat has gone on before it is easy to note what will hapen again if we are not careful.

[technomage]

Well maybe you can explain post #54 - he couldn't.

Arnold, #54 is your post (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showpost.php?p=978298&postcount=54): why do you want Cu to explain your words?

But really Justin - I am getting the feeling that you think there is going to be a cull also.

From Falwell, Robertson or Dobson? Probably not. That's more the realm of Horsely and a few others on the extreme fringes. The point, however, is this: you chose to take Cu's original response to Jinx as an attack against you. I'm quiy=te sure this was an honest mistake on your part: his post immediately followed yours, even though he was not referring to your statement. And you phrased your response aggressively. Cu reacted to your aggression.

In this particular situation, Arnold, you happen to be the source of the first error. I would hope that you would review the thread and correct your error.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Justin,
Robertson falwell and Dobson may not publically support anny culls, that doesnt mean that they would cry if it were to happen.They did blame 9/11 on us in the hopes the mobs would start lynching pagans.

[technomage]

They did blame 9/11 on us in the hopes the mobs would start lynching pagans.

That, Cu, is a lie--a lie started by some anti-Christian Pagans. Do not shame the Pagan community by repeating it.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Where was it proven to be a lie? Snopes?

[Cu Mhorrigan]

That, Cu, is a lie--a lie started by some anti-Christian Pagans. Do not shame the Pagan community by repeating it.

Justin
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/falwell.htm
I searched Snopes.com..See for yourself.

[technomage]

Where was it proven to be a lie? Snopes?

The lie is in what is called "Mind-Reader's Fallacy." Robertson, Fallwell, Dobson--none of these people have ever advocated violence, and all have spoken against mob violence. For the statement to be true, you would have to prove that you knew their motives ... motives that have been clearly spoken against by these three in the past.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Let me ask this question then If this same thought was used on Hitler before he took office and then was proven to be true, would it still be a fallacy? Churchil kept warning the states that Hitler and japan were going to attack the US and we did not believe them. It wasnt until Pearl habor that we realised how much of a threat Hitler was.

[technomage]

Let me ask this question then If this same thought was used on Hitler before he took office and then was proven to be true, would it still be a fallacy?

Not a parallel situation: Hitler's Mein Kampf makes quite clear (several years before he came into power) his views for the Jews, and his intention to--violently--remove them from the German political process.

Churchil kept warning the states that Hitler and japan were going to attack the US and we did not believe them. It wasnt until Pearl habor that we realised how much of a threat Hitler was.

Incorrect: the US military build-up started with the Lend-Lease Program, and with research and development into superior fighters and pursuit planes--this started back in the 1930s. The first US military intervention with Axis powers was not after Pearl Harbor, but with the training, equipment, and fielding of the American Volunteer Group--you probably know them as the "Flying Tigers."

True enough, we did not take Japan seriously enough, but that was a botched assesment of their capabilities, not of their intent.

Justin

[Undomiel]

The lie is in what is called "Mind-Reader's Fallacy." Robertson, Fallwell, Dobson--none of these people have ever advocated violence, and all have spoken against mob violence. For the statement to be true, you would have to prove that you knew their motives ... motives that have been clearly spoken against by these three in the past.

Justin


Believe it or not, most people who call themselves christian are moderate and peaceful and many fundamentalists are moderate in somethings and fundamental in others. Cu has fallen victim to the idea that the word "Christian" automatically qualifies as "nazi who wants to suppress my rights." The people who determine how many of what religion are in this country, typically access medical records and census data not church rosters. Medical records only conclude that the person, if asked, would consider themselves a christian before considering themselves a buddhist for example, were they to die while in the hospital. Many christians thus identified, never or seldom go to church and are quite secular in their beliefs (agree with abortion, agree evolution and so on). So really, the idea the US is overrun by fundamentalist christians who want to eat your brains, is not accurate.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Then dont you think we should not make the same mistake with Fallwell, Dobsson, and Robertson? Historically speaking people like them always get violent when they get in charge. (Of course it's never the leaders that get their hands dirty.) The point is it's better to be safe than sorry, If WW2 was any indication, these bone heads are not above Killing people or at very least imprisoning them till they "repent".

[Undomiel]

Then dont you think we should not make the same mistake with Fallwell, Dobsson, and Robertson? Historically speaking people like them always get violent when they get in charge. (Of course it's never the leaders that get their hands dirty.) The point is it's better to be safe than sorry, If WW2 was any indication, these bone heads are not above Killing people or at very least imprisoning them till they "repent".

??? I wouldn't kill you if my life depended on it, and I'm a fundamentalist christian. (Does Cu have me on ignore?)

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Believe it or not, most people who call themselves christian are moderate and peaceful and many fundamentalists are moderate in somethings and fundamental in others. Undomiel believe it or not I do know the difference I am talking about the Rabid fundementalists, Not the "Sane" ones.
Cu has fallen victim to the idea that the word "Christian" automatically qualifies as "nazi who wants to suppress my rights." No it's the Idea of: "Fanatical christians have done some very horrible things to me in My life and I have seen what happens when people start operating in "Christian Love" towards people they hate." Comes from som really Cruddy epseriences in the Church and in Bible School
The people who determine how many of what religion are in this country, typically access medical records and census data not church rosters. Medical records only conclude that the person, if asked, would consider themselves a christian before considering themselves a buddhist for example, were they to die while in the hospital. Many christians thus identified, never or seldom go to church and are quite secular in their beliefs (agree with abortion, agree evolution and so on). So really, the idea the US is overrun by fundamentalist christians who want to eat your brains, is not accurate.
When you have a congress that votes to involve itself in a family matter, because of "Right to Life" constituents, Or a president declaring a religious war in the middle east, it pretty much confirms my suspicions.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

There's and Ignore feature Here? Cool!
Undomiel I dont have you on ignore (OBviously) Again I am talking about the Rabid Fundies Liek Falwell Robertson and Dobson.

[technomage]

Again I am talking about the Rabid Fundies Liek Falwell Robertson and Dobson.

They're not too bad ... if you want "rabid," do a search on Neil Horsely. :eek:

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

They're not too bad ... if you want "rabid," do a search on Neil Horsely. :eek:

Justin
Is he anything Like Phelps?

[technomage]

Is he anything Like Phelps?

Worse. Trust me. I will not make a direct link to his site: the admin would probably consider such a link to be inappropriate, if not obscene.

Cu, the Christians here oppose "Christians" who take the extreme ideas. It is not logically consistant to blame all Christians for the actions of a few; it is not logically consistant to blame today's Christians for the actions of those in the Medieval and Renaissance times; it is not consistant to blame Christians for things they didn't do. I know very well that Fallwell said the things listed on Snopes--my objection was solely to the assertion that he was hoping it would result in lynchings.

However, I'm going to make a distinction--I am not accusing you of dishonesty. I am accusing you of some logical inconsistancies, but I honestly believe that you were taught these things by people whom you respect, and that you are repeating them in good faith, not aware that they are inconsistant. You are not culpable for lying because you repeated things that are not true when you did not know that they weren't true.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Justin what do you THINK he was hoping to do? When people incite hateful rhetric like that it is usually with the Idea that something be done to the SUBJECT of said rhetoric namely Pagans, Gays, Atheists, Feminists, what have you.
People Like Falwell are agitators, they whip people up into a frenzy and the people do the dirty work.

Yes I know Many christians are fairly Sane rational and even loving people. Or They are too wrapped up in their own lives to really care about what some sexually frustrated man on TV says. I am talking about the Lunatics. the Fanatics,
The idiots that take what Falwell Robertson and Dobson say as gospel and then start acting on it.
Having Seen Rabid Christians in action in my own life I can safely tell you that it is nothing short of an emotionally draining, knock down drag out fight to just SURVIVE the encounter with such morons.

[technomage]

Justin what do you THINK he was hoping to do? When people incite hateful rhetric like that it is usually with the Idea that something be done to the SUBJECT of said rhetoric namely Pagans, Gays, Atheists, Feminists, what have you.

Cu, the biggest thing to remember is the audience of the 700 Club: almost exclusively Christian, politically conservative (which means that they would work AGAINST lynch mobs), Protestant, and frequently self-satisfied. They're not looking to go kill Pagans: they're looking for ways to say "Oh, the problem's not with me, it's with 'those people' over there, so I don't have to get involved. All I have to do is send my money in, and Pat will take care of it." Yes, it's hogwash ... but it's not inciting criminal activity.

Robertson's not interested in getting Pagans lynched ... he's interested in getting supporters to send money. Now, my own cynicism says that the money is his primary motivation, but hey, we're all allowed moments of cynicism now and then. :wink:

People Like Falwell are agitators, they whip people up into a frenzy and the people do the dirty work.

Again, no: Falwell has time and time again spoken against violent means to support his goals.

Having Seen Rabid Christians in action in my own life I can safely tell you that it is nothing short of an emotionally draining, knock down drag out fight to just SURVIVE the encounter with such morons.

Cu, me'bucko, have you ever had a cross burned in your yard? Have you ever had someone literally attempt to murder you because of your faith? Have you faced violence? Or have you simply faced the nasty opinions of loudmouth bigots who make up for their lack of intelligence by shouting their insults all the louder?

I've faced all of those things. But I'm also knowledgeabe enough to point out to these people where they left the teachings of the Bible, and ... well, frankly, if it ever comes to violence, I'm armed. But the thing of it is this ... some of my Christian neighbors where I lived when these things happened were also armed. Cu, the number of people who came out to defend me was about twice the size of the number of people who came out to cause trouble.

You cannot logically blame all Christians for the acts of some. Stop trying to judge all Christians by the acts of a few ... instead, learn to judge each person, Christian or Pagan, by their own individual merits.

Justin

[Undomiel]

Justin what do you THINK he was hoping to do? When people incite hateful rhetric like that it is usually with the Idea that something be done to the SUBJECT of said rhetoric namely Pagans, Gays, Atheists, Feminists, what have you.
People Like Falwell are agitators, they whip people up into a frenzy and the people do the dirty work.

Yes I know Many christians are fairly Sane rational and even loving people. Or They are too wrapped up in their own lives to really care about what some sexually frustrated man on TV says. I am talking about the Lunatics. the Fanatics,
The idiots that take what Falwell Robertson and Dobson say as gospel and then start acting on it.
Having Seen Rabid Christians in action in my own life I can safely tell you that it is nothing short of an emotionally draining, knock down drag out fight to just SURVIVE the encounter with such morons.

lol I don't have the foggiest notion what Falwell has said in the last decade and I'd be among those you refer to as rabid fundamentalists, although not entirely. See a person can maintain a certain belief and not believe they can or should impose it on you under threat of death or whatever other uncomfortable scenario.

Let me give you an example. A gay man tries to get hired in a christian bookstore. He tells the bookstore owner that he is gay. When the christian bookstore owner says one of the provisions to work there is that you be a christian, the gay guy who is not a christian, subsequently takes it to the ACLU and has the bookstore owners sued, causing undue financial hardship. That's an example of an uncomfortable scenario caused by forcing beliefs on people. The solution is not readily apparent, but the assumption is, you can't own a business in this country unless you give up your religious beliefs or change them, depending on which side of the table you are sitting.

A non-islamic guy goes to an islamic bookstore. He tells the bookstore owner that he is not islamic. The bookstore owner tells him that one of the provisions to work there is that you be islamic. The non-islamic guy takes it to the ACLU and they don't do a thing about it. This is also an example of uncomfortable scenario caused by forcing beliefs on people.

Now I didn't bring this up to prove christians are being picked on by the ACLU, because overall, that's not entirely true. I've seen them protect christians and non-christians. But rather to direct your attention to the real issue. Certain organizations within the media are presenting this nation as predominantly christian. This is only true as far as the medical records are concerned in MANY cases. Actual christians who practice the faith, are much rarer than presented, but since the statistics show such an overbundance of christians in the nation, those certain organizations within the media, prey on the minds of the people at large by making it appear as if christians are just everywhere, rabid, fundamental christians who want to take away your fundamental constitutional rights to freedom of religion and so forth. To prove this, they pop up a video of someone like Falwell, who is ranting and raving at that precise moment, about something he's irritated about. Then the media skews it as if this were some secret plot by undercover christian nazis and Falwell's the proof.

For example, when Bush ran for President, those certain branches of the media, tried to make everyone think that before the last election arrived, Bush would arrange for another catastrophe, to keep himself high on the popularity polls. It never happened. They said, he would take away abortion. It never happened. They said he would put martial law into place. It never happened. This went on and on, and all the while they kept reminding everyone that Bush was a rabid fundmentalist christian like Falwell.

In short, Big Brother is alive and well, and he's indoctrinating an entire nation into believing pagans should be afraid of christians and christians should be afraid of pagans.

[technomage]

In short, Big Brother is alive and well, and he's indoctrinating an entire nation into believing pagans should be afraid of christians and christians should be afraid of pagans.

Cu, you need to listen up to this particular statement. Undomiel and I frequently disagree on many issues, but on this, she's right on target.

However, I don't feel this is a specific "Big Brother," but a general cultural tendency. If you want your "team" to give the effort 110%, part of your pep talk is to loudly clamor how nasty the other side is. OK, so Fallwell and Robertson have done so, and you say that it's wrong of them to do so ... yet you use the same tactics? Come on, Cu ... where's the sense in that? Where's the logic? More important, what's the right thing to do ethically?

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Cu, the biggest thing to remember is the audience of the 700 Club: almost exclusively Christian, politically conservative (which means that they would work AGAINST lynch mobs), Protestant, and frequently self-satisfied. They're not looking to go kill Pagans: they're looking for ways to say "Oh, the problem's not with me, it's with 'those people' over there, so I don't have to get involved. All I have to do is send my money in, and Pat will take care of it." Yes, it's hogwash ... but it's not inciting criminal activity.

Robertson's not interested in getting Pagans lynched ... he's interested in getting supporters to send money. Now, my own cynicism says that the money is his primary motivation, but hey, we're all allowed moments of cynicism now and then. :wink: Im even more cynical than that, Most of the money he gets from His sheeple goes to training Little christo fascists like him to take over the government. Persecution never starts with something blatently obvious, it always starts small. Robertson, Fallwell and Dobson all have some kind of training facility to train Fundies in taking oer the government and trying court cases specifically TO overturn roe v. wade and other laws guarenteeing religious liberty.



Again, no: Falwell has time and time again spoken against violent means to support his goals. Again Keep in Mind He is not in a position where he can PUBLICALLY acknowledge that he condones violence to achieve His goals. Not yet.


Cu, me'bucko, have you ever had a cross burned in your yard? I live in New York City People have been killed for even wearing a white Sheet around here.
Have you ever had someone literally attempt to murder you because of your faith? Nope Not yet.
Have you faced violence? Again I live in New york city, Violence is a way of Life here. you kind of have to be specific.
Or have you simply faced the nasty opinions of loudmouth bigots who make up for their lack of intelligence by shouting their insults all the louder? Yes on this one Im Married to a fundie...and yes I survived three years in a pentecostal bible school.

I've faced all of those things. But I'm also knowledgeabe enough to point out to these people where they left the teachings of the Bible, and ... well, frankly, if it ever comes to violence, I'm armed. Good for you. But the thing of it is this ... some of my Christian neighbors where I lived when these things happened were also armed. Cu, the number of people who came out to defend me was about twice the size of the number of people who came out to cause trouble. well that more than I ever had when I was torn apart in bible college. Mazel tov. I had to fight them off by Myself.

You cannot logically blame all Christians for the acts of some. Stop trying to judge all Christians by the acts of a few ... instead, learn to judge each person, Christian or Pagan, by their own individual merits.How many times do I have to reiterate the same thing Justin..I am not talking about the sane Christians or the self absorbed ones, I am talking about the fanatics. FA NA TICS.The fanatics are the ones you have to watch out for. ((Uhm is there a profanity filter on this board BTW?))
I will leave with a quote from Men in Black (Okay a paraphrase)
A individual person can be smart intelligent thoughtful and darling, But PEOPLE are scared, Stupid cowardly and mob-like, you should know that Kid.

[Undomiel]

Cu, you need to listen up to this particular statement. Undomiel and I frequently disagree on many issues, but on this, she's right on target.

However, I don't feel this is a specific "Big Brother," but a general cultural tendency. If you want your "team" to give the effort 110%, part of your pep talk is to loudly clamor how nasty the other side is. OK, so Fallwell and Robertson have done so, and you say that it's wrong of them to do so ... yet you use the same tactics? Come on, Cu ... where's the sense in that? Where's the logic? More important, what's the right thing to do ethically?

Justin

One thing's for certain, Dobson doesn't have a violent bone in his body. He's a very soft spoken and gentle man.

you know who also like is the Crystal Cathedral guy - Robert Schuller. He's is just peachy.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Cu, you need to listen up to this particular statement. Undomiel and I frequently disagree on many issues, but on this, she's right on target.

However, I don't feel this is a specific "Big Brother," but a general cultural tendency. If you want your "team" to give the effort 110%, part of your pep talk is to loudly clamor how nasty the other side is. OK, so Fallwell and Robertson have done so, and you say that it's wrong of them to do so ... yet you use the same tactics? Come on, Cu ... where's the sense in that? Where's the logic? More important, what's the right thing to do ethically?
Justin
The right thing to do Is Fight in the ballot box, and if that fails...Then get ready to fight for survival. It's what our ancestors had to do, and it's what we will have to do with the war to stop terrorism. In this case we are going to have to fight these morons to the death if need be.
Other wise we wind up being royally screwed.
I dont see it as a matter of being right or wrong, I see it as a matter of "This person is going to Kill me? His head will look very nice above my fire place."

[Cu Mhorrigan]

One thing's for certain, Dobson doesn't have a violent bone in his body. He's a very soft spoken and gentle man. So was Hitler when He wasnt screaming for the nazi party.

you know who also like is the Crystal Cathedral guy - Robert Schuller. He's is just peachy.
He's more about the money than politics, Noone has to worry about him running for office, He's a "Nice Christian".

[Undomiel]

The right thing to do Is Fight in the ballot box, and if that fails...Then get ready to fight for survival. It's what our ancestors had to do, and it's what we will have to do with the war to stop terrorism. In this case we are going to have to fight these morons to the death if need be.
Other wise we wind up being royally screwed.
I dont see it as a matter of being right or wrong, I see it as a matter of "This person is going to Kill me? His head will look very nice above my fire place."

Hrm. Why do you think christians want to kill you? This isn't the days of the Holy Roman Empire and the Salem Witch Trials were just a free-for-all killing spree inspired by paranoia and mischievious kids that probably never managed to kill an actual witch lol

[technomage]

I dont see it as a matter of being right or wrong, I see it as a matter of "This person is going to Kill me? His head will look very nice above my fire place."

Well, there's a principal you're missing called "Justifiable Force." If you use force in a situation where you're not actually in danger (or actually preventing danger to an innocent third party), you are the one in the wrong. It doesn't matter if the other guy gave you a dirty look, or ran his mouth, or expressed his wish that "God should strike all those nasty Pagans with toe fungus," unless you are responding to violence that someone starts, you're out of line.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Well, there's a principal you're missing called "Justifiable Force." If you use force in a situation where you're not actually in danger (or actually preventing danger to an innocent third party), you are the one in the wrong. It doesn't matter if the other guy gave you a dirty look, or ran his mouth, or expressed his wish that "God should strike all those nasty Pagans with toe fungus," unless you are responding to violence that someone starts, you're out of line.

Justin
Did I say anything about beating someone down without a good reason? No, I said that if they are going to start something I am going to Give them something. If they delcare war on Me I have no other choice than to get reay to open up a can of Whup-Ass while Dresed only in blue pain and carrying a spear. (Not a pleasant picture I assure you.)

[Cu Mhorrigan]

who knows why fanatics do anything? aside from the fact that they think Im going to seduce their wives, daughters, girlfriends, mothers and pet cats and sacrifice theri babies to satan...I cant think of a single reason.

[Undomiel]

who knows why fanatics do anything? aside from the fact that they think Im going to seduce their wives, daughters, girlfriends, mothers and pet cats and sacrifice theri babies to satan...I cant think of a single reason.

You should probably, for the sake of your reading audience, make a clear distinction between christian and fanatic. Don't you think?

[Cu Mhorrigan]

I have been I have used the term Fundementalist which Most people understand to mean fanatic. Like it or not, that is currently the going terminology to define a fanatic in a certain faith, just like Fundie wiccan, Fundie pagan, Fundie Atheist, FUndie Muslim, Fundie Christian.

[technomage]

Most of the money he gets from His sheeple goes to training Little christo fascists like him to take over the government.

Prove it, or retract it.

Persecution never starts with something blatently obvious, it always starts small.

Wrong:
* Hitler and Mein Kampf. He was blatant about his desires to persecute the Jews and other so-called "non-Aryans."
* Marx and the Communist Manifesto
* Urban II and the First Crusade
* Kramer and Sprenger and the Malleus Maleficarum
* Stalin and the Purges--he published his intentions months or years before he started.
* US Government and treatement of the Native Americans
* Conquistadores and the colonization of the Americas

Face it, Cu ... persecution usually starts out with a bang. The persecutors have to let their ideas be known and gain public acceptance, else their neighbors will simply have them arrested.

Robertson, Fallwell and Dobson all have some kind of training facility to train Fundies in taking oer the government and trying court cases specifically TO overturn roe v. wade and other laws guarenteeing religious liberty.

Again ... prove it, or retract it.

Again Keep in Mind He is not in a position where he can PUBLICALLY acknowledge that he condones violence to achieve His goals. Not yet.

Mind-Readers and Slippery Slope fallacies. Prove it, or retract it.

How many times do I have to reiterate the same thing Justin..I am not talking about the sane Christians or the self absorbed ones, I am talking about the fanatics.

Then why in the name of our Gods do you say "Christians" most of the time, and only say "Fanatics" when I call you on it? Come on, Cu, do you not realize what you are doing? You are engaging in the same kind of dishonest rhetoric that you accuse the Christians of! If it's wrong for them to do it, why is it right for you?

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

because I am entertaining Dammit.!!!! that's why.
Seriously I gotta run for a bit and I will Google the Proof about Robertson's Falwell's and Dobson's Schools of nazi propaganda.
As to your allegation about persecution starts with a bang, Do you really want to wait to give them that chance?
If you had the oppurtunity to stop Hitler from starting on the path to the Holocaust would you do it? If you had the fore sight and the power to stop the Burning Times, would you do it?
It's the same principle here Justin, We have the oppuritunity to stop these asswipes from tking office and making people suffer and die needlessly.

More bad words! For shame!

[Undomiel]

It should relieve you to know the nation was founded by Masons, who for the most part were Deists. The Masons are still a strong group and are in every branch of government. They opposed the catholic church and established christian organizations since the beginnings of this country, so you don't have to worry that you'll be drawn and quartered over your beliefs by an angry mob of everyday christians (half of which would be defending you anyway).

[Cu Mhorrigan]

http://www.liberty.edu/ This is falwell's School of Naziism
http://www.regent.edu/ Here is robertson's
Look around their websites.

http://www.answers.com/topic/regent-university-1
http://www.answers.com/Liberty%20University
Dobson hasnt founded a School for naziism yet so I misspoke on that one.


Argument by weblink isn't allowed.

[technomage]

because I am entertaining Dammit.!!!! that's why.

If your worlds stand any chance of being taken seriously, then it leaves the bounds of entertainment and becomes a lie. If you tell lies, then you are guilty of the same kind of dishonorable behavior that you accuse these specific Christians of.

As to your allegation about persecution starts with a bang, Do you really want to wait to give them that chance?
If you had the oppurtunity to stop Hitler from starting on the path to the Holocaust would you do it? If you had the fore sight and the power to stop the Burning Times, would you do it?


Cut the crap, Cu! The so-called "Burning Times" was not Christian on Pagan vviolence ... it was Christian on Christian violence, induced by a social panic.

It's the same principle here Justin, We have the oppuritunity to stop theseasswipes from tking office and making people suffer and die needlessly.

Cu, I tell you honestly: if we accomplish that goal with dishonest tactics, then we are dishonored. In that case, who are the a**wipes?

Justin

[Undomiel]

Tis sad the level of indoctrination this county is undergoing, the divisions, the rifts.

A cop saves your cat from the tree. It never dawns on you to ask if he's a christian.
A fireman puts out the fire that might've otherwise burned down your house. It never dawns on you to ask if she's a christian.
A doctor saves your life. It never dawns on you to ask if he's a christian.
A nurse cares for you very kindly while you're in the hospital. It never dawns on you to ask if he's a christian.
You buy some great finds at a yard sale. The lady gives you a discount, just cause you're nice and she likes your blue shoes. It never dawns on you to ask if she's a christian.

And of course, they very well could be.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

If your worlds stand any chance of being taken seriously, then it leaves the bounds of entertainment and becomes a lie. If you tell lies, then you are guilty of the same kind of dishonorable behavior that you accuse these specific Christians of. So far I have not lied about the Fundies and their plot to take over the states. So I am guilty of Nothing. I am speaking as both a former fundie and person that wishes to fight what they propose to do to my country.




Cut the crap, Cu! The so-called "Burning Times" was not Christian on Pagan vviolence ... it was Christian on Christian violence, induced by a social panic. Justin the Burning times began when Constantine started his purges of the pagan temples. and then Moved Forward to Europe. I am not talking about the medieval europe atrocities that went on..The Burning times I am refering to started at around 400ce. I would suggest you google the Persecution of the Hellenes for the full story...



Cu, I tell you honestly: if we accomplish that goal with dishonest tactics, then we are dishonored. In that case, who are the a**wipes? what dishonest tactics are you referring to Justin? Explaining exactly what would happen SHOULD these Asswipes take over? that's dishonest?
Explaining that the Stuff they pulled before is nothing compared to what they will do once the get into power is not dishonest it is truth. Just like the Anti Smoking Nazis that now try to Curb The rights of us Smokers from even enjoying a smoke with our drinks for crying out loud.
anyway gotta run and visit my grandma.

Justin[/QUOTE]

[technomage]

Cu, I've started a new thread to discuss the question: "Christians Are Our Enemies? (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=51023)" I hope for your input on this.

Justin

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Of course it woudl never dawn on you to ask if the same cop was a pagan or the fireman, Or the nice woman at teh garage sale either. :winks: and is really gone.

[Undomiel]

http://www.liberty.edu/ This is falwell's School of Naziism
http://www.regent.edu/ Here is robertson's
Look around their websites.

http://www.answers.com/topic/regent-university-1
http://www.answers.com/Liberty%20University
Dobson hasnt founded a School for naziism yet so I misspoke on that one.

Falwell's Nazi College
We presently enroll over 500 international students enrolled from over 57 foreign countries. Liberty is truly an international campus!

Since the inception of Liberty University in 1971, thousands of international students have graduated with Liberty degrees and have entered their chosen professions or careers. Many of these have found a new home in the U.S. following their studies. Others have returned to their home country, taking with them the knowledge, values, and skills received while at Liberty and are now impacting their country and their world for Christ.

Robertson's Nazi College
Just looks like your standard issue religious school. There have been religious schools since time immemorial. Not sure how its relevant. Sumerians, Egyptians, and every civilization and culture since then, have had religious schools.

[Undomiel]

Of course it woudl never dawn on you to ask if the same cop was a pagan or the fireman, Or the nice woman at teh garage sale either. :winks: and is really gone.


Of course not, but I am not planning on painting myself blue and going after folks with a pointy object. :teeth:

[technomage]

So far I have not lied about the Fundies and their plot to take over the states. So I am guilty of Nothing.

No, you've not told any lies, and please don't take my statements as an acusation: that's not what I'm about here.

Cu, my major purpose in confronting you is not to criticise your motive as you've stated them here: I, too, want to avoid any sort of Christian theocracy in America. (I also want to avoid a Pagan theocracy, but that's beside the point for this discussion.) However, if that goal cannot be obtained in an honorable manner, then (IMO) it's not worth attaining.

OK, so you haven't told any lied ... the question remains, then: have you told the truth? Again, that's not an accusation of dishonesty: that's a question of whether or not your statements reflect what is actually going on. Is it possible that you've heard some things about Robertson's supposed "Training Facilities" that are not accurate? Is it possible--as I've tried to point out--that your assumptions about Falwell's and Robertson's motives when they talked about 9/11 were also not accurate?

In my beliefs, when we make an assertion, it should be true ... to the best of our knowledge. OK, we're all going to have times when we make mistakes, but when we discover that these things were mistakes, it is our responsibility to go back and correct those mistakes. If you find out that the "Training Facility" is a rumor or a lie that you accepted in good faith, will you retract your statements?

Justin the Burning times began when Constantine started his purges of the pagan temples. and then Moved Forward to Europe. I am not talking about the medieval europe atrocities that went on..The Burning times I am refering to started at around 400ce. I would suggest you google the Persecution of the Hellenes for the full story...

I'm quite well aware of the history. We can cover that later.

anyway gotta run and visit my grandma.

Cool! Have fun!

Justin

[Amazing Rando]

Can't say I'm a fan of Constantine either- for other reasons.

[One Bad Pig]

Can't say I'm a fan of Constantine either- for other reasons.
:that:

[Cu Mhorrigan]

No, you've not told any lies, and please don't take my statements as an acusation: that's not what I'm about here.

Cu, my major purpose in confronting you is not to criticise your motive as you've stated them here: I, too, want to avoid any sort of Christian theocracy in America. (I also want to avoid a Pagan theocracy, but that's beside the point for this discussion.) However, if that goal cannot be obtained in an honorable manner, then (IMO) it's not worth attaining. Justin When it comes to battles there are only winners, and everyone else. what matters is not being the Everyone else. do you think the fundemetnalists will act with such Honor and integrity? HELL NO! Their beliefs make it clear that what they do to us is God's will and they will stop at nothing to make asure we dont exist.

OK, so you haven't told any lied ... the question remains, then: have you told the truth? Again, that's not an accusation of dishonesty: that's a question of whether or not your statements reflect what is actually going on. Is it possible that you've heard some things about Robertson's supposed "Training Facilities" that are not accurate? Is it possible--as I've tried to point out--that your assumptions about Falwell's and Robertson's motives when they talked about 9/11 were also not accurate? Justin Again What purpose could falwell have had in blaming us if not to A) divert our attention from their flaws (That one I will give you) and B) Piss off enough christians to once again sound the cries of "Spiritual warfare" and we all know what that means...Gettin up the kindling and having a witch fry!! The point is Justin there is NO reason to believe that falwell has any other motive than to scare the shit out of His followers about us. It was good though that people were too pissed off at the arabs at that point to believe His trash.

In my beliefs, when we make an assertion, it should be true ... to the best of our knowledge. OK, we're all going to have times when we make mistakes, but when we discover that these things were mistakes, it is our responsibility to go back and correct those mistakes. If you find out that the "Training Facility" is a rumor or a lie that you accepted in good faith, will you retract your statements? Justin I am going by not only what I belive but also what I have heard pat robertson said about his own college. it is designed to train up men (And women, which he aded relucantly) to take this nation back to the fundementalist regime. Nothing More nothing less. Fallwell's training camp has the same purpose to make little nazis to join the legal profession and the academic so that He controlls all sources of information (in Jesus Name of course).



I'm quite well aware of the history. We can cover that later. If you are aware of the atrocities against the Hellenes then there is nothing to discuss later.



Cool! Have fun!

Justin
Thanks Justing I did :wink:

There are certain words that we don't allow usage of at Tweb. Those were 2 of them!

[technomage]

do you think the fundemetnalists will act with such Honor and integrity?

Do I care what they do? But I do care what I do.

I will act with honor and integrity if it costs me my life. That doesn't mean that I plan on laying down and letting people walk over me ... but it does mean that if I have to defend the innocent against the guilty, I shall--even if the "innocent" is a Christian, and the "guilty" is a Pagan.

That's not what I would do by preference, but I will do as I must.

Justin