Agree to disagree?

[technomage]

I'd like the opinions of both Christians and Pagans on this one.

When dealing with Christians, what is the best path? Do we simply agree to disagree? As Pagans, we can do that--but as Christians, they can't and won't.

And at that, there are more times than I care to admit that I'm tempted to follow the path of those who (pardon the pun) "evangelically" broadcast their reasons for disbelieving the Bible. Yet I also look back and see how traumatic that realization was in my life. Yes, to be perfectly succinct, Christians are following a fantasy ... and the more "literalist" their interpretation of the Bible is, the more fantastic their beliefs.

"Credo qui absurdum" has been taken to its ultimate limit in professing that God "planted" the evidence of the fossil record, the age of the universe, and the structures and similarities in the various species, making God out as a deceiver who places false evidence within His creation.

Do I force Christians to see the evidence ... or do I simply shrug and go on my merry way, allowing them to remain in their fantasy world?

:lol: And do you wonder that I'm unsure of which is the best way to handle things?

[Xmansmommy]

Hey Justin. :smile: I have no problems as a Christian agreeing to disagree. I know that my views over the years have changed and I'm willing to allow others the ability to grow and learn to. I know this may rub some Christians the wrong way, but I honestly think the reason many Christians aren't able to agree to disagree is because they lack trust in God's ability to teach another something He's already taught or teaching them and/or their inability to believe there is something God has yet to teach them. :doh:

I'll pretty much share my beliefs with anyone who I feel is sincerely asking (and many who aren't for the benefit of those listening). I do tend to rely on God to show me who's ready to hear something I have to share. But I will admit it's not always easy to walk away when someone has misrepresented what I actually believe. :shrug: I hope I haven't derailed your thread too much. :blush:

[Bill the Cat]

I'd like the opinions of both Christians and Pagans on this one.

When dealing with Christians, what is the best path? Do we simply agree to disagree? As Pagans, we can do that--but as Christians, they can't and won't.

And at that, there are more times than I care to admit that I'm tempted to follow the path of those who (pardon the pun) "evangelically" broadcast their reasons for disbelieving the Bible. Yet I also look back and see how traumatic that realization was in my life. Yes, to be perfectly succinct, Christians are following a fantasy ... and the more "literalist" their interpretation of the Bible is, the more fantastic their beliefs.

"Credo qui absurdum" has been taken to its ultimate limit in professing that God "planted" the evidence of the fossil record, the age of the universe, and the structures and similarities in the various species, making God out as a deceiver who places false evidence within His creation.

Do I force Christians to see the evidence ... or do I simply shrug and go on my merry way, allowing them to remain in their fantasy world?

:lol: And do you wonder that I'm unsure of which is the best way to handle things?
Justin,

I respect you very much. However, what you see as fantasy, I see as hope. I don't have all the answers, but I rest assured by my faith in the one who loved me first. I agree to disagree all the time, so here is no different. You have chosen your path in life and I respect your right to choose that path. I do pray that you will return to Christ, but nothing my human feeble words can say will make that happen. So I will pray...

Bill

[Sparko]

Sorry, but following a provably made-up religion called wicca ISN'T following a fantasy?

[Ryokan]

:popcorn:

[technomage]

Sorry, but following a provably made-up religion called wicca ISN'T following a fantasy?

John, do you know why Wicca was made up?

Of course, I can't speak for Gardner, but I can speak for me. If we accept as axiomatic that God exists (as I do), and that God is a lot more powerful than we are (as I do), then we're forced to the conclusion that we are not capable of understanding God--except perhaps in the most general sense, and even that is questionable.

Yes, all religions are wrong when they make claims about God--including Christianity, and definitely including Wicca. But I am persuaded that God has worked with people--regardless of the religion they profess, if any--to gain a relationship with "Him."

Why do I follow a made-up religion? Because it's no more ineffective than any other "True Religion" (TM) out there.

[Sparko]

John, do you know why Wicca was made up?

Of course, I can't speak for Gardner, but I can speak for me. If we accept as axiomatic that God exists (as I do), and that God is a lot more powerful than we are (as I do), then we're forced to the conclusion that we are not capable of understanding God--except perhaps in the most general sense, and even that is questionable.

Yes, all religions are wrong when they make claims about God--including Christianity, and definitely including Wicca. But I am persuaded that God has worked with people--regardless of the religion they profess, if any--to gain a relationship with "Him."

Why do I follow a made-up religion? Because it's no more ineffective than any other "True Religion" ™ out there.


Regardless of your reasoning, you dissed Christians for following a 'fantasy' in your OP, when you yourself follow a fantasy that you even admit was made up.

Christians will argue that our religion is not man made, but revealed by God and historically based. If we are wrong, at least we BELIEVE we are following the truth instead of following a fantasy on PURPOSE as wiccans do.

[Amazing Rando]

Do I force Christians to see the evidence ... or do I simply shrug and go on my merry way, allowing them to remain in their fantasy world?



Oh no question- by all means, crush us under your overwhelming rhetorical and evidential might. :yes:

[technomage]

Regardless of your reasoning, you dissed Christians for following a 'fantasy' in your OP, when you yourself follow a fantasy that you even admit was made up.

John, I certainly didn't intend my OP as "dissing" Christianity or Christians. But yes, that is the view I have to take, based on the evidence available to me. It may be seen as disrespectful, but I have to call a spade a spade.


Christians will argue that our religion is not man made, but revealed by God and historically based. If we are wrong, at least we BELIEVE we are following the truth instead of following a fantasy on PURPOSE as wiccans do.

I know. But from where I sit, taking this statement into account, then I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that the major difference between Christianity and Wicca is that we know we're following something that's not objectively true. You are also following something that is not objectively true, but are simply are not aware of that.

[technomage]

Oh no question- by all means, crush us under your overwhelming rhetorical and evidential might. :yes:
I will crush you under the weight of coconut cream. :pie:

[Sparko]

I know. But from where I sit, taking this statement into account, then I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that the major difference between Christianity and Wicca is that we know we're following something that's not objectively true. You are also following something that is not objectively true, but are simply are not aware of that.

That may indeed be the case, but how silly is it to follow a faith that you know is a fantasy verses following one that you genuinely believe is true? Sorry, but if I KNEW Christianity was a fantasy, I would drop it like a hot rock. For you to follow a faith you know is false is incomprehensible to me.

[technomage]

That may indeed be the case, but how silly is it to follow a faith that you know is a fantasy verses following one that you genuinely believe is true? Sorry, but if I KNEW Christianity was a fantasy, I would drop it like a hot rock. For you to follow a faith you know is false is incomprehensible to me.

:shrug: And for me, it's like picking which side of the road to drive on. There's nothing intrinsically "right" about driving in the right lane ... the Brits have been driving in the left lane since they standardized their roads.

If neither Christianity nor Wicca is intrinsically "true," but either can get you in contact with the Creator, then what's the hassle?

[JardinPrayer]

I'm weighing in here, Justin. I think each of us, regardless of the spiritual path we walk, must be careful as we wrestle with the seductive and powerful urge to "call a spade a spade." I believe this is the primary deterent to us being in one accord, unseparated from each other and God, as He wishes us to be. I believe it is far more important for us to look for the places where we are like than to dispute the places where we differ. Belief is just that: belief. Can we know our spade is, in fact a spade...or are we compelled to try to keep from cringing when we realize that a silly line from The Matrix is, perhaps, closer to the truth: There is no spoon (spade)? As flawed beings, how can any of us lay claim to truth with impunity? What Christians have been provided with to cope with the vacuum left by this is a God who tells us "I am the one true God," and "I am the way, the truth and the life." We follow that not so much because we know it as truth as because we believe. Faith is elusive and intangible...qualities I know you are comfortable with...but it is such a great gift when you have it.

As a Christian, I am closer to Xmansmommy in my feeling that I am content to continue to interact with those with whom I am not in accord. Again, I believe it is more pleasing to God to seek the oneness between us, and I pray our continued encounters offer opportunity for God to use me as a vessel for His will. I surely don't know what He has in store for you or me or anyone else...but I believe He is at work always and I am committed to yielding myself to Him wherever I can perceive an opportunity to do so.

I am curious to see what other non-Christians have to say here, as I believe only Christians have weighed in thus far.

[Sparko]

If neither Christianity nor Wicca is intrinsically "true," but either can get you in contact with the Creator, then what's the hassle?

Well logically, you have a better chance connecting to the creator through a religion that claims to be revealed by the creator himself, than by a religion that you know was made up by a person.

Also, if I were the creator. I would honor someone who honestly believed they had the truth about me and were wrong, than someone who knew they were following a false way and followed it anyway.

[Warcraft3]

I know. But from where I sit, taking this statement into account, then I'm left with the inescapable conclusion that the major difference between Christianity and Wicca is that we know we're following something that's not objectively true. You are also following something that is not objectively true, but are simply are not aware of that.

Huh?

How so?

How can any belief system be labeled "objectively true"?

I dont know any Christians in real life that think their belief is objective or beyond question.....

I would say that (from my experience) most Christians are very aware of the weaknesses present in their beliefs and know it is anything but objective.

So I would say it is very subjective, but that does not mean it is not true.

And when I say true I dont mean "true for me", but I mean "true for everyone regardless of whether they believe or not".

Since a large portion of the "evidence" that leads me to this conclusion is my personal experiences (and they are, of course, subjective) I do not fool myself in thinking that apologetics provides a strong positive case for Christianity.

I think maybe, just maybe, the strong defense of Christianity (and perhaps a few select arguements) could be a weak positive case...for the most part apologetics is mainly a defense of our beliefs.

So "objective" arguements are very limited in usefullness for converting someone....people need an experience with God.




Russ

[Amazing Rando]

Huh?

How so?

How can any belief system be labeled "objectively true"?

I dont know any Christians in real life that think their belief is objective or beyond question.....

I would say that (from my experience) most Christians are very aware of the weaknesses present in their beliefs and know it is anything but objective.

So I would say it is very subjective, but that does not mean it is not true.

And when I say true I dont mean "true for me", but I mean "true for everyone regardless of whether they believe or not".

Since a large portion of the "evidence" that leads me to this conclusion is my personal experiences (and they are, of course, subjective) I do not fool myself in thinking that apologetics provides a strong positive case for Christianity.

I think maybe, just maybe, the strong defense of Christianity (and perhaps a few select arguements) could be a weak positive case...for the most part apologetics is mainly a defense of our beliefs.

So "objective" arguements are very limited in usefullness for converting someone....people need an experience with God.




Russ

That was a very good post!

[technomage]

Huh?

How so?

How can any belief system be labeled "objectively true"?

Any religion makes claims--in the case of Christianity, some of those claims are subjective (as you acknowledge), but some of them are objective claims--in this case, the Genesis account (by the Literalists) and the Crucifixion (by most all self-proclaimed Christians) are claimed to be objectively true. And to the best of my understanding, anything that is claimed to be "true whether you believe it or not" is making a claim for objective truth.

In the case of Christianity, most Christians claim that their doctrine is "true whether you believe it or not"--thus a claim of objective truth.

[Warcraft3]

Any religion makes claims--in the case of Christianity, some of those claims are subjective (as you acknowledge), but some of them are objective claims--in this case, the Genesis account (by the Literalists) and the Crucifixion (by most all self-proclaimed Christians) are claimed to be objectively true. And to the best of my understanding, anything that is claimed to be "true whether you believe it or not" is making a claim for objective truth.

Perhaps I should word my thoughts a different way.......

I can say that I believe the supernatural claims of scripture are objectively true...but I can not say that I can prove objectively that they are true.

I would think most Christians would agree with that....


In the case of Christianity, most Christians claim that their doctrine is "true whether you believe it or not"--thus a claim of objective truth.


Yeah.....but most people wouldnt bother believing in something that they thought was only true if they believed in it.....

So I dont think believing in Christianity is much different in that regard from believing most things.....

most people do not knowingly choose to believe in something that is not true




Russ

[technomage]

Perhaps I should word my thoughts a different way.......

I can say that I believe the supernatural claims of scripture are objectively true...but I can not say that I can prove objectively that they are true.

I would think most Christians would agree with that....

Precisely. We agreed on the thought, just not on the terminology.

Hey, that means I disagreed with you, yet still avoided the Steadele fallacy! :hehe:



Yeah.....but most people wouldnt bother believing in something that they thought was only true if they believed in it.....

So I dont think believing in Christianity is much different in that regard from believing most things.....

most people do not knowingly choose to believe in something that is not true

Hmmm ... I can dig that. But when Christians try to witness to others, and others--"knowing" (subjectively, of course) that Christianity is not true--object or refuse to change their position ... well, it gets rather difficult at that point for Christians to say "Well, I've given you the Gospel, but if you don't believe, you're going to hell." And I know that's not a completely fair stereotype of "typical Christian behavior," but it is frequent enough that there is still a ring of truth to it.

[Warcraft3]

Precisely. We agreed on the thought, just not on the terminology.

Hey, that means I disagreed with you, yet still avoided the Steadele fallacy! :hehe:

Heh....

:cheers:





Hmmm ... I can dig that. But when Christians try to witness to others, and others--"knowing" (subjectively, of course) that Christianity is not true--object or refuse to change their position ... well, it gets rather difficult at that point for Christians to say "Well, I've given you the Gospel, but if you don't believe, you're going to hell." And I know that's not a completely fair stereotype of "typical Christian behavior," but it is frequent enough that there is still a ring of truth to it.


There are Christians who go out and try to "witness" to people...

In my opinion....unless such witnessing is led by the Spirit and the Christian has plently of time one their knees backing them up...such witnessing usually ends up being a nice discussion with little or no impact.




Russ

[Xmansmommy]

There are Christians who go out and try to "witness" to people...

In my opinion....unless such witnessing is led by the Spirit and the Christian has plently of time one their knees backing them up...such witnessing usually ends up being a nice discussion with little or no impact.




Russ

Or at least little or no impact toward the intent.

[JardinPrayer]

Yeah that. We have a good friend who is the guitar player in the church band where we used to attend. He's an addictive personality, so when he got saved, he spent all day on his face in prayer...and when he believed he had been Holy Spirit baptized, he spoke in tongues until he dropped from exhaustion...and when a guest speaker came to church to get everyone all excited about street evangelism...well...you see where this is going. The guy has literally been incapable of having a conversation with anyone that does not get engineered toward how many people he saved that week or that day. He carries a bible in his back pocket and has been enthusiastically telling us how he has been hanging around shopping center parking lots until security kicks him off and how he stops his car at construction sites to witness to the workers. He talks about how many times his bodily welfare has been threatened - or worse, his life - as though it were a badge of honor. It is the number of souls he believes he has saved...that is, the number of people he managed to convinced to say a prayer of salvation with him in that moment, that matters to him.

I keep my mouth shut most of the time. Once, I blurted out (in a kind tone), "I don't recall the scripture where it says 'Go now and make disciples of all men, dragging them kicking and screaming unto the Lord.'" I may believe those who do not hear are doomed to be eternally separated from God, but I do not feel an urgent need to be the one to convince them of that (God does the watering of any seed I plant, and ultimately, the calling and answering is between Him and that person). I'm not that lofty. I am a servant, and I know I am a poor one at that...as are we all. That is why we need a saviour. If someone responds to me as a Christian and inquires more deeply than any witnessing or gospel-sharing I have done, I will happily engage and accept that as evidence God is at work and wishes to use me.

Christians come in a number of flavors. We have Christians right here on this board that make me ashamed they are crawling around claiming righteousness and holding themselves up as pillars of Christliness. But, Justin, you have alluded to contempt for many who would call themselves Wiccan as well.

That said, I would have to offer this: Why not consider stepping away from sweeping generalizations and broad stroke policies when dealing with others? We are all children of God and from there, who can say?

[Geifodd]

Sparko writes:

Well logically, you have a better chance connecting to the creator through a religion that claims to be revealed by the creator himself, than by a religion that you know was made up by a person.

There is a major problem with the logic of this statement.

Religion A: the religion that claims to be revealed by the Creator Itself
Religion B: the religion that is known to be made up by a person.

All theistic religions fit under both A and B. They all claim to be somehow revealed or in touch with the creative force (whether it is viewed as sentient entity or not). However, all religions are man-made. Even your religion was founded by a human being -- and your belief that this human being was God incarnate cannot be conclusively proven. The Creator did not exactly come down from the sky and write down the Bible and its various translations for all to read, did It? Instead, human beings wrote the Bible and its translations, as well as every other holy text on the planet, regardless of whether they were "revealed" or not. And human beings have been known to make mistakes. Especially in translation.

So your statement here does not hold water when applied to logic. Christianity is just as much of a "made up" religion as Wicca. Until you can systematically prove that Jesus was born of a virgin and that he was successfully resurrected after his crucifixion, then there is still plenty of good reason for non-Christians to believe that *Christianity itself* is a man-made religion. Regardless of whether your beliefs are "objective truths" or not, the fact is that there is not much by way of objective evidence outside of Biblical scripture to support such belief; therefore, your beliefs require the element of faith in order to be sustained. And indeed this is true with all religions -- including my own.

But regardless of the fact that both Christianity and Wicca are created and perpetuated by human beings (as are all religions), people nevertheless have been reported to have genuine spiritual experiences in both. I think Justin's point is that he admits that his religion was founded by human beings and that it is not objectively verifiable. But many Christians, despite the lack of objective evidence for their beliefs, often claim that their religion is the absolute truth as ordained by "God," and this strikes many people outside of Christianity as being intellectually dishonest.

[Sparko]

Sparko writes:

Well logically, you have a better chance connecting to the creator through a religion that claims to be revealed by the creator himself, than by a religion that you know was made up by a person.

There is a major problem with the logic of this statement.

Religion A: the religion that claims to be revealed by the Creator Itself
Religion B: the religion that is known to be made up by a person.

All theistic religions fit under both A and B. They all claim to be somehow revealed or in touch with the creative force (whether it is viewed as sentient entity or not). However, all religions are man-made. Even your religion was founded by a human being -- and your belief that this human being was God incarnate cannot be conclusively proven. The Creator did not exactly come down from the sky and write down the Bible and its various translations for all to read, did It? Instead, human beings wrote the Bible and its translations, as well as every other holy text on the planet, regardless of whether they were "revealed" or not. And human beings have been known to make mistakes. Especially in translation.

So your statement here does not hold water when applied to logic. Christianity is just as much of a "made up" religion as Wicca. Until you can systematically prove that Jesus was born of a virgin and that he was successfully resurrected after his crucifixion, then there is still plenty of good reason for non-Christians to believe that *Christianity itself* is a man-made religion. Regardless of whether your beliefs are "objective truths" or not, the fact is that there is not much by way of objective evidence outside of Biblical scripture to support such belief; therefore, your beliefs require the element of faith in order to be sustained. And indeed this is true with all religions -- including my own.

But regardless of the fact that both Christianity and Wicca are created and perpetuated by human beings (as are all religions), people nevertheless have been reported to have genuine spiritual experiences in both. I think Justin's point is that he admits that his religion was founded by human beings and that it is not objectively verifiable. But many Christians, despite the lack of objective evidence for their beliefs, often claim that their religion is the absolute truth as ordained by "God," and this strikes many people outside of Christianity as being intellectually dishonest.

the difference Geifodd is one is a religion that I believe is true and might actually be true. Even Justin and you cannot state that Christianity is definitely false. So to believe in it does have a chance to reach the creator.

Now I decide to make up a religion on the spot and tell you that I am making it up. I am gonna call it the cult of Piracy. You have to believe that God is a big pirate in the sky and that everyone who wears an eye patch goes to heaven.

You KNOW that religion I just made up is fake. There is NO chance other than blind luck that my piracy religion will 'connect' to the true god of the universe.

To say that those who believe in piratology have the same chance at connecting with the true God of the universe as a Christian would be laughable.

Well, Wicca IS a made-up religion. It was just created out of thin air. We KNOW the history of that religion. The only chance it has of connecting to the true God of the universe is blind luck.

To believe something you KNOW is false, is much different than believing something but it having a CHANCE to be false. The second also has a good chance to be true, the first does not.

[technomage]

You KNOW that religion I just made up is fake.

STOP! Stop right there, John--because that's the crux of the problem. In this case, there is an almost infinite gulf between "made up" and "fake", and in this case, that gulf is called "faith." If you have faith, then it's not "fake"--because it's not the form of religion followed, it's the belief.

[Geifodd]

Sparko:

Well, Wicca IS a made-up religion. It was just created out of thin air.

No offense, Sparko, but that's a load of cow manure that stinks so bad that I can smell it all the way down here in Texas. Wicca was first conceptualized and organized by Gerald Gardner, but he got the ideas for his religion from a wide variety of resources, including Celtic folk paganism, traditional European witchcraft and just a touch of Aleister Crowley to make the mix even more contraversial. Gardner did NOT just pull the religion out of thin air, and if you continue making statements like this, it will only serve to demonstrate how little research you have done in this field. And considering how little research you have done, your opinion of Wicca cannot be considered valid in any sense of the term.

[furay]

Do we simply agree to disagree? As Pagans, we can do that--but as Christians, they can't and won't.

Says who? I agree to disagree with you, Justin. We see things differently and no amount of debate will alter that. Instead of trying to change your opinions with intellectual arrogance, I think it would be much more productive to just love you as a fellow human being and pray for you. I know you'll do the same for me. Therefore, all is ducky. :smile:

[JardinPrayer]

Says who? I agree to disagree with you, Justin. We see things differently and no amount of debate will alter that. Instead of trying to change your opinions with intellectual arrogance, I think it would be much more productive to just love you as a fellow human being and pray for you. I know you'll do the same for me. Therefore, all is ducky. :smile:

:yipee::yipee::yipee::yipee::yipee::yipee::yipee::yipee::yipee::yipee:

Well said!

[tmancour]

the difference Geifodd is one is a religion that I believe is true and might actually be true. Even Justin and you cannot state that Christianity is definitely false. So to believe in it does have a chance to reach the creator.


Couldn't help but weigh in, here. I would have to say that there are elements of Christianity that are definately false, and others that are highly probable to be false. Some of these elements are pretty essential to the logic of Christian theology, too.




Now I decide to make up a religion on the spot and tell you that I am making it up. I am gonna call it the cult of Piracy. You have to believe that God is a big pirate in the sky and that everyone who wears an eye patch goes to heaven.


ARRRGH! I BE SAVED!
:lol:



You KNOW that religion I just made up is fake. There is NO chance other than blind luck that my piracy religion will 'connect' to the true god of the universe.


Whoaa -- now wait a minute, matey! The religion you just made up is NOT fake -- if you practice it, and ou believe it, then it is a real religion. Now as to whether or not it is theologically and metaphysically sound, that is another question. But that hasn't stopped a goodly number of religions from continuing indefinately. Some pretty big ones, too. And there is a strong school of thought that says that every religion, if devoutly believed and practiced, can connect with the "true god of the universe".

But not every religion postulates a "true god of the universe". That's really an Abrahamic thing. The problem is that in Western thought the Abrahamic ideas about religion have been so pervasive that we have a hard time conceptualizing religion without a "true god of the universe" -- despite the fact that other human religions get along just fine without that concept, thank you very much.




To say that those who believe in piratology have the same chance at connecting with the true God of the universe as a Christian would be laughable.


Why? According to most Christian doctrine, it is faith alone which connects you to the "true god of the universe" -- indeed, without faith (i.e. absolute belief without proof) Jehovah cannot be "connected to". Faith is essential to the practice of Christianity. So why not piratology? If faith can make the salvation of Christians possible, why could it not also provide the basis for Pirate Steve to go to heaven when he kicks?



Well, Wicca IS a made-up religion. It was just created out of thin air. We KNOW the history of that religion. The only chance it has of connecting to the true God of the universe is blind luck.


So are all religions. Moses "made up" Judaism; the apostles and St. Paul "made up" Christianity, and Mohommed "made up" Islaam. Zoroaster "made up" Zoarostrianism. Buddha "made up" Buddhism. K'ung Fu Tze "made up" Confucism. All were "made up" in the human imagination and may, or may not, have been informed by "divine inspiration".

It's even clearer in the Abrahamic faiths that these religions were "made up". Any text-based religion has an author, known or unknown, and the whole idea of authorship and composition is "making up" stuff.

In re: Wicca, few studied Wiccans will deny the historical origins of our religion. Indeed, we feel comforted by it in a way. Because Gardener "made up" the religion just as all religions were "made up": by syncretizing elements from previous faiths, beliefs, and practices to a unique new creation. Yet, despite his importance to the faith, he isn't held in terribly high repute by most Wiccans. Hardly the cultic figure that Moses, Jesus, and Mohommed became. Which is a relief. I think human civilization has finally started to come to a point in its intellectual development where such cultic figures are necessary for a meaningful religious life.

As far as a Wiccan connection to the "true god of the universe", I'd have to say that the worship of the Goddess as Giver of Life is as close as a human can come to that.



To believe something you KNOW is false, is much different than believing something but it having a CHANCE to be false. The second also has a good chance to be true, the first does not.

Yet Christianity persists in "believing" in the Genisis account and actually taking it seriously enough to try to force it on our National Park system -- despite abundant scientific evidence that it is false. Ditto evolution. A hundred years of hard, solid scientific data on the table, and Christians (enough of them to matter) still insist that it is all wrong, based solely on a poorly translated five-thousand year old text.

You cannot have recourse to the "true or false" idea of relgion without accepting science, the one human invention that is wholely and entirely dedicated to discovering and cataloging objective truth. Not and be intellectually honest.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[JardinPrayer]

Whoaa -- now wait a minute, matey! The religion you just made up is NOT fake -- if you practice it, and ou believe it, then it is a real religion. Now as to whether or not it is theologically and metaphysically sound, that is another question.
I think this may be a battle of semantics. Justin took issue with this comment as well...but I believe you and Sparko are saying the same thing. The example he presented did not reveal whether he believed in the big pirate in the sky himself...but presumes he does not...so when he presents it to another, he is knowingly presenting something false...therefore, fake. That does not seem to disagree with what you say here.


But not every religion postulates a "true god of the universe". That's really an Abrahamic thing. The problem is that in Western thought the Abrahamic ideas about religion have been so pervasive that we have a hard time conceptualizing religion without a "true god of the universe" -- despite the fact that other human religions get along just fine without that concept, thank you very much.
Not sure I understand why that is a "problem." I'm perfectly at peace with it.


Why? According to most Christian doctrine, it is faith alone which connects you to the "true god of the universe" -- indeed, without faith (i.e. absolute belief without proof) Jehovah cannot be "connected to". Faith is essential to the practice of Christianity. So why not piratology? If faith can make the salvation of Christians possible, why could it not also provide the basis for Pirate Steve to go to heaven when he kicks?
Because it is "by faith alone, through Christ alone." We believe "with our whole hearts," in the God who has told us Himself that He is the one true God. Since, as you confess, no other religion does that, I find it to be an easy road to follow. The flaws are in the men...the ones whom both God and the enemy have used to do their will, whether it be to pen the scriptures, interpret them, or execute the principles therein, not in the God or the truth themselves. I pray you can understand our experience here.


So are all religions. Moses "made up" Judaism; the apostles and St. Paul "made up" Christianity, and Mohommed "made up" Islaam. Zoroaster "made up" Zoarostrianism. Buddha "made up" Buddhism. K'ung Fu Tze "made up" Confucism. All were "made up" in the human imagination and may, or may not, have been informed by "divine inspiration".
I disagree, at least in the case of Moses and the early Christian leaders. Again, I believe we are getting mired in semantics...if our goal is to truly understand each other, should we not stretch ourselves to understand the spirit of what we are trying to say to each other, rather than jump up and down on the letter of it?


In re: Wicca, few studied Wiccans will deny the historical origins of our religion. Indeed, we feel comforted by it in a way. Because Gardener "made up" the religion just as all religions were "made up": by syncretizing elements from previous faiths, beliefs, and practices to a unique new creation. Yet, despite his importance to the faith, he isn't held in terribly high repute by most Wiccans. Hardly the cultic figure that Moses, Jesus, and Mohommed became. Which is a relief. I think human civilization has finally started to come to a point in its intellectual development where such cultic figures are necessary for a meaningful religious life.
Did you mean "unecessary," here?
This paragraph is a good example of an attempt made to explain your experience (or possibly represent all of Wicca) to non-wiccans. I will read it and make a considered attempt to understand the experience rather than leap at the opportunity to dismantle it and defend my own faith. I believe Justin started the thread to foster real communication rather than debate. If I am wrong, Justin, do say so. In that context, I don't think we can achieve this goal by brandishing our swords and shields. I know my faith is not so fragile that I need to puff up my chest the moment someone presents a conflicting idea. The best way I can glorify God is to be a living example of His love and a vessel for His will. I believe Wicca has similar principles regarding how we interract with our fellow human. You see...we are identifying a like trait...a place to start to bridge us.


As far as a Wiccan connection to the "true god of the universe", I'd have to say that the worship of the Goddess as Giver of Life is as close as a human can come to that.
Indeed it is, so long as you are Wiccan.


Yet Christianity persists in "believing" in the Genisis account and actually taking it seriously enough to try to force it on our National Park system -- despite abundant scientific evidence that it is false. Ditto evolution. A hundred years of hard, solid scientific data on the table, and Christians (enough of them to matter) still insist that it is all wrong, based solely on a poorly translated five-thousand year old text.
I believe you are confusing "Christianity," with "Christians," and perhaps with individual Christians, as well. I would imagine you are quick to defend your position when sweeping generalizations are made about Wicca or Wiccans, no? Every faith has radicals and false representatives. "Christianity," isn't doing anything at all. Christians are, but ony some of them. This thread, alone, has alredy illustrated some of the varieties of Christian one might encounter. The point is, we are all human. Let us reach out from there, shall we?


You cannot have recourse to the "true or false" idea of relgion without accepting science, the one human invention that is wholely and entirely dedicated to discovering and cataloging objective truth. Not and be intellectually honest.
There are many places where science and Christianity are in perfect harmony, and many Christians who are, in fact, scientists. Science, however, cannot quantify or qualify one thing: faith. Science is a tool man uses to understand his universe...it is, therefore, limited by man's ability to understand. That it is dedicated to cataloging objective truth does not mean it achieves said goal utterly. This is why there are new discoveries every day. How wonderful! If you limit yourself only to intellectualism, you miss the greatest part of God.

[technomage]

That said, I would have to offer this: Why not consider stepping away from sweeping generalizations and broad stroke policies when dealing with others? We are all children of God and from there, who can say?

And I have to admit that, even while I'm trying to avoid sweeping generalizations, some generalization is necessary to make communication possible. After all, if I were to go through a list of all the Christians who believe that I'm going to hell because I'm Wiccan, that would more than fill up the 24000 character post limit. :hehe:

But more fundamentally ... you're right, all Christians are individuals, and as you and Furay have reminded me, there are Christians who do agree to disagree--temporarily. But are there Christians here who even consider the possibility that Wiccans are actually in touch with the Creator?

:shrug: And I know it doesn't really matter what we, as human beings, think of our fellow human beings and their walk with God. It is the Creator's opinion that matters. But there are times when it gets very tiring to hear "Your wrong, I'm right," with absolutely no evidence offered for the assertion.

[JardinPrayer]

And I have to admit that, even while I'm trying to avoid sweeping generalizations, some generalization is necessary to make communication possible. After all, if I were to go through a list of all the Christians who believe that I'm going to hell because I'm Wiccan, that would more than fill up the 24000 character post limit. :hehe:
That may be, Justin, but as I said earlier, whether or not I hold that as a belief does not mean I feel the need to tackle you to the ground, sit on your chest and scream "REPENT!" in your face. You believe many things I disagree with, too. What we choose to share with one another should always be done in gentleness and kindness. Leave wrath to God, I say. Ours is neither to judge nor take up the battle. God said, "The battle is not yours, but mine." Ours is to love God and one another. For some, expressing love means getting heavy handed about the gospel. Try to see that as their expression of love and it makes them easier to deal with...sometimes. :wink: To be honest, I have issues with those Christians myself!


But more fundamentally ... you're right, all Christians are individuals, and as you and Furay have reminded me, there are Christians who do agree to disagree--temporarily. But are there Christians here who even consider the possibility that Wiccans are actually in touch with the Creator?
Sure. I know I do and I am confident many Christians consider the possibility. We have scriptures like, "My father's house has many mansions (rooms). I go now to prepare one for you." I have interpreted this to mean that God may be reaching out to different peoples in different ways and for those who hear His call, it's all good. However, scriptures like "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me," have compelled me to walk the path I have chosen. If I waver from that straight and narrow, I cannot follow without leaving myself vulnerable to what I consider to be dangerous distractions. My commitment is to what I whole-heartedly believe is ultimately right. Since God tells us in Isaiah 55 that his ways and thoughts are higher than ours, I can imagine there may be some way in which he maybe providing for some others we may not consider his sheep but He may. I don't know and I cannot know. But I do trust that His plan is perfect, regardless of my understanding. This is the very nature of faith for me. And it is what allows me to relax and enjoy the places where you and I are alike. We are instructed to "rest in the Lord." He's got it...we don't have to work so hard except to love Him and one another (the greatest commandments).


:shrug: And I know it doesn't really matter what we, as human beings, think of our fellow human beings and their walk with God. It is the Creator's opinion that matters. But there are times when it gets very tiring to hear "Your wrong, I'm right," with absolutely no evidence offered for the assertion.
I could not agree more with your exasperation, though I might dispute the "absolutely no evidence" part. But, for the sake of oneness, let's focus on the agreement!

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,


When dealing with Christians, what is the best path? Do we simply agree to disagree? As Pagans, we can do that--but as Christians, they can't and won't.
Yes, that is correct.

Ephesians 5:11 Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them...

I do agree that love must be shown, and that is primary, and points of agreement with another person are good to acknowledge, yet this other part must be done too.

Luke 16:28 ... for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.

Even a man in hell will want them warned, Christians really should do this too, yet out of caring, not out of wanting conflict, or from self-righteousness.


Yes, to be perfectly succinct, Christians are following a fantasy ... and the more "literalist" their interpretation of the Bible is, the more fantastic their beliefs.
Well, this would be your conclusion! It would not be mine.


"Credo qui absurdum" has been taken to its ultimate limit in professing that God "planted" the evidence of the fossil record, the age of the universe, and the structures and similarities in the various species, making God out as a deceiver who places false evidence within His creation.
Not all Christians hold this, though, I am one who does not.


And do you wonder that I'm unsure of which is the best way to handle things?
This would seem to assume that Wicca has no dangers. Are not initiates taught that there are dangers? Within Wicca, I mean, all is not peace and light, the gods sometimes devour.

Surely that would be a reason to disagree, if there is a different God (as in the cross), with firm evidence (as in real prediction of the future), and a different way, with "a sure hope."

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Surely that would be a reason to disagree, if there is a different God (as in the cross), with firm evidence (as in real prediction of the future), and a different way, with "a sure hope."

Lee, when you twist "prophecy" five different ways from Sunday to claim it has been "fulfilled"--not to mention ignoring "prophecy" that wasn't--can you really be surprised when someone then tells you that you're full of baloney?

[Sparko]

Thanks Jardin, you said pretty much what I would have said.

I think that following a known false religion and thinking that is just as good as following Christianity or any other religion is truly the epitome of the Relativist Generation. Its says so much about people that they think that whatever they believe is true as long as it makes them feel good.

Well I don't want to believe in Christianity just because it "works for me" - I believe in Christianity because I believe it is true. True for me, true for you, true for everyone. And by it being true, that makes all other religions false. Especially ones that are absolutely KNOWN to be made up on the spot with not even a claim to any truth about God. Wicca was a buffet religon. It was synthesized from various pagan religions and basically put together by this guy who decided to take a piece here, a piece there, make up a bit here, toss in a bit there and presented as a package for new age pagans to follow.

That people would actually follow that religion knowing that it is a fake made-up religion boggles my mind. But having read what Tmancour wrote in his post to me, I see that many people don't actually care about objective truth, but just what subjectively feels good for them. They think that if they enjoy their religion, even knowing it is made-up that they are somehow connecting with the creator. That is completely self-delusional IMO.

[technomage]

I think that following a known false religion and thinking that is just as good as following Christianity or any other religion is truly the epitome of the Relativist Generation.

Not to put too fine a point on it, John ... I have the choice of following the "false" religion of Wicca, or the "false" religion of Christianity. Both false for the very same reason--anhistoricity.

You got a problem with the speck in my eye? Pull the plank out of yours.

[Geifodd]

That's right, just ignore whatever the Devil Worshiper happens to say. :brood:

[Sparko]

Not to put too fine a point on it, John ... I have the choice of following the "false" religion of Wicca, or the "false" religion of Christianity. Both false for the very same reason--anhistoricity.

You got a problem with the speck in my eye? Pull the plank out of yours.

the problem is you THINK Christianity is false, but you KNOW that Wicca is.

That's a big difference.

And I don't really have a problem with you personally, COM, just with the way you put your opionion in your OP. You seemed to have a problem with Christians because they are following something you think is false, but we think is true.

You seem to be thinking: Hey I know I am believing something is false, and so are the Christians. I don't have a problem with them believing in their false religion as long as they let me believe in my false religion.

The problem is that we don't think we are following somethign false. We beleive we have the absolute truth, a truth that excudes all other belief systems as false. So we can't say. "well whatever the wicca want to believe is true for them"

If you truly believed wicca was the absolute reality, you would not allow for Christians to believe what we want to either. You would be trying your best to convince us that we are fooling ourselves and are lost on the path to God.

[Sparko]

That's right, just ignore whatever the Devil Worshiper happens to say. :brood:

You are following a made up religion too. I don't know the history of your particular brand of Satanism, but I do know that whoever started it took what he wanted to from the bible and added his own 'theories' to it to make Satan a 'good' guy instead of the evil being he is in the bible.

There. Feel better now?
:wink:

[Geifodd]

Hello Sparko,

You are following a made up religion too.

That's a rather hefty claim you've just made; I hope you have some hardcore evidence to back that up. Meaning that I hope you have studied a number of comparative religious studies on Satanism to be able to say that with such confidence.

I don't know the history of your particular brand of Satanism,

This completely nullifies your previous sentence. If you don't know, how do you know? You either do or you don't. I'd say you don't.

but I do know that whoever started it took what he wanted to from the bible and added his own 'theories' to it to make Satan a 'good' guy instead of the evil being he is in the bible.

First of all, prove to me that anything Satan does in the entire Holy Bible is anywhere near as morally questionable as the various things that Jehovah does in the Old Testament, and then you JUST might have a leg to stand on. I remind you that Satan is not the one who:

(1) Punishes human beings for exercising moral and spiritual independence;
(2) Knocks down a human architectural feat due to the threatening possibility that nothing they dream of doing will be impossible for them;
(3) Drowns the entire world, save for a couple of Hebrews and some animals;
(4) Demands one of his prophets to murder his own child as a sacrifice;
(5) Murders a whole bunch of innocent Egyptian babies who didn't do anything, just because of something a Pharaoh refused to do;
(6) Commands the Hebrews to go around, slaying the men, mothers and male children of various neighboring tribes, and enslaving the virgin girls.

I could go on, but you should be getting the idea by now. Even if we interpret these things strictly according to the Bible, there are various things that Jehovah does that are morally questionable (to be polite) by modern Western cultural standards, and nothing that Satan does at any point in the Bible can hold a finger to any of them.

Of course, I imagine that you define Satan as being "evil" just because He leads people away from Christ, and not because He actually commits any brutal genocides or commands His followers to kill anybody. It is rather sad that people should think that having a difference in opinion is far more morally contemptible than actually killing somebody in cold blood. Of course, I suppose you can kill as many people you want to in cold blood, and all you have to do is beg Jesus for forgiveness, and you'll get to go to heaven anyway, right?

[Geifodd]

Here's another thought Sparko:

If you can somehow prove to me that your god-man was actually born of a virgin, and that he was actually crucified, and that he actually came back from the dead and then floated up into the sky, then I will believe you that your religion is not "made up."

But if you cannot present any such proof to me, then I will have no choice but to accuse the writers of the Gospels of having just pulled the entire idea of Christianity out of their bums.

[technomage]

the problem is you THINK Christianity is false, but you KNOW that Wicca is.

John, please try to restrain your ignorance. I mean that seriously--when I use "false" as in "anhistoric," I have the evidence, and the facts, to back that statement up. Yes, I know the score on Wicca--but I also know the score on Christianity. Any standard you select to hold Wicca to and reject it, Christianity also fails.


If you truly believed wicca was the absolute reality, you would not allow for Christians to believe what we want to either. You would be trying your best to convince us that we are fooling ourselves and are lost on the path to God.

Have you ever actually read any of my posts, John? During my time on these forums, I have never hesitated to point out that Christians can reach God despite the errors and anhistoricity of their religion.

Or is it simply that you are assuming that I am the same as you in that regard?

No, John--I have no problem with those Christians who find God. But they do so despite of Christianity, not because of it.

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,


Lee, when you twist "prophecy" five different ways from Sunday to claim it has been "fulfilled"--not to mention ignoring "prophecy" that wasn't--can you really be surprised when someone then tells you that you're full of baloney?
Um, you are not being very agreeable.

But how twistable is "Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited"?

That is why I pick such prophecies, this Babylon prophecy is even falsifiable at any time. If you want to prove me full of indigestibles, rebuild Babylon! Then I will be quite motivated to listen to you, you may teach me what you wish...

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Um, you are not being very agreeable.

Lee, I tend to do that when I'm at the very end of my patience.


But how twistable is "Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited"?

It was rebuilt. The prophecy was written sometime before 687 BCE (the year that, according to tradition, Isaiah was martyred). Two years before Isaiah's death, Babylon was, indeed, razed to the ground, by Sennacherib. It was rebuilt by Essarhadon--who, indeed, received his crown there.

Your continual claim that "Babylon will never be rebuilt or reinhabited" is a broken prophecy ... but you are still willing to treat it as "fulfilled," because it's not inhabited now. Yet your historical ignorance has resisted every single attempt to introduce anything resembling correction--a condition that has driven me to the decision that you are either choosing to be ignorant, or dishonest.

Lee, most of the prophecies that you listed have been broken ... yet you keep insisting "Oh, no, the Bible is a book of fulfilled prophecies." Crap, Lee. Hide your head in the sand and your eyes from the truth if you wish, but I refuse to accept your self-imposed blindness.

[gharfish]

If Shirley MacLaine is right, we've all got nothing to worry about. I kid. I kid.

But 'she' brings up an important point -wisdom we can all take to the bank. When, inevitably, we kick the oxygen habit...lie down to rest our organs...there'll be no unexpected death bed pranks pulled on anyone, just as long as they were sincerely -51% of the time or more- on one of the many paths that all lead to god (or satan, reinvented ?) None of these are casket-testable, afterall. Spiritual openmindedness is next to godliness, and intolerant exclusivity is of the devil.

It reminds me of the old circus clown dilemma that's by now a cliche: which is funnier ? ...seltzer or soda water ? Can one afford to stake his career on one or the other ? They don't give the answer in any clown college. "It's not in the book."

What they can't see is that it's their own childlike, magical thinking that's their undoing ! ...and only they agonize over this...blind spot...of their own making ! This is why there are as many sad clowns as happy, if not more.

If they could only see that as long as the bottle appears to be pulled out of one's bum (or an elephant's), everybody goes home satisfied. Well, their foolishness makes them all the more lovable.



So, then, let's all just let our faiths take us where they may. No bridges of understanding are actually needed, because no founder of any of the major world religions claimed exclusive truth.

The issue of hell that so divides over and over again can be laughed at as the absurd fantasy it is, one minute -"original recipe or crispy !"- or flip-flopped on any offending person as the projection of their own hate. So even it is nothing more than a nuisance. Really, it potentially can be alot of fun when it comes to messing with the heads of the nastier bigots that unfortunately come with the territory here.

Therefore, the sometimes maddening, intractable polarization that keeps TWeb in perpetual gridlock, is in fact only head gaming in the end...and would honestly be a complete waste of all's time, if it weren't for the huge ego clashes. They're like car crashes -better: demolition derbies, that just keep on coming. No one can resist a daily rubbernecking !

[tmancour]

I think this may be a battle of semantics. Justin took issue with this comment as well...but I believe you and Sparko are saying the same thing. The example he presented did not reveal whether he believed in the big pirate in the sky himself...but presumes he does not...so when he presents it to another, he is knowingly presenting something false...therefore, fake. That does not seem to disagree with what you say here.


The semantics are important.

Sparko might just pass along the Piratism religion as a joke, but from the pirates that have received this divine and revealed truth, ex cathedra Sparko the Pirate King, they believe with their whole hearts, commit their whole faith, and mold their lives on the moral and ethical system involved in Piratism.

They are believers. What they believe in is a religion. No matter how much fun you may want to poke at Sparko for his inane joke, you cannot just go to the pirate hordes, tell them that he made it up, and expect them to just stop believeing. It is their Religion, and its truth is entirely bound up in their perspective.

This is not an idle point -- because my contention is that many of the "revealed" faiths have an element of this within them. Problem, is, after it gets translated and the original authors are no longer around to let you in on the joke, you start to take it seriously. After a couple of generations, you believe in the joke so thoroughly that it becomes a tradition, or possibly even a sacrement. Short of raising the shade of the revealer, there is no way for us to know that. So the semantics of the issue are of vital importance.



Not sure I understand why that is a "problem." I'm perfectly at peace with it.


It's a problem in the sense that by accepting the Abrahamic "one true god of the universe" and its attendent baggage, you are not only limiting the debate on the merits and demerits of your faith by imposing such postulates and refusing to recognize any others, you are also voluntarily limiting your understanding of the wealth of the human religious and spiritual experience by refusing to acknowlege the validity of a path that does not conform utterly with your pre-determined framework. The former is intellectually dishonest; the latter is culturally ignorant. While I find the fact that you are at peace with refusing others the courtesy of harboring a valid, if different, idea of cosmology and theology unsurprising, I do find it depressing.



Because it is "by faith alone, through Christ alone." We believe "with our whole hearts," in the God who has told us Himself that He is the one true God. Since, as you confess, no other religion does that, I find it to be an easy road to follow. The flaws are in the men...the ones whom both God and the enemy have used to do their will, whether it be to pen the scriptures, interpret them, or execute the principles therein, not in the God or the truth themselves. I pray you can understand our experience here.


But Jesus/Jehovah revealed himself to you as such primarily, if not totally, through the agencies of one single undistinguished book. And I don't "confess" that other religions do essentially that same thing. Islaam claims that it, alone, is the true faith, and while Judaism makes no such outward claim, it does harbor that ideal within its belief and practice. All three (and others) are utterly convinced of the absolute truth of their religion, refuse to accept the validity of any others, and assert this position absolutely by claiming "faith" as their both their motivation and their confirmation.

How can you trust Jehovah/Jesus/Allah is the "one true god", when there are such compelling competing claims? You say it is an "easy road to follow" -- but have you really looked to see where the other roads lead? Or are you content to take someone else's word for it? Despite the compassion and spiritual potency of other faiths? I can see the attractiveness of being an orthopractic Christian -- the very few I've met I've counted as my dearest friends -- but they make no claims of sole possession of the only working hotline to the Almighty.

Can you point out any compelling reason that Christianity, alone among the world's religions, is provably "true" without resorting to the "faith" arguement? Otherwise, the faith claim has no more strength for Christianity than it does the other Abrahamics. And that doesn't even get into the other major world religions (and our minor ones).

And while I can understand the experience of a few bad apples poisoning the spiritual reputation of an entire religion, I also find that religions with claims of exlusivity, backed up by closed-canon texts, are prone to dissention and violence in the fulfillment of their "divine destinys", however they may have arrived at what those destinys are.



I disagree, at least in the case of Moses and the early Christian leaders. Again, I believe we are getting mired in semantics...if our goal is to truly understand each other, should we not stretch ourselves to understand the spirit of what we are trying to say to each other, rather than jump up and down on the letter of it?


Why does Moses and the Church Fathers get a bye? Why should they not be held to, and evaluated by, the same objective standards than any other religion would? That smacks of intellectual dishonesty as well.

The reason semantics is important here is that Words Mean Things. Sometimes the same word can mean vastly different things to different people. Therefore, it is utterly necessary that we understand that we have a common semantic framework upon which to discourse.

I welcome the spirit of orthopractic Christians. When I have revealed myself to them as a pagan, we usually have an interesting and non-confrontational theological discussion in which we both profit. The vast majority of Christians, on the other hand, have wanted to impose their spirit on me without reciprocation.

(Case in point: I find it mildly annoying for most Christians to end such discussions with me by saying "I'll pray for you." Why? The spirit is usually genuine and sincere. But when I return with "I'll pray to the Goddess and the Horned One for you, too," they freak out. The orthopractic Christians, in my experience, accept my blessing in the same way I accept their's: in the spirit in which it was given.)

Christianity's compassion is justly legendary. There is much in the Christian spirit I admire. But there are many, many disturbing things there as well.



Did you mean "unecessary," here?

:lol: Yes I did! Sorry.



This paragraph is a good example of an attempt made to explain your experience (or possibly represent all of Wicca) to non-wiccans. I will read it and make a considered attempt to understand the experience rather than leap at the opportunity to dismantle it and defend my own faith. I believe Justin started the thread to foster real communication rather than debate. If I am wrong, Justin, do say so. In that context, I don't think we can achieve this goal by brandishing our swords and shields. I know my faith is not so fragile that I need to puff up my chest the moment someone presents a conflicting idea. The best way I can glorify God is to be a living example of His love and a vessel for His will. I believe Wicca has similar principles regarding how we interract with our fellow human. You see...we are identifying a like trait...a place to start to bridge us.
{/quote]

Quite right, and an admirable and much appreciated point of view!
Although I don't mind a little casual sparring here and there -- need to exercise those spiritual muscles at times. But I have learned much here about other faiths, and I would like to think I have at least some understanding of their point of view. It is theological discussion such as this that led me to become a druid in the first place.

[QUOTE=JardinPrayer]
Indeed it is, so long as you are Wiccan.
{/quote]

I really haven't found anything that remotely compares to it. And it ain't like I haven't looked. I was pulled towards Wicca because, among other reasons, it acknowleged and worshipped the feminine aspect of divinity -- the Goddess. After beating my head against the wall trying to rectify my Christian upbringing with the blatant inconsistancies and major spiritual gaps in the scriptures, it was only when I discovered/found/was discovered by the Goddess that I understood what this connection really entailed.

You see, staring up at "heaven", contemplating some remote cosmic sky god who seemed so terribly interested in my masturbation habits and manner of dress, I never felt that connection. Trying to understand and appreciate -- not to mention emulate -- the passion of Christ left me cold. It was only when I realized that Divinity (I eschew the term "God" in this sense as too laden with Abrahamic meaning to be useful or accurate -- semantics again) could not flow exclusively from a male. Indeed, conceptualizing a male divinity without a female was ludacris. Only once the Goddess became integrated into my belief structure did I begin to feel that connection.

At first, to be blushingly honest, it was sex-related. Don't laugh. I just found a religion that emphasized the sacred nature of sex in all of its manifestations to be so much "truer" than one which sought to supress the sexual drives as immoral and fundamentally "sinful".

But this came full circle, and I realized the full potency and impact of the Goddess on the universe when I saw my first child and my wife, and that sudden, shocking, and completely overwhelming feeling of procreation swept over me. The Goddess on that day revealed Herself as dwelling forever in all things, as utterly necessary for life as DNA and H2O. The sacred cycle of birth/sex/procreation/death/rebirth ran over me like a steamroller. Nothing I had ever experienced in my pursuit of connection with "God" in the Christian church came close. Not even remotely.

[QUOTE=JardinPrayer]
I believe you are confusing "Christianity," with "Christians," and perhaps with individual Christians, as well. I would imagine you are quick to defend your position when sweeping generalizations are made about Wicca or Wiccans, no? Every faith has radicals and false representatives. "Christianity," isn't doing anything at all. Christians are, but ony some of them. This thread, alone, has alredy illustrated some of the varieties of Christian one might encounter. The point is, we are all human. Let us reach out from there, shall we?


Point well taken, but . . .

I speak of Christianity here (more semantics -- sorry) in a more cultural than doctrinal way. Christianity as a great world religion is indeed doing stuff all the time. The collective action of Christendom moves the religion -- never in the same direction, never at the same time or in the same way, even by the same people -- but there is movement, and that movement is made up of individual Christians.

Case in point: A neighbor of mine recently sold his boat and donated the money to Katrina relief "because that's what Jesus would want me to do." A compassionate and heartfelt gesture by a man who is too frought with social pressure to conceal his emotions that to say "I did it because I wanted to do it because I honestly love people," would be too painful and socially unacceptable for him to say. This same selfless man has also made it a point to viciously condemn any and all Semetic peoples as unworthy of existance --even if they are Christian-- and "proves" this with Bible verses. Now, on the one hand this man has been part of one of the largest, most compelling examples relief missions in world history. On the other hand he is also part of a vicious anti-Semetism that is increasingly radicalizing Christianity. Theological issues aside for a moment, is he a radical who is paying lip-service to the tenants of his faith, or is he a main-stream Christian who has a few radical views?

Believe me, Wicca and the other Pagan traditions attract our share of nut-jobs. More than our share. But we're a fringe religion, and that is not only expected of fringe religions, it is part of what makes us "colorful".



There are many places where science and Christianity are in perfect harmony, and many Christians who are, in fact, scientists. Science, however, cannot quantify or qualify one thing: faith. Science is a tool man uses to understand his universe...it is, therefore, limited by man's ability to understand. That it is dedicated to cataloging objective truth does not mean it achieves said goal utterly. This is why there are new discoveries every day.

I wholeheartedly believe and agree with everything you just wrote.



How wonderful! If you limit yourself only to intellectualism, you miss the greatest part of God.

This is where we diverge.

I never claimed to limit myself only to intellectualism. But a religion who simultaneously claims to be "true" -- that is, having the condition of being intellectually sound and provable and consistant with the observable nature of the universe -- cannot eschew intellectualism and be expected to be taken seriously.

As far as "faith" (absolute belief without proof) goes, I do not share your religion's emphasis of importance on this tenent. If you are talking about the wonderful emotional feeling of peace, harmony, righteousness with the universe, etc. that is often associated with "people of faith" and "living a life of faith", I offer that I get the same kicks from other sources. Most notably Love, but also Imagination, Wisdom and Honor. The Goddess can be found in such ways, Love most especially -- specifically caritas, rather than agape. Can the differences be compared objectively? You just pointed out that faith could not be measured or inspected for freshness. Neither can Love -- nor Imagination, Wisdom and Honor. Can the be measured subjectively? They can and are, within each of our hearts, every day.

I've tried faith. It doesn't suit my nature. And while I can appreciate the vital role faith plays in the lives of most Christians, I'd have to say that on the scales of my heart it's a lightweight, compared to the power of Love -- Caritas.

But your mileage may vary.

Arion

[tmancour]

Hi everyone,


Christians really should do this too, yet out of caring, not out of wanting conflict, or from self-righteousness.


An enlightened and not terribly popular view!






This would seem to assume that Wicca has no dangers. Are not initiates taught that there are dangers? Within Wicca, I mean, all is not peace and light, the gods sometimes devour.



Absolutely right, Lee, and often misunderstood by many in the Craft.
The difference, I guess, to us is that Wicca doesn't claim to hold a patent on the Exclusive Truth, as Christianity does. Neither does it actively encourage everyone in sight to become a Wiccan. Wicca, and the other Pagan religions, when practiced properly are intense spiritual disciplines that cannot be achieved without dedication, practice, learning, more practice, and a healthy dose of personal development. It doesn't all come to you in a conversion experience. You can't read a few books, light a few candles, call yourself "Astarte Morninghawk" and expect the benefits of the religion to come pouring down on you. It is a skill that needs to be learned and a craft that has to be practiced. Otherwise, you run the danger of running afoul of your own misconceptions and self-deceptions -- the biggest danger in Wicca.




Surely that would be a reason to disagree, if there is a different God (as in the cross), with firm evidence (as in real prediction of the future), and a different way, with "a sure hope."


My biggest problem with this, Lee, is that you assert real prediction of the future as a case for the truth of a religion. And Christianity holds no corner on the fulfilled prophecy market. By that token, every time a non-Christian prophecy would come to pass, that would validate that religion. And why does a religion need to have "a sure hope" to qualify as real?

Arion

[tmancour]

Thanks Jardin, you said pretty much what I would have said.

I think that following a known false religion and thinking that is just as good as following Christianity or any other religion is truly the epitome of the Relativist Generation. Its says so much about people that they think that whatever they believe is true as long as it makes them feel good.


Then you have completely misunderstood much about the Pagan Revival. Most Pagans don't follow our path because it "makes us feel good" -- on the contrary. We follow because "it feels right". That our path is often filled with all sorts of nasties from the depths of our soul that must be conquered is oft overlooked by Christians who only see the check marks on the Comparitive Religion. Wicca, when properly practiced, is a tremendously psychological relgion. Covens, when properly constituted, are as much group therapy as they are groups of worship. The Path of Wisdom isn't paved, and we often hit some pretty gorram big rocks as we follow it.

Those who fail to come to terms with that have a lot of work to do, and they often leave the Craft or sink into spiritual stagnation rather than face that fact. If they perservere and tackle their fears, self-deceptions and illusions as they are taught to, they continue down this painful Path towards self-knowlege. So it isn't just about "feeling good". Indeed, it is in Christianity that I hear about all the bliss you can have for just a simple conversion and modest weekly payments.



Well I don't want to believe in Christianity just because it "works for me" - I believe in Christianity because I believe it is true.


Good for you! Finding a path towards self-knowlege and communion with the Divinity is admirable.



True for me, true for you, true for everyone.


This is where you lose me, and most of my coreligionists. The "I like chocolate so EVERYONE should like chocolate" school of thought is inherently disrespectful of other people, religions, and cultures -- it borders on spiritual fascism.



And by it being true, that makes all other religions false.


But you haven't proven it's true for anyone but yourself. What objective proof do you have of the truth of your religion? By "objective" please note I'm implying "intellectually honest".



Especially ones that are absolutely KNOWN to be made up on the spot with not even a claim to any truth about God.


I'm having a vision . . .

AARON: Hey, Moses, where you been?
MOSES: I climbed a mountain. I, uh, I saw a bush. A burning bush.
AARON: Well, did you put it out?
MOSES: Uh, no. It said it was God -- the demiurgic creator of the universe?
AARON: Um, you didn't sign anything, did you? Didn't buy anything . . .
MOSES: Look, it said it was God, the same God from your great-great-grandsire Abraham -- didn't you say he was a nomadic shepherd?
AARON: Yeah, but that was a long time ago. The family did better later on -- we had God on our side.
MOSES: Yeah, well, this bush said it was God, and that it wanted me to tell everyone what to do.
AARON: Um, Mo, it's great and all that you used your magic to get us released from Pharoh -- Oy Vey, the hours were bad! But this bush thing, it ain't gonna fly. These folks just got let go in a union dispute, and suddenly they don't have homes, jobs, and the manna stuff is starting to wear a little thin, know what I mean? You need to have more than just some smoldering shrubbery to inspire these folks. They're actually starting to get pissed off.
MOSES: Um, what if this, uh, burning bush gave me . . .
AARON: Divine right to rule?
MOSES: We just ditched that system, remember? We're getting rid of the whole Ra-Isis-Osiris thing, too complicated, decadent priesthood and all. Last thing I want is to claim God made me the leader. But what if he gave me . . . architecture?
AARON: No, they'd say you just stole it from the Egyptians. Besides, that gets away from the whole "back to the desert" nomadic lifestyle you wanted. You can't very well say "God is Omipresent" and then put Him in a house. No, it has to be something that can last . . .
MOSES: (snapping fingers) I've got it! Remember that Hamurabbi guy in Babylon, the one with the crazy gardens and the souped-up chariot? He did this thing where he wrote his laws on a cliff -- wrote them in raw stone -- so that everyone could see them and be subject to them. We can do that!
AARON: Dude, in case you haven't noticed, we don't have an actual cliff to write anything on. When we left Egypt-land, um, real estate wasn't a part of the severence package.
MOSES: Well . . . what if this bush told us that . . . we could have some land of our own?
AARON: That'd be one freaky bush! What's he gonna do, raise it from the sea?
MOSES: Do you know how much it took to just get the Red Sea parted?
AARON: Then where? Arabia?
MOSES: Um, not the best place for farming. We gotta eat. How about . . . oh, the Land of Canan?
AARON: Don't people live there now?
MOSES: If this bush said we could push them out -- real "mandate from God" stuff -- we could convinces these guys to quit whining and get off their lazy butts and start making spears. We could use the law thing -- you finished coming up with a writing system?
AARON: Finished it last night.
MOSES: Cool! We can use the Law as the organizing principal, get these saps motivated with some divine manifest destiny, and in a couple of months time we'll be sitting pretty in Canan!
AARON: Dude, we can't call it that. The Cananites will sue.
MOSES: How about 'Palestine'?
AARON: How 'bout we name it after my uncle Israel? No one could sue us over that.
MOSES: Works for me. Let me get up that mountain, you tell 'em I'm communing with God --
AARON: Yeah, no one would ever believe the whole 'Burning Bush' thing -- they'd be like, 'Oh, yeah, Moses, we know what kinda Bush you burnin'!
MOSES: Whatever. Look, I got a lot of "communing" to do tonight if I'm going to have a complete body of laws and legal system set up by morning. Especially if they're going to appear 'written in stone'.
AARON: Word.

(The preceding was a humorous parody, and was not meant to insult religous figures, deities, or religions, living or dead. )

My point is that there is nothing particularly unique about anything in the Bible -- which I will expound upon in a moment.



Wicca was a buffet religon. It was synthesized from various pagan religions and basically put together by this guy who decided to take a piece here, a piece there, make up a bit here, toss in a bit there and presented as a package for new age pagans to follow.


You are in error. Wicca was not "synthesized" it was "syncretized". It is, indeed, profoundly influenced by other religions, including Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism, Classical Paganism, and Christianity. But we are by no means alone in that. Every major religion was syncretized. Ours is just a lot newer than y'all's.

Buddhism: elements of Hinduism, Tantric, and animist religions.
Hinduism: elements of Aryan belief and structure with Dravidian religion and tribal animism.
Christianity: elements of Judaism, Zorastrianism, Manicheism, Greek Sophism, Roman and North-European pagan folk customs, and the vented spleen of St. John, who was a Jewish/Roman bueracracy syncretic element himself.
Judaism: Proto-Semetic tribal shamanism combined with elements of worship from the ancient Pagan Babylonian, Egyptian, Cananite, Akkadian, Persian, and Classical Greek cultures and civilizations, then mixes them liberally with the culture of every nation in the Diaspora.
Confucism/Taoism: Cyclic syncretism of each other, mixed with Chinese folk religion and later Buddhism.
Shinto: Syncretized form native Japanese Folk religion, Taoism, and Buddhism.


Religions influence each other -- all religions. Nothing in Judaism or Christianity is particularly novel or unique. Every single one of the "great religions" is a "buffet religion". Otherwise Judaism would never have developed the heavy dualistic polarity, if it hadn't encountered the Persian Magi in Babylon during the Babylonian Captivity, who were really into that sort of thing. Nor would Christianity have found an appeal with the rest of the Roman Empire had not Greek Sophistry and the spread of Mithraism and Isis worship contributed to its formative years.



That people would actually follow that religion knowing that it is a fake made-up religion boggles my mind.


You have yet to provide any proof that Christianity isn't a fake, made-up religion. Yet you follow it despite its gross inconsistancies and contradictory theology, ethics, and metaphysics. Boggles my mind.



But having read what Tmancour wrote in his post to me, I see that many people don't actually care about objective truth, but just what subjectively feels good for them.

No, as I said above - "feels right to me". I have spent the last twenty years of my life in the study and practice of the Craft, and it isn't something that I have done lightly or because it "feels good". I could do heroin and get that with a lot less hassle.

Nor do I lack appreciation for objective truth. I just have yet to find any in Christianity -- real objective intellectually honest truth that is consistant. And I acknowlege that the place for religion in human life is not to dominate in the name of "truth" but to serve man as an important spiritual tool, a total response to the universe, and as a means of living a healthy life with his family and within his culture.



They think that if they enjoy their religion, even knowing it is made-up that they are somehow connecting with the creator. That is completely self-delusional IMO.


Why shouldn't I enjoy my religion? I've earned that right. And as I've previously put forth, all religions are the product of man, to serve man, despite their equal and commonplace claims of divine revelation or divine inspiration. That is the objective truth about religion. And it is completely non-delusional.

Arion

[Geifodd]

Vance writes:

there'll be no unexpected death bed pranks pulled on anyone, just as long as they were sincerely -51% of the time or more- on one of the many paths that all lead to god (or satan, reinvented ?) None of these are casket-testable, afterall. Spiritual openmindedness is next to godliness, and intolerant exclusivity is of the devil.

Not sure about the "reinvented" lingo -- I prefer "re-evaluated." And I would say that spiritual openmindedness is of the Devil, and intolerant exclusivity is just pure ignorance. :wink:

[Geifodd]

Arion writes:


Buddhism: elements of Hinduism, Tantric, and animist religions.
Hinduism: elements of Aryan belief and structure with Dravidian religion and tribal animism.
Christianity: elements of Judaism, Zorastrianism, Manicheism, Greek Sophism, Roman and North-European pagan folk customs, and the vented spleen of St. John, who was a Jewish/Roman bueracracy syncretic element himself.
Judaism: Proto-Semetic tribal shamanism combined with elements of worship from the ancient Pagan Babylonian, Egyptian, Cananite, Akkadian, Persian, and Classical Greek cultures and civilizations, then mixes them liberally with the culture of every nation in the Diaspora.
Confucism/Taoism: Cyclic syncretism of each other, mixed with Chinese folk religion and later Buddhism.
Shinto: Syncretized form native Japanese Folk religion, Taoism, and Buddhism.

Just to show that I am fair, I will add my own religion to the mix:

Theistic Satanism: syncretized from aspects of Persian Zoroastrianism, Second Temple-era Judaism, Gnostic Christianity, Semitic and Kemetic (ancient Egyptian) paganism, traditional European witchcraft, Deism, Thelema, and the African Diaspora-based religions (e.g., Voudon and Santeria).

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,


Justin: Two years before Isaiah's death, Babylon was, indeed, razed to the ground, by Sennacherib. It was rebuilt by Essarhadon--who, indeed, received his crown there.
I think our clocks are out of sync! For this site (http://i-cias.com/e.o/babylon.htm) puts Esarhaddon before Neb's rule, and Esarhaddon ascending the throne is placed before the captivity, in Isaiah (Isa. 37:38). And the destruction of Babylon is clearly a destruction after the captivity, not before:

Isaiah 13:17-19 See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children. Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians' pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah.

So this actually strengthens the prophecy, for it makes it more likely that someone could succeed in rebuilding it, for it was even done once! And Alex and Saddam tried, and yet it still hasn't happened again.


"The Prince of Darkness is a gentleman."
King Lear (3.4.143), Edgar to Gloucester
I think I have seen one of these princes. This statement, I would conclude, is incorrect...


Lee: This would seem to assume that Wicca has no dangers. Are not initiates taught that there are dangers? Within Wicca, I mean...

Arion: Absolutely right, Lee, and often misunderstood by many in the Craft.
That was what I had understood, thanks for the clarification.


Arion: The difference, I guess, to us is that Wicca doesn't claim to hold a patent on the Exclusive Truth, as Christianity does.
I agree, and I would add (along the lines of what Sparko is saying) that this is an essential difference.

Now the question becomes, can the exclusive truth claim of Christianity be validated or invalidated?


Arion: ... you assert real prediction of the future as a case for the truth of a religion. And Christianity holds no corner on the fulfilled prophecy market. By that token, every time a non-Christian prophecy would come to pass, that would validate that religion.
I do think the prophecy in Scripture is exceptional, and distinctive! Nostradamus, for instance, is so vague that his prophecies could fit lots of kinds of events, even, never mind different events of the same kind. And psychics are often wrong, more wrong than right, actually.

And yet one wrong prediction by a prophet in the Bible meant they should take him out and stone him. That's different! And to defend that successfully is a good seal on the claim that the Bible has the real truth, it is real divine revelation, by an incomparable Divine Being.

Isaiah 41:26-29 Who told of this from the beginning, so we could know, or beforehand, so we could say, 'He was right'? No one told of this, no one foretold it, no one heard any words from you. I was the first to tell Zion, 'Look, here they are!' I gave to Jerusalem a messenger of good tidings. I look but there is no one-- no one among them to give counsel, no one to give answer when I ask them. See, they are all false! Their deeds amount to nothing; their images are but wind and confusion.


And why does a religion need to have "a sure hope" to qualify as real?
I'm not saying that makes a religion real, though, I'm only saying that a sure hope is better...

Blessings,
Lee

[Sparko]

This is where you lose me, and most of my coreligionists. The "I like chocolate so EVERYONE should like chocolate" school of thought is inherently disrespectful of other people, religions, and cultures -- it borders on spiritual fascism.



The problem is, God isn't a chocolate bar and truth isn't about preferences. Truth is truth whether you believe it or not. For example, you might prefer to believe the world is flat, but it isn't.

[Geifodd]

Lee writes:


I think I have seen one of these princes. This statement, I would conclude, is incorrect...

You have every right to think as much -- and I have every reason to disagree with you.


The problem is, God isn't a chocolate bar and truth isn't about preferences. Truth is truth whether you believe it or not. For example, you might prefer to believe the world is flat, but it isn't.

Indeed truth is truth -- but considering the fact that no religion on earth is capable of proving its claims of "the truth" as being objective facts that are beyond any question or debate, this does not serve as a substantive defense of Christianity, or even as a substantive argument against Wicca (or Satanism).

[Sparko]

Lee writes:



You have every right to think as much -- and I have every reason to disagree with you.



Indeed truth is truth -- but considering the fact that no religion on earth is capable of proving its claims of "the truth" as being objective facts that are beyond any question or debate, this does not serve as a substantive defense of Christianity, or even as a substantive argument against Wicca (or Satanism).

the problem is that you cannot prove that Christianity is a fake religion made up by men. Even as a nonbeliever you have to allow for the possibility that it is the truth. Of course as a Christian, I think the evidence that it is the truth is overwhelming. But if I didn't I wouldn't be a Christain.

On the other hand I can prove that Wicca was made up by a person and that it is, as others have admitted, a 'synthesis' of various other pagan religions.

So I have a very good reason for not believing Wicca is truth but instead is false religion that does not represent reality regarding God..

That you and the others in here see no problem believing in a patently false religion says volumes about you.

[gharfish]

It could be said (has, knowingly or not, by two posters) that the kinds of exclusive -& thus intolerant- claims to truth made by Jesus, about Himself, are tantamount to "spiritual fascism" and..."ignorance."

I am more than willing to let my faith in Him, and Him alone (as He said it must be) take me where it will.

[technomage]

Hi everyone,


I think our clocks are out of sync! For this site (http://i-cias.com/e.o/babylon.htm) puts Esarhaddon before Neb's rule, and Esarhaddon ascending the throne is placed before the captivity, in Isaiah (Isa. 37:38). And the destruction of Babylon is clearly a destruction after the captivity, not before:

Isaiah 13:17-19 See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children. Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians' pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah.


:sigh: Let's look at the chronology.

Isaiah prophesied during the reigns of Uzziah (Azariah), Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. Legend has it that he was martyred during the reign of Manasseh, who came to the throne in 687 BCE. That he is described as having ready access to the kings would suggest an aristocratic origin.

Uzziah's reign ended around 742-740 BCE, and Hezekiah's reign ended around 687 BCE. Isaiah lived and prophesied between those times--but not all of the book attributed to him is actually believed to be from his hand, or from his time.

Sennacherib (r 705-681 BCE) destroyed Babylon in 689 BCE. Isaiah never lived to see it rebuilt.

Esarhaddon (r 681-669 BCE) rebuilt Babylon, and received his crown there.

Now we see where the Medes come into the picture:

In 612, Cyaxares conquered Urartu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urartu), and with the help of Nabopolassar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nabopolassar) the Chaldean, succeeded in destroying the Assyrian capital, Nineveh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineveh); by 606, the remaining vestiges of Assyrian control. From then on, the Mede king ruled over much of Iran, Assyria and northern Mesopotamia, Armenia and Cappadocia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cappadocia). His power was very dangerous to his neighbors, and the exiled Jews (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew) expected the destruction of Babylonia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonia) by the Medes (Isaiah 13, 14m 21; Jerem. 1, 51.).

When Cyaxares attacked Lydia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia), the kings of Cilicia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cilicia) and Babylon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon) intervened and negotiated a peace in 585 BC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/585_BC), whereby the Halys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halys) was established as the Medes' frontier with Lydia. Nebuchadrezzar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadrezzar_II) of Babylon married a daughter of Cyaxares, and an equilibrium of the great powers was maintained until the rise of the Persians under Cyrus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus).

Note this step in the chronology: the Medes threatened Babylon in 612 (about 75 years after Isaiah's death, and about fifteen years before the "first wave" of the Babylonian Captivity)--yet the Medes never destroyed the city. Not then, and not later. The Medes were over-run by the Persians in 550.

And Babylon? Babylon was occupied in 538 BCE by Cyrus ... but Cyrus did not plunder or destroy. Indeed, Cyrus was Persian, not Median. And Cyrus did not "destroy" the city--it surrendered to him, and he occupied it. The city remained occupied throgh the Persians, through Alexander's conquest (interestingly, a local account notes that Alexander refused to permit his soldiers to plunder or even enter the houses of the inhabitants), until the inhabitants were moved to Selucia.

Babylon was never "overthrown," Lee--most especially not by the Medes. It was allowed to fall into ruin over three centuries after the Medes ceased to exist as a people.


So this actually strengthens the prophecy, for it makes it more likely that someone could succeed in rebuilding it, for it was even done once! And Alex and Saddam tried, and yet it still hasn't happened again.

Lee, are you being deliberately ignorant? Alexander didn't have to rebuild Babylon--it was a living and vibrant city when he entered it.

[technomage]

the problem is that you cannot prove that Christianity is a fake religion made up by men.

"Fake?" No. "Made up by men?" Don't be so sure....


Even as a nonbeliever you have to allow for the possibility that it is the truth.

Only by deliberately blinding myself to facts, John.


On the other hand I can prove that Wicca was made up by a person and that it is, as others have admitted, a 'synthesis' of various other pagan religions.

But one thing you cannot prove is that a religion that is "made up" is "fake."

And the other thing you cannot prove is that your religion is not made up by men.

These are both your claims, John ... and as the claimant, you assume the burden of proof. But since you can't prove your claims, you'll pardon me if I reject them.

And if you don't pardon me for rejecting your claims, then I'll ask no pardon for telling you to urinate up a rope.

[Sparko]

"Fake?" No. "Made up by men?" Don't be so sure....



Only by deliberately blinding myself to facts, John.



But one thing you cannot prove is that a religion that is "made up" is "fake."

And the other thing you cannot prove is that your religion is not made up by men.

These are both your claims, John ... and as the claimant, you assume the burden of proof. But since you can't prove your claims, you'll pardon me if I reject them.

And if you don't pardon me for rejecting your claims, then I'll ask no pardon for telling you to urinate up a rope.

I dont have a problem with you rejecting my claims or Christianity. I do have a problem with people choosing to NOT reject something that is so plainly man-made as Wicca. You are using a double standard. The evidence is not good enough for you to believe Christianity, but somehow with even LESS evidence for Wicca corresponding with reality and evidence that actually points to the opposite, you choose to believe it anyway.

That is just illogical.

[technomage]

I dont have a problem with you rejecting my claims or Christianity. I do have a problem with people choosing to NOT reject something that is so plainly man-made as Wicca.

Why? John, if I honestly and sincerely believed that the Piracy cult could lead me to God--and succeeded in finding God while being a Sparkonian Pirate--then it is a man-made religion, but it is not "false."


You are using a double standard.

As I have told you repeatedly--no, I am not. I'll try to explain it one more time.

I know Wicca is invented--whether you use the term "made up," or whatever term you use. The one thing you have not--and cannot--prove is that a "made up" religion is "false."

Christianity is also an "invented" religion. Yes, it's older--though age has no relevance in this particular discussion. But people find God through Christianity. I do not reject that claim.

So what's your beef? Oh, that's right--Christian doctrine claims "Our way, or no way." But it's become so subdivided that many self-proclaimed "Christians" cannot even agree with other self-proclaimed "Christians." That's not unique--every religion has experienced schism, including Wicca.

John, all religions are man-made. Including Wicca and Christianity. And yes, I could walk you through the evidence for Christianity being man-made ... but it would boot nothing. You still find God.

I have never claimed that Christianity was fake ... and I never shall. But if Christianity--a man-made, made-up religion--is "real" enough to find God, then so is Wicca.

So where's the double standard?

[Sparko]

Why? John, if I honestly and sincerely believed that the Piracy cult could lead me to God--and succeeded in finding God while being a Sparkonian Pirate--then it is a man-made religion, but it is not "false."


Justin, the chances that piratology is true are zilch. less than 1 in a trillion. I know, I made it up. And if you think you can find God as a sparkonian pirate, then you are fooling yourself.



As I have told you repeatedly--no, I am not. I'll try to explain it one more time.

I know Wicca is invented--whether you use the term "made up," or whatever term you use. The one thing you have not--and cannot--prove is that a "made up" religion is "false."

Justin, if there is a God, (which we both agree there is) then there is only one REAL God. Only one God that corresponds with objective reality. Basic knowledge says that we can't both be right about God. Either of us COULD be right, or we both could be wrong, agreed?

Well, we both have evidence for our beliefs, right?

1. I have the bible and the church and various evidences that I won't go into, and nobody in the church says "hey we just made this up guys, beleive it anyway" - instead they claim it is true and that there are witnesses to that truth. Right?

2. You have a religion that you know was invented. There is not even a chance that God revealed this religion as the truth, you KNOW it was invented by a guy who admitted to inventing it. He basically said "hey I invented this religion, believe it!"


Now, the chance that #1 is true is much greater than the chance #2 is true. #2 is admittedly invented. #1 COULD be invented but claims it is not.



So you outright reject #1 as false while there is NO WAY you can know it is false. You can only suspect it is.

Yet you embrace #2 even though it is admittedly invented and has a very low chance of being true.

By "true" agian, I refer to the the statement above, as to what corresponds with objective reality.

That is a double standard.

[tmancour]

Now the question becomes, can the exclusive truth claim of Christianity be validated or invalidated?


Well . . . if it tickles your fancy, let's say that fulfillment of prophecy is the ultimate validation of a religion. Putting aside for a moment the many thousands of fulfilled prophecies from non-Christian sources, from Deliphi and beyond, I'll add an example of my own.

In my early days as a Wiccan student one of the many, many things I was taught was a complete course on divination. Everything from tarot cards to astrology to runes to scrying. Divination is very important in Wicca, and other Pagan traditions.

At the end of my first-year training I engaged in a vision quest -- another respected Pagan tradition. I flew to the other side of the continent, found a cozy spot in the mountains of the Pacific Northwest, and spent three days pulling visions from my head by various methods. Mostly they were of a deeply personal or spiritual nature -- nothing I would bore you with. But there was a period where I "prophesied" -- that is, issued forth Prophecy -- about the next fifty years or so.

This was back in 1987, so there was still some pretty momentous events ahead of us. My assistant wrote these things down in my journal as I spoke them. I wasn't aware at the time, nor do I have a clear memory of saying such things -- but she wrote them all down at my urging. Intriguing list, both personally and historically. Nearly every one of the timely ones has come to pass. Without going into too much detail, here are a few of the highlights:

Fall of the Berlin Wall and Marxism in general.
The Red Sox winning the pennant -- after the turn of the century.
The rise of the South as a political powerhouse -- and several of the problems that would result because of that.
The survival of JP II of Ronald Reagan by one year. (In '87 there were concerns that the pope's health was deteriorating. The concensus was that Ronnie took a bullet and was back at work the next day, while JPII stayed in the hospital for months recovering. When I saw this prediction in the book, I couldn't really believe it. But it came to pass.)
The death of Jerry Garcia during the passing of a comet. (I was starting to get into the Dead about then).
Two more shuttle accidents. (after the Challenger).

And the biggie (I quote):

"There will come a day when America will fight a great war in the middle east, and we will be victorious. But the second war, fought in the same land, will drag along for years, cost thousands of American lives on the banks of a river. This second war will begin a period of great uncertainty and polarization in America that will bring it to the brink of civil war, until crisis intervenes and draws the country together and revitalizes it."

Now, at the time I though Egypt -- in 87 Saddam was our buddy, while the Egyptian military dictatorship looked ripe for the plucking by Islamic radicals based in Sudan. But the prophecy fits the current history of the gulf war as well as my initial scenario. I'm not thrilled about the second part, especially considering the the current political situation.

Now, the only people who were there that night were me and my assistant. She doesn't like me anymore, but if you looked her up she might tell you that I did, indeed, make those statements. (Incedently, there was a prophecy about how she would betray me, and she did, but I don't want to get into it. It's complicated.) I certainly have the book still. And there are a few more prophecies left unfulfilled. Some are quite frightening, and I would rather not share them. A big one concerns the rise of China as a global power, and a coming war that will alter the balance of power in East Asia for three generations. But that one is a little fuzzy.

But there is one that is approaching, and perhaps it can be used to ascertain the validity of my prophecies. It concerns the current pope, Benedict. According to my prophesy, he will reign for a little over two years.

Let's see what happens. But it is my contention that prophecy, as such, is not adequate to attest to the validity or truth of a religion. My prophecies don't make Wicca any more or less "true", because ALL human cultures which have religion (and that's all of them) have prophets, seers, diviners -- and many have impressive records.





I do think the prophecy in Scripture is exceptional, and distinctive! Nostradamus, for instance, is so vague that his prophecies could fit lots of kinds of events, even, never mind different events of the same kind. And psychics are often wrong, more wrong than right, actually.

I think the prophecy in Scripture is about middlin' at best, and most accurate only when it concerns the affairs of the Hebrews. Nosty can be obtuse, but considering he was a converted Jew who was paranoid of the Inquisition (they wore crosses, I think) he took the prudent step of concealing his prophecies from those who would do him harm. SOme of his predictions are very accurate. Some have yet to come to pass. I can't think of one, off hand, that was dead wrong, but I could be mistaken.

And there are PLENTY of "psychics" out there who just plain suck. But I have met a few genuine Psychics (My hometown is also home to the Rhine Institute of Parapsychology) and they are scary accurate. Depending on their gift and how it's working that day, they can hit so often that they are usually discarded from studies as "abberant data". And they come from all religions.



And yet one wrong prediction by a prophet in the Bible meant they should take him out and stone him. That's different! And to defend that successfully is a good seal on the claim that the Bible has the real truth, it is real divine revelation, by an incomparable Divine Being.


In consideration of the data presented above, I have to disagree. There is a temple in central India where a prophet of uncanny and unerring ability spent his life writing prophesies for people who weren't born yet. Legend has it that he wrote a specific prophecy for every person who would ever visit the temple for that purpose. Some of these are vague and mystical -- but hey, it's a temple in India, what do you expect? But some are as plain as a grocery list. And they are rarely provably wrong.

Does this mean Hinduism is likewise valid under your conjecture?


Arion

[tmancour]

The problem is, God isn't a chocolate bar and truth isn't about preferences. Truth is truth whether you believe it or not. For example, you might prefer to believe the world is flat, but it isn't.


No, Jehovah is something altogether different from a chocolate bar. He is either Omnipotent, but not Omnibenevolent, or vice versa. There isn't a lot of objective truth about him.

My choice of metaphor here, though, is intentional. It is the natural inclination of people to assume that everyone else is (or should be) just like them. It flatters their egos and underpins their sense of self. When someone undergoes the conversion experience, it is quite natural that they want everyone else to share that kind of joy -- whether they really want to or not. Just as an apprentice Witch often tries to couch everything in magical terms, the conversion experience confers a sense of "knowing" which all too quickly turns into "knowing better" than everyone else.

And as far as truth, you've yet to prove to me the truth of your religion.

Arion

[tmancour]

the problem is that you cannot prove that Christianity is a fake religion made up by men. Even as a nonbeliever you have to allow for the possibility that it is the truth. Of course as a Christian, I think the evidence that it is the truth is overwhelming. But if I didn't I wouldn't be a Christain.

But it is not my job to prove Christianity is a "false religion" -- because that would mean that, to be intellectually honest, I'd have to prove all the others as "false religions" too, and accord them the same benefit of the doubt you would have me extend to Christianity. So, by your logic, if I cannot prove Shinto, for instance, was "made up by men" (it was "made up" by the divine descendents of the Sun Goddess, Amateratsu) then I have to allow it the possibility of being the Truth. So we are once again back to "which religion is true?"

So I don't need to prove Christianity false. That's you're hang-up, not mine. I don't even have to prove Wicca and Paganism are True, in the way you mean, because Paganism acknowleges the sacred nature of Mystery in a way that Christianity has continuously termed heretical. But if you want to prove the objective Truth of your religion, the burden is on you to do so. And I encourage you to try.




the
On the other hand I can prove that Wicca was made up by a person and that it is, as others have admitted, a 'synthesis' of various other pagan religions.


That ain't no big deal. We freely admit that most of the traditional Wiccan rituals were made up by people. And as far as it being a synthesis of other Pagan religions, well a) see my earlier post about the Joys of Syncretism (which you haven't really mentioned much . . . ) we freely admit that, as well. Wicca doesn't extend back centuries. It is a new syncretic iteration of the pre-Christian polytheisms. Really, it doesn't bother us -- because that's not what Pagans are about.



So I have a very good reason for not believing Wicca is truth but instead is false religion that does not represent reality regarding God..


Well, as our conceptions of divinity are completely different (pesky semantics!) and Wiccans don't play the divine power-trip game the way Radical Monotheists do, saying we aren't "the Truth" because we don't claim to be "the Truth" seems a little silly, logically speaking.

I'm curious as to what other elements are necessary, in your schema, to validate the Truth of any given religion.

Oh, and Abraham, Moses, the Prophets, and the Apostles? They guys who wrote the Bible? All men. Human men. Men who wrote down stuff that may or may not be true -- hard to tell after all this time -- and may well have just "made stuff up". Or talked about the made-up stuff of other people.



the
That you and the others in here see no problem believing in a patently false religion says volumes about you.

Pray tell, what volumes would those be? That we have a keen intellect and are not willing to be duped by every meglomaniacal claim of Omnipotence from every tribal god with delusions of granduer that comes along? That we see religion not as a club to beat a man over the head with, but a staff to help him along the journey of life? What volumes?

Arion

[tmancour]

It could be said (has, knowingly or not, by two posters) that the kinds of exclusive -& thus intolerant- claims to truth made by Jesus, about Himself, are tantamount to "spiritual fascism" and..."ignorance."

I am more than willing to let my faith in Him, and Him alone (as He said it must be) take me where it will.


Good for you. I have higher standards. Surrendering to Faith -- not my thing. Embracing Wisdom -- my thing.

Which would Jesus think was more important: living by his teachings, or being a professed Christian who doesn't follow his teachings?

Your answer will speak volumes about you.

Arion

[Xavier]

Not to put too fine a point on it, John ... I have the choice of following the "false" religion of Wicca, or the "false" religion of Christianity. Both false for the very same reason--anhistoricity.

You got a problem with the speck in my eye? Pull the plank out of yours.

With due respect Justin, the speck in your eye is a log from my position. The log in Sparko's eye isn't anything but a figment.

You have to choice to follow "false" religions. No one would ever deny you such a position (well, amoung free will advocates anyway). However, one must wonder under what epistemic warrant do you chose to follow something you knowing believe to be false.

Let's approach the problem from John's angle. JS believes (he can correct me if I'm mistaken) that a person is rational and epistemically warranted to believe in a true proposition. Likewise, the contra: a person is irrational and epistemically unwarrented to believe in a false proposition. Now, from JS's viewpoint, Christianity (as a cohesive worldview) is a true proposition. Whereas, Wicca (as a cohesive worldview -- though I might not accept such a nominclature for it) is a false proposition.

From John's point of view, you are not rationally warranted to believe in Wicca. His view of your acceptance of a false proposition is one of moral and ethical grounding (though even he may deny such). Most people would say that one is morally obligated to believe the truth and to disbelieve that which is false. (In fact, this undergirds most common-place epistemologies today.)

Now, to approach the problem from your point of view. You believe (again, subject to correction) that a person is rational and epistemically warrented to believe in a false proposition. (In point of fact, I seriously doubt that this is your position, but the rest of the analysis doesn't hinge on that fact.) You also believe that a person is rational and epsitemically warrented to believe in a true proposition (a position which is the basis for ANY sound epistemology, IMO). Again from your point of view, Christianity is a false proposition. Likewise, Wicca is a false proposition.

From your point of view, John is rational and epstemically warrented to believe in Christianity. This is true regardless of his or your personal view of the truth of the sum of the Christian worldview. You, likewise, are rational and epistemically warrented to believe in Wicca. This is also true regardless of his or your personal view of the truth of the sum of the Wiccan worldview.

From my analysis, John is perfectly justified in his position given his own worldview. However, you are not given your expressed worldview. Under your view, John is perfectly justified to believe in Christianity regardless of his personal belief of its truth.

All this aside, I sense a serious underlying contradiction at work here. If you choose to reject Christianity on the grounds that it is ahistorical (a position you have mentioned here and alluded to on several occations in past discussion), then why do you not reject Wicca on the grounds that it is ahistorical? I, of course, have my own guesses as to why you would do such a thing. However, I find the epistemic end of things to be a touch muddled.

Yours,
Xavier

[tmancour]

I dont have a problem with you rejecting my claims or Christianity. I do have a problem with people choosing to NOT reject something that is so plainly man-made as Wicca. You are using a double standard. The evidence is not good enough for you to believe Christianity, but somehow with even LESS evidence for Wicca corresponding with reality and evidence that actually points to the opposite, you choose to believe it anyway.

That is just illogical.

No double standard. We need not fuss about the origins of Wicca which -- while fascinating -- have little to do with Wicca as it is practiced, or the spiritual truths (different from objective truths) that hundreds of thousands of people have discovered in it? The fact is, we have no need of an Omnipotent deity -- especially one as illogical and inconsistant (not to mention clinically insane) as Jehovah.

What do you know of the practice of Wicca or other Pagan religions? Do you have any idea what they entail, what they encourage you to practice? What do you know of how Wicca relates to reality?

One thing you are obviously missing is the fact that Wicca and Paganism are religions of practice, not belief. We are Orthopractic, not Orthodoxic. The importance isn't on how hard you believe as much as it is on how you act.

This is a key difference, and one you must understand before you can claim that Wicca is illogical. It is perfectly logical. It just isn't using the rules your religion insists upon.

Arion

[Xavier]

[...] One thing you are obviously missing is the fact that Wicca and Paganism are religions of practice, not belief. We are Orthopractic, not Orthodoxic. The importance isn't on how hard you believe as much as it is on how you act.[...]

While I agree with the first part of your statement in regards to Wicca... Which consequently is where I have a problem with it.

Your beliefs and your acts are not separate in the nature you seem to suggest. The existance of the notion of Praxis obviously stands in your way. People act based on their own beliefs (which in turn are based on their perception).

This underlying premise which is present in several "Pagan" religions. However, this runs decidely against commonly accepted views of epistemology. The way that people act in the "Real World"TM seems to bear against this proposition.

Yours,
Xavier

[tmancour]

Justin, the chances that piratology is true are zilch. less than 1 in a trillion. I know, I made it up. And if you think you can find God as a sparkonian pirate, then you are fooling yourself.


Why would he be fooling himself? If he "found God" that way, he "found God" -- which, I believe, is the goal of most religions.




Justin, if there is a God, (which we both agree there is) then there is only one REAL God.

You blew it right there. While Justin, yourself, and myself may all agree that there is Divinity, I think it is readily apparent that what Justin and I mean by that term, and what you mean by it, are two very different things. Sure, postulate that there is Divinity. Why is it necessary for Divinity to be undivided? That's pretty much a conceit of Radical Monotheism, and not accepted theology in most of the world's religions. Why couldn't aspects of Divinity, faces of the Divine, show themselves in different ways? Why "one REAL God"? That's your hang up, not ours.



Only one God that corresponds with objective reality. Basic knowledge says that we can't both be right about God. Either of us COULD be right, or we both could be wrong, agreed?


Nope. Not agreed. And "basic knowlege" says no such thing. Radical Monotheists have been pulling this trick for a couple of thousand years now. First by postulating that all divinity is essentially unified and undivided (impossible to prove) and then insisting that any other potential point of view is wrong from the start. From my perspective, we could BOTH be "right" -- for what it is worth. But there is no more compelling evidence for God as Singularity than there is for God the Multitude. Less, actually.


Well, we both have evidence for our beliefs, right?
Heh. This will be fun.



1. I have the bible and the church and various evidences that I won't go into, and nobody in the church says "hey we just made this up guys, beleive it anyway" - instead they claim it is true and that there are witnesses to that truth. Right?


Wrong. Several people have denied essential teachings of the church, in essence saying "Hey, you guys just made this up!" Fish on Friday comes to mind. But if perfect, compelling, irrefutable evidence of every letter in the Bible being fiction was found, would you abandon Christianity? And the "witnesses" to that "truth" are just as suspect as those who make the claim in the first place. Where are the dissenters? Where are the people who's stories directly conflicted with the "historical" accounts in the Bible? Oh, yeah, that's right: they got edited out, or were never allowed to present their claims in the first place.



2. You have a religion that you know was invented. There is not even a chance that God revealed this religion as the truth, you KNOW it was invented by a guy who admitted to inventing it. He basically said "hey I invented this religion, believe it!"


You are placing pretty high stock in Relevatory religion. If this is your bag, then perhaps you should study Islam, which is even more relevatory than Christianity. But we don't need our religion delivered to us from On High, with Seraphim and Cherubim announcing its intrinsic worth. We recognize it when we see it, and act accordingly -- without fear, and without guilt and shame. For all we know, this Jehovah guy is just SAYING he created all of existance -- last I heard, he was a Semetic tribal god who wasn't above a bit of trickery to advance his sometimes sordid aims.



Now, the chance that #1 is true is much greater than the chance #2 is true. #2 is admittedly invented. #1 COULD be invented but claims it is not.


So you outright reject #1 as false while there is NO WAY you can know it is false. You can only suspect it is.

Yet you embrace #2 even though it is admittedly invented and has a very low chance of being true.

By "true" agian, I refer to the the statement above, as to what corresponds with objective reality.

That is a double standard.

Not even close. If Christianity might be true, then you have to give equal credence to other religions which claim to be revealed truth.

Personally, I don't consider second-hand accounts of revealed truth as sufficient evidence for anything. If Jehovah is so freakin' potent and anxious about my personal habits, then surely it is well within his means to reveal that truth to me personally, rather than count on a poorly translated text to convey to me that which cannot be conveyed, but must be experienced.

Of course, he is clinically insane . . .

Arion

[tmancour]

This underlying premise which is present in several "Pagan" religions. However, this runs decidely against commonly accepted views of epistemology. The way that people act in the "Real World"TM seems to bear against this proposition.



You might be right . . . but then again, the commonly accepted views of epistemology have been forged and refined only in an Abrahamic context. Even in the intellectually rarefied circles of the Academy, for a thousand years no non-Abrahamic religion was even allowed to enter the debate, much less press a different view of the universe. Seems kinda unfair.

Arion

[technomage]

You have to choice to follow "false" religions. No one would ever deny you such a position (well, amoung free will advocates anyway). However, one must wonder under what epistemic warrant do you chose to follow something you knowing believe to be false.

Xavier, my problem with John's objection is his arbitrary view of the word "false." Realistically speaking, if Wicca is false because it is man-made, then every single religion in the world is false--including Christianity. Despite John's fallacious claim that I "cannot prove" that Christianity is man-made, the same standards of evidence that he condemns Wicca by also condemn Christianity.

As I have explained before, every religion is man-made. Yet I also hold to the proposition that any religion that a person can reach God through is, if not "true" (in the sense John uses it), at least workable. I've stated this repeatedly, yet John continues to refuse to respond to that concept.

Is it any wonder that I invited him to piss up a rope?


All this aside, I sense a serious underlying contradiction at work here. If you choose to reject Christianity on the grounds that it is ahistorical (a position you have mentioned here and alluded to on several occations in past discussion), then why do you not reject Wicca on the grounds that it is ahistorical? I, of course, have my own guesses as to why you would do such a thing. However, I find the epistemic end of things to be a touch muddled.

I don't reject Christianity because it is anhistorical--I reject Christianity because I am unable to find God within it. But I am also quite aware that such a decision s subjective--some people can find God while following that path.

[Geifodd]

Sparko:

the problem is that you cannot prove that Christianity is a fake religion made up by men.

Show me where I made the claim that Christianity is "fake"?

Christianity was indeed founded by a man -- you have yet to prove that he was really the "Son of God."

Even as a nonbeliever you have to allow for the possibility that it is the truth.

I don't have to do anything I don't want to when it comes to religion -- and you don't either.

On the other hand I can prove that Wicca was made up by a person and that it is, as others have admitted, a 'synthesis' of various other pagan religions.

Okay; you admit that Wicca was made up by Gerald Gardner and that it syncretizes a number of various traditions. But yet you seem to have a bit of trouble thinking that Christianity was made up by Yeshua ben Yosef, and that throughout history it has syncretized a number of various belief systems as well. The Greek mystery traditions being a primary example.

So I have a very good reason for not believing Wicca is truth but instead is false religion that does not represent reality regarding God..

And Wiccans have the same amount of good reason for not believing Christianity is truth but instead is a false religion that does not represent reality regarding "God." An eye for an eye.

That you and the others in here see no problem believing in a patently false religion says volumes about you.

The facts that (1) You like to put words in my mouth, (2) You fail to admit that your religion was founded by a man, and (3) You have so far failed to prove that the human founder of Christianity was the "Son of God" says volumes about you.

[Geifodd]

Arion wrote:

The fact is, we have no need of an Omnipotent deity -- especially one as illogical and inconsistant (not to mention clinically insane) as Jehovah.

Amen! Zazas Zazas Nasatanatas Zazas!

[Sparko]

Well obviously, I can't argue with the illogic that says it is perfectly fine to believe something that you KNOW is a false proposition while denouncing other people (like Christians) for believing in what they believe to be TRUE proposition.

That you guys think that practicing any old arbitrary ceremonies and worship (including one that I made up on the spot!) will let you connect to God is like you being in Las Vegas and deciding you want to go to New York and someone tells you, "Go south into Mexico to get to New York" and you ask "Oh is that the real way to New York?" and he says, "Who cares? I just made it up by copying various parts of old maps. but all roads lead to New York in the end."

Personally, I would rather trust Map Quest than those directions.

If that is the type of thinking that I am trying to argue against, it is completely futile on my part. So, I am outta here.

:outtie:

[Geifodd]

Well obviously, I can't argue with the illogic that says it is perfectly fine to believe something that you KNOW is a false proposition while denouncing other people (like Christians) for believing in what they believe to be TRUE proposition.

A couple of points:

(1) I do not agree with the idea that it's "perfectly fine to believe something that you KNOW is a false proposition."

(2) I do not agree that what Christians believe is a TRUE proposition.

(3) I believe that what Satanists believe is a TRUE proposition.

(4) Therefore, whatever your point is in making this statement, it does not apply to myself.

That you guys

"You guys" indicates to me that you are simply lumping us all together. This is a grave mistake on your part. See above.

think that practicing any old arbitrary ceremonies and worship (including one that I made up on the spot!) will let you connect to God

Problem:

I do not agree that practicing any old arbitrary ceremonies and worship will let you connect to God. Being that I am deistic when it comes to the all-powerful Creator God, I do not believe that ANY religion or path will let you connect to God.


is like you being in Las Vegas and deciding you want to go to New York and someone tells you, "Go south into Mexico to get to New York" and you ask "Oh is that the real way to New York?" and he says, "Who cares? I just made it up by copying various parts of old maps. but all roads lead to New York in the end."

Even if I were to accept the theological hypotheses of your religion as true -- i.e., that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent -- then your analogy here simply does not hold water. If God is an omnipresent personal being who has a parental interest in human affairs, then it doesn't matter what you believe or what you do, you will never be able to exist anywhere where God isn't. (Even the idea of Hell being "separation" from God is completely inconsistent with the idea of Its omnipresence.) Unlike God in your religion, New York is a single geographical place that is not omnipresent. Comparing New York to God, in the context of your own belief system, is completely nonsensical.

[technomage]

Well obviously, I can't argue with the illogic that says it is perfectly fine to believe something that you KNOW is a false proposition while denouncing other people (like Christians) for believing in what they believe to be TRUE proposition.

First and foremost, you have yet to establish that "man-made = false" when it comes to religions. And the problem is ... you can't. Furthermore, you also cannot prove that Christianity is not also man-made.

John, I've gone to great lengths to try to be patient and wait for such proof, or at least an admission that such proof is impossible ... and you've repeatedly refused to respond. Admittedly, I've lost my patience, and gotten quite frustrated with you.

Any logical criticism you level against Wicca (or Satanism, or LDS, or anyone else) also condemns Christianity, John. And ... I'm forced to conclude that you worry that such a condemnation may be accurate. If that's not the case, then I apologize, but with your repeated refusal to address that question, I don't see what other conclusion I could come up with.

[technomage]

You might be right . . . but then again, the commonly accepted views of epistemology have been forged and refined only in an Abrahamic context.

Eh ... I can't quite agree with that. The concept of epistemic exclusivity (A and ~A cannot both be true) was developed long before Christianity.

[Sparko]

First and foremost, you have yet to establish that "man-made = false" when it comes to religions. And the problem is ... you can't. Furthermore, you also cannot prove that Christianity is not also man-made.

John, I've gone to great lengths to try to be patient and wait for such proof, or at least an admission that such proof is impossible ... and you've repeatedly refused to respond. Admittedly, I've lost my patience, and gotten quite frustrated with you.

Any logical criticism you level against Wicca (or Satanism, or LDS, or anyone else) also condemns Christianity, John. And ... I'm forced to conclude that you worry that such a condemnation may be accurate. If that's not the case, then I apologize, but with your repeated refusal to address that question, I don't see what other conclusion I could come up with.

I guess I am still not being clear. I will admit for the sake of argument that chrisitanity could be made up by Paul, OK? If that is the case then we are both following 'invented' religions.

The difference I see is that I don't think I am following an invented religion. I truly believe that I am following a religion that is absofreakinglutely true in the objective sense. Jesus really was God in the flesh and says that he is the ONLY way to be saved and all that.

IF you could prove to me that Paul made that all up and invented Christianity, I would stop believing it.

Why? Because I don't want to follow some made-up religion that does not teach the true God of the Universe.

But you tell me that you KNOW that Wicca is exactly such a religion. You know that some person just invented it. And yet you choose to follow it anyway. That just seems illogical to me.

And on top of that, you DO reject Christianity because you think it was made up by Paul and the others.

So you have one standard of truth for Christianity/Other religions, and a second one for your chosen religion.

I have the same standard of truth for my beliefs. If I were to find out that what I believe was invented by the mind of Paul or other early Christians then I would cease to believe it. And I would not beleive any other religion until it could convince me that it corresponds to reality concerning the creator of the universe.

[tmancour]

Well obviously, I can't argue with the illogic that says it is perfectly fine to believe something that you KNOW is a false proposition while denouncing other people (like Christians) for believing in what they believe to be TRUE proposition.


Actually, no one is denouncing Christians for believing what they believe. The furthest I will go is to say that Christianity and the other radical monotheisms are bad for humanity, while they might be good for individual humans. It's only when you guys insist on converting or disenfranchising us that we start to get ill.



That you guys think that practicing any old arbitrary ceremonies and worship (including one that I made up on the spot!) will let you connect to God is like you being in Las Vegas and deciding you want to go to New York and someone tells you, "Go south into Mexico to get to New York" and you ask "Oh is that the real way to New York?" and he says, "Who cares? I just made it up by copying various parts of old maps. but all roads lead to New York in the end."


Sparko, you have a lot to learn about mystical religion in general, and Pagan mysticism in particular. Once you have studied religions beyond your own -- and I mean studied, not just learned how to convert -- you will discover the conclusion that all mystics, regardless of religion, come to: that there are many roads that lead ultimately to the same destination. Even Christian mystics acknowlege this. What matters is not which diety you subscribe to, but the experience of communing with divinity itself. The profound emotional and spiritual experience of a Christian is no better or worse, more valid or invalid, than the profound emotional and spiritual experience of a Hindu Brahmin, a Tantric master, a Dervish, a Bon priest, a South American shaman, or any other religion.

In your quest to get us to acknowlege that we are weak and foolish because we subscribe to an emergent, non-revelatory religion of orthopraxis, you have missed an essential point: when faced with the myriad of possible "true" religions, most with competing claims of validity based on self-validating (and therefore logically null) texts translated from dead languages, we Pagans have discarded 2000 years of radical monotheistic baggage as hindering and non-productive, and have instead sought to return to the religions of our ancestors -- religions that saw us through 100,000 years of cultural evolution.

You continuously castigate Wicca because it was "made up by a guy", yet you refuse to respond to the obvious (and oft-repeated) assertion that Christianity was also made up by men.

You lambast Wicca for being a "buffet religion", yet you refuse to confront the fact that all religions, including Christianity (especially Christianity) are syncretic in form and constantly evolving. All religions borrow from what has gone before.

You insist that based on your scorn for emergent religion Wiccans should give up the painstaking progress we have made as individuals and as a religious movement because "Christianity might be true." When we ask for a more compelling arguement why we should choose Christianity among all the other religions that "might be true", you have none.

And lastly, you denigrate our practice based on a shallow knowlege of what that practice is. Do you know the moral underpinnings of Paganism? There are elements beyond the Rede and the Law of Threes. Do you understand the vital importance of a female divinity in the human psyche and culture, and why the Return of the Goddess is so important? Can you appreciate the intense spiritual discipline that walking the rocky Path of Wisdom is, compared to the cushy elevator-ride of Faith? Do you have any comprehension of the role our religion plays in our lives, and how it might be different than what you conceive of a religion's point and purpose?

You have an excellent opportunity here to learn a great deal about a religion that is growing exponentially, and has already had a profound impact on the American legal system and the tactics of Evangelical Christianity. When I was first initiated, twenty years ago, there were probably less than 10,000 pagans in the US. Today there are over 1 million. This explosive growth has occured without an organized church, a call to proselytize (indeed, we have prohibitions against it), or any claim to salvation, freedom from sin, or anything else except a lot of hard work and devotion. You have this opportunity and you choose to walk away -- and you are poorer for it.




Personally, I would rather trust Map Quest than those directions.


Then you miss the common wisdom that the Journey is more important than the Destination.



If that is the type of thinking that I am trying to argue against, it is completely futile on my part. So, I am outta here.


Not everyone has the stomach for well-reasoned theological debate. I wish you luck on your continued Jr. High School career.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

[technomage]

I guess I am still not being clear. I will admit for the sake of argument that chrisitanity could be made up by Paul, OK? If that is the case then we are both following 'invented' religions.

The difference I see is that I don't think I am following an invented religion. I truly believe that I am following a religion that is absofreakinglutely true in the objective sense. Jesus really was God in the flesh and says that he is the ONLY way to be saved and all that.

IF you could prove to me that Paul made that all up and invented Christianity, I would stop believing it.

Why? Because I don't want to follow some made-up religion that does not teach the true God of the Universe.

John, based on the best of my understanding, there is no religion anywhere on the earth that teaches of the "true God of the Universe." No such religion can exist, because as human beings, we cannot actually understand God. So each and every religion out there is a "made up" religion.

What I don't understand is why you insist that a "made up" religion must necessarily be false. If a made-up religion can lead us to God (and I've seen evidence that this is true, from followers of many different religions), then what's the hassle?


But you tell me that you KNOW that Wicca is exactly such a religion. You know that some person just invented it. And yet you choose to follow it anyway. That just seems illogical to me.

And on top of that, you DO reject Christianity because you think it was made up by Paul and the others.

So you have one standard of truth for Christianity/Other religions, and a second one for your chosen religion.

John, my basis for rejection is not whether or not the religion is made up. Yeah, for some people it might be ... like you, I find that to be logically untenable, but I don't find the illogic to be terribly worrisome, unless it leads the person who rejects a certain religion to also reject the people who follow that religion.


I have the same standard of truth for my beliefs. If I were to find out that what I believe was invented by the mind of Paul or other early Christians then I would cease to believe it. And I would not beleive any other religion until it could convince me that it corresponds to reality concerning the creator of the universe.

John, that way lies hard agnosticism or soft atheism. If no possible religion can satisfy those requirements, then you end up being a nihilist--"If I can't understand accurately, then there's no meaning."

I can't accept nihilism, John. That path leads to despair for most people. But I can accept existentialism ... because even if we cannot find the ultimate answer to the meaning of the Universe, we can find (or even invent) an answer that we can live with, and that satisfies our needs.

[tmancour]

I guess I am still not being clear. I will admit for the sake of argument that chrisitanity could be made up by Paul, OK? If that is the case then we are both following 'invented' religions.


Axiomatic. Proceed.



The difference I see is that I don't think I am following an invented religion. I truly believe that I am following a religion that is absofreakinglutely true in the objective sense. Jesus really was God in the flesh and says that he is the ONLY way to be saved and all that.


And your objective evidence for this belief is . . . ? (BTW, the Bible doesn't count as "objective" evidence, or even a reliable history.)



IF you could prove to me that Paul made that all up and invented Christianity, I would stop believing it.

Why? Because I don't want to follow some made-up religion that does not teach the true God of the Universe.


Again, the burden of proof is on you. True, Jesus no doubt did exist, historically, but there is little doubt that Paul took the historical events and spun them into a new syncretic religion that also happened to be misogynistic, nihlistic, and obsessed with death. But Paul was a man, and he wrote what he did without ever having experienced Jesus as a live human being. His testimony is pretty suspect.

Are you a follower of Christianity, then, because you have made an objective search of all the world's faiths and chosen the most logical one for your own? Or were you raised a Christian, taught Christianity exclusively, and accept it's basic tenents so automatically that "of course" it is the Truth?



But you tell me that you KNOW that Wicca is exactly such a religion. You know that some person just invented it. And yet you choose to follow it anyway. That just seems illogical to me.


Again, you display your ignorance about Paganism. Wicca is a modern iteration of a much older Pagan ideal. Sure, Gardner and Company wrote it down and popularized some of the rituals and tenents, but he built on several thousand years worth of cultural and religious history. If anything, it was the early Christians who popped out of the woodwork with a "made up religion", eschewing all other systems and catapulting an obscure Jewish sect into international prominence. As Wicca (and the other modern Pagan religions) came into existance, they sought a return to these earlier theologies. They also syncretized other elements (feminism and environmentalism, among others) borrowed some ritual elements from here or there -- but the religion continues to evolve in a very healthy way, and has a bright future.

We didn't "make up" polytheism -- we came back to it. Playing with Jehovah is dangerous. He doesn't play well with others.



And on top of that, you DO reject Christianity because you think it was made up by Paul and the others.


No, we have rejected Christianity because it is a depressing, guilt-laden and nihlistic faith that can be easily used by demagogues to control large masses of people, depriving them of the ability to think for themselves, denegrates sexuality and womanhood in general, despises the world we live in, legitimizes violence in the name of evagelism, and routinely ignores or subverts the teachings of the founder.

Have I left anything out?



So you have one standard of truth for Christianity/Other religions, and a second one for your chosen religion.


Nope. Same standard for all religions. Wicca is not without its issues. But then again, we never claimed an exclusive Truth the way the Radical Monotheists do. We'd rather get along with -- maybe even love -- our neighbors. And we can do it without insisting that they believe as we do, or that they will endure eternal torment if they do not.



I have the same standard of truth for my beliefs. If I were to find out that what I believe was invented by the mind of Paul or other early Christians then I would cease to believe it. And I would not beleive any other religion until it could convince me that it corresponds to reality concerning the creator of the universe.

You have yet to establish that Jehovah is, indeed, the creator of the universe. There is no "proof" for that outside of the Bible -- so you are essentially forced to take his word for it, unquestionably. Why not try the Koran? Same kind of revelations, only even more shiny!

Arion the Blue

[JardinPrayer]

I must admit that, for the same reason I don't spend much time in debate threads, I could not manage to sit and read the last 2 and a half pages of this one. I start to glaze over and feel an overwhelming urge to just shout, "Hold it! Let's regroup!"

Guys...I think what is missing here is acknowledgement on everyone's part that true Christians believe WITH THEIR WHOLE HEART (that means in spite of whatever intellectual struggles they may have with the scriptures or any "evidence" presented to the contrary - anhistoric or otherwise) that God Himself made His presence and His will for us known through certain people and certain writings. Any human flaws on the part of those people or writings or in our ability to rightly divide His word does not in any way change what is steadfast and indelible in our hearts. Most of us can claim at least a moment, if not many of them, when we have received personal, undeniable confirmation of God's presence in our lives which either brought us to our belief in Him to begin with or shores it up as we move through life. You cannot prove or disprove that by citing history or intellectualizing. This is the very nature of faith...it is not a choice to believe something...it is a transforming event. When Christians say they can feel the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that it guides them and comforts them and, indeed, proves to them their belief is true and just, we are not just being glassy-eyed cultists living in a dream world. That very faith itself is a gift from God and it frees us to rest in the assurance that He is much higher in His thoughts and ways than we could ever be. If we insist on holding God to our severely limited ability to intellectualize and interpret...if we hold Him to the literality of any word on the pages of any book (be it a history text or the bible itself)...we simply further separate ourselves from Him.

Yes, Justin, books were written by men...though I would hesitate to say "made up." The earnestness and competence of any given writer is never wholly known to us. However, we believe God's word can be revealed to anyone who reads or hears the gospel if their heart is open to receive it...regardless of the technicalities I have seen cited time and again in debates between atheists, pagans, theists, and Christians. It transcends the written word...it transcends the intellectual argument...it transcends the historical or evolutionary record. It is SPIRITUAL. God tells us Himself that his thoughts and ways are higher than ours. We cannot hope to attain even a glimpse of what real truth is in my belief. That being the case, I content myself with a life of servitude, submission, and seeking. I am content not to have it all figured out and I certainly see the futility in trying to "prove" God's existence or in "proving" I am right about my God being the one true God. That effort is the very antithesis of faith. Faith comes on hearing the word...it is a gift from God available to all who earnestly seek Him with and are willing - indeed, hungry - to receive Him with an open heart. Once that occurs...you have all the proof you need. If that has not occurred, you cannot hope to understand the peace that passes all understanding.

If it does not suit you (this is not addressed to Justin alone), or confounds you, or even angers you...okay. But, at least refrain from ridiculing us for something that goes to our core. We don't believe in a fastasy, as stated in the OP...we believe in God. You believe in a creator. That makes us alike...or at least provides a common starting point for discussion. So long as you are focussed on disproving one another, there is no opportunity for accord. Faith comes on hearing the word of God. I would rather plant those seeds and let God water them than live a life of strife with my brothers and sisters in humanity.

[Richbee]

Hold it! Let's regroup!

Really, and there is a great story that communicates for our times, Quote: "... beneath the surface of Narnia, the children of C.S. Lewis's The Silver Chair engage in a most frustrating conversation with the witch, the queen of what is called Underland. The children try desperately to describe to the queen the scenes and certainties of Narnia; they speak of the sun and the moon, of the stars—and of Aslan. The witch responds with the cunning deconstructionism of a postmodern wordsmith.


"What is this sun that you all speak of?" she asks. "Do you mean anything by the word? And Aslan, what a pretty name! What does it mean?" Struggling with the weight of what feels like an enchanted fog over their minds (and is), the children try their best to explain. "The sun is like a lamp, only far greater and brighter…" And of Aslan: "He is a lion—the great Lion… a little bit like a huge cat, with a mane." To this the witch counters with the sweetest of laughs, "You see? You have seen lamps, and so you imagined a bigger and better lamp and called it the sun. You've seen cats, and now you want a bigger and better cat, and it's to be called a lion… Look how you can put nothing into your make-believe without copying it from the real world… Put away these childish tricks… There is no Narnia, no sky, no sun, no Aslan."

From "Faith in the Fog” (www.rzim.org/publications/slicetran.php?sliceid=954):

Jill Carattini writes:

I don't believe it is too bold to say (and neither did Lewis) that life as a Christian sometimes feels something quite like this. Amidst the fog of a world that sees moral confusion and bewilderment and recognizes it as freedom, it can become quite exhausting to find the right words to explain that which we know to be true, only to be told that our words have no meaning.

"Truth," "sin," and "God" are matters of utmost consequence all too often being condensed into word games. It has never been more difficult, nor more important, to be able to defend your faith.

[technomage]

I must admit that, for the same reason I don't spend much time in debate threads, I could not manage to sit and read the last 2 and a half pages of this one. I start to glaze over and feel an overwhelming urge to just shout, "Hold it! Let's regroup!"

Ah, you're a piker when it comes to debate. :hehe:


Guys...I think what is missing here is acknowledgement on everyone's part that true Christians believe WITH THEIR WHOLE HEART (that means in spite of whatever intellectual struggles they may have with the scriptures or any "evidence" presented to the contrary - anhistoric or otherwise) that God Himself made His presence and His will for us known through certain people and certain writings.

Dearheart, no one here has missed that--well, at least I haven't. I already know that Christians truly, sincerely, and wholeheartedly believe. But I also know that if I truly, sincerely, and wholeheartedly believe that I can jump off the roof of my house and fly, I'm going to end up with some fairly extensive injuries.

Belief does not change fact--no matter how true, sincere, or wholehearted that belief is.


When Christians say they can feel the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that it guides them and comforts them and, indeed, proves to them their belief is true and just, we are not just being glassy-eyed cultists living in a dream world.

I do indeed understand that--and I wholeheartedly agree. However, when Wiccans have the same experience, we are told by some Christians "Oh, your experience wasn't really God, but some demon impersonating him."

Lynn, I have no doubt that you can empathize with my frustration when such an event occurs.


Yes, Justin, books were written by men...though I would hesitate to say "made up." The earnestness and competence of any given writer is never wholly known to us. However, we believe God's word can be revealed to anyone who reads or hears the gospel if their heart is open to receive it...regardless of the technicalities I have seen cited time and again in debates between atheists, pagans, theists, and Christians. It transcends the written word...it transcends the intellectual argument...it transcends the historical or evolutionary record. It is SPIRITUAL.

I agree ... but I must also point out that, to the best of my understanding, spiritual truth cannot contradict material fact. Again, we're back to jumping off the roof: I don't care if God Himself says "You have wings, and if you just have enough faith, you can fly," I'm going to get hurt jumping off the roof.

But if God tells me "Jump, and I will protect you from harm," then I have faith that he will protect me. By the same token, if God says "Jump--you will be hurt, but I have highter purpose X" ... well, I'd like to think I trust him enough to follow that higher purpose, but I also know I'm human and afraid of heights. So my faith is not perfect ... but I'm working on it.


If it does not suit you (this is not addressed to Justin alone), or confounds you, or even angers you...okay. But, at least refrain from ridiculing us for something that goes to our core. We don't believe in a fastasy, as stated in the OP...we believe in God.

Dearheart, my "ridicule" (disagreement, actually) is not directed at anyone's belief in God--by whatever name. Yes, I am less than patient with those who say the metaphoric equivalent of "My Bible says white is black, therefore I disregard the evidence of my eyes and believe." That is the "fantasy world" I disregard.

Justin

[Sparko]

Axiomatic. Proceed.



And your objective evidence for this belief is . . . ? (BTW, the Bible doesn't count as "objective" evidence, or even a reliable history.)



Again, the burden of proof is on you. True, Jesus no doubt did exist, historically, but there is little doubt that Paul took the historical events and spun them into a new syncretic religion that also happened to be misogynistic, nihlistic, and obsessed with death. But Paul was a man, and he wrote what he did without ever having experienced Jesus as a live human being. His testimony is pretty suspect.

Are you a follower of Christianity, then, because you have made an objective search of all the world's faiths and chosen the most logical one for your own? Or were you raised a Christian, taught Christianity exclusively, and accept it's basic tenents so automatically that "of course" it is the Truth?

I am a Christian because I have been convinced that it is the truth, that it corresponds to reality and that it truly represents the creator.

I believe Christianity is the truth. That is why I believe it.

Now I am NOT going to go into all that burden of proof stuff in this thread because that is a side issue. I am claiming that the evidence that convinced me that it is true is there. That is what convinced me it is true. There are plenty of thread about why we believe it is true all over this site. You can also read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel for a basic introductory course in the evidences for Christianity.


Now if you told me you had good reasons to think that Gardner has some insight into the true creator and that he has any evidence at all that what he invented represents objective reality, then my whole point is moot and I withdraw my objection. You would have some evidence that you accept is true. I may still think you are wrong, but at least you are being logical.

But what I am understanding from your posts is that you know Gardner just invented a lot of this stuff, has NO evidence that any of it represents the true creator and yet are following it anyway, because "the journey is what is important" and "all roads lead to God" and other cliches. Objective truth is way down the list on your reasons to believe Wicca if it is on the list at all.

I am not trying to denigrate your religion, I am just seeing your reasons for following it as being illogical and alien to me. Traveling to New York via Mexico because the "Journey is Important," still doesn't get you to New York, although you might indeed have a pleasant trip - all you will get is Mexico. If I want to go to New York, I will go by the most direct route available and I will research the best and truest way there and take it.

And having repeated myself yet again, I think I do indeed need to leave this thread.

God Bless,

Sparko.

[tmancour]

I am a Christian because I have been convinced that it is the truth, that it corresponds to reality and that it truly represents the creator.

I believe Christianity is the truth. That is why I believe it.


Which is the circular argument for Faith. You believe it, so it must be true. Therefore, if it is true, you will believe it.



Now I am NOT going to go into all that burden of proof stuff in this thread because that is a side issue. I am claiming that the evidence that convinced me that it is true is there. That is what convinced me it is true. There are plenty of thread about why we believe it is true all over this site. You can also read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel for a basic introductory course in the evidences for Christianity.


Again, have you given any other religions enough study to be convinced that Christianity, alone among them, is more true than the rest?




Now if you told me you had good reasons to think that Gardner has some insight into the true creator and that he has any evidence at all that what he invented represents objective reality, then my whole point is moot and I withdraw my objection. You would have some evidence that you accept is true. I may still think you are wrong, but at least you are being logical.


Well, we don't really hold Gardner up to be a great theologic thinker -- nor as a prophet or other revealer. He was instrumental in rediscovering and popularizing Paganism, but his effectiveness pretty much ends there.

What Gardner and his collegues did do, however, was re-introduce the idea of the existance and importance of the Mother Goddess, and returned Her to Her rightful place as Creatrix. In that he has the insight you requested I produce.

Because in the objective reality, no man was every brought into the world without the agency of the Mother. She birthed the whole universe, She birthed every man and woman, She birthed every animal. Without Her, there would be no humanity. One of the strongest cases against the Christian doctrine is the lack of respect or acknowlegement of the divine componant of the female half of the species. Catholicism comes closest, with the adoration of the Virgin, but comes far short in denying Her the place of prominence She deserves. Likewise, Christianity denegrates the life-force in regards to sexuality -- another real-world, objective reality factor that Paganism celebrates and Christianity shuns (outside of an extremely narrow, limiting, and church-controlled area). Sex, Motherhood, and Death are all Enemies according to Christian doctrine, and denied their natural place at the Divine table.

All of the above is perfectly and utterly logical: which is more impressive, changing water into wine or taking two single cells and manifesting a complete living creature at the end of a fruitful gestation? How can the creative force of the universe, sex, be reduced to "sin and temptation to sin"? It is the single most natural sacrement any being can engage in.

Do you follow the logic of my religion?



But what I am understanding from your posts is that you know Gardner just invented a lot of this stuff, has NO evidence that any of it represents the true creator and yet are following it anyway, because "the journey is what is important" and "all roads lead to God" and other cliches. Objective truth is way down the list on your reasons to believe Wicca if it is on the list at all.


See above. Gardner merely opened the door to the possibility of a return to that which we have missed so dearly for a millenia. And the idea of the Mother as the True Creatrix makes far, far more sense than a monopole diety who seems to have a penis that has no purpose. Because without the Mother, God the Father is an abberation. Objective truth tells me that the experience of life is the best method of informing me about the nature of the universe -- and my objective reality demonstrates a sexual polarity around which every aspect of life until Death revolves. If that is not reflected in your theology, then it deviates from the reality to which you cling, and therefore must be in error.



I am not trying to denigrate your religion, I am just seeing your reasons for following it as being illogical and alien to me.

Have I explained a few? Perhaps if you had requested what a true Pagan theology consisted of, asked why we consider the Wheel of the Year as sacred, you would have gotten beyond the "Gardner made it up" aspect and realised that this religion is a lot more theologically robust than you were led to believe.

Arion

[tmancour]

Dearheart, no one here has missed that--well, at least I haven't. I already know that Christians truly, sincerely, and wholeheartedly believe. But I also know that if I truly, sincerely, and wholeheartedly believe that I can jump off the roof of my house and fly, I'm going to end up with some fairly extensive injuries.

Belief does not change fact--no matter how true, sincere, or wholehearted that belief is.

Lynn, I have to agree here. As I have said, I have met what I consider to be TRUE Christians, that is, people who adhere to Christ's teachings and make a serious stab at avoiding hypocrisy. I appreciate their sincere and honest pursuit of God in their way. I am not threatened by these folks, as they demonstrate nothing but goodwill towards me -- even after I reveal my own religion. The true Christian can love the Satanist as a brother, and not let doctrinal issues get in the way of ministering in a loving manner towards his fellow man. The true Christians I have met witness without ever opening their mouths, demonstrating the strength of their faith by their actions.

Then there are a lot of Church-goers who seem to have missed the important parts of what Jesus had to say. Unfortunately, they bear the name 'Christian' as well. I'm certain you are aware of them: they believe that membership in a church and singing loudly on Sunday, a fish emblem on the back of their car and a generous checkbook during the offeratory entitle them to the same name as those who recognize the intense and difficult spiritual and mystical practice Jesus taught.



I do indeed understand that--and I wholeheartedly agree. However, when Wiccans have the same experience, we are told by some Christians "Oh, your experience wasn't really God, but some demon impersonating him."

Lynn, I have no doubt that you can empathize with my frustration when such an event occurs.


Word. Christianity's insistance on delegitimizing any other spiritual view makes it very very hard to take it seriously as a real alternative. It often smacks of brutishness and coercion and closes the door to any real, fruitful discussions.




Dearheart, my "ridicule" (disagreement, actually) is not directed at anyone's belief in God--by whatever name. Yes, I am less than patient with those who say the metaphoric equivalent of "My Bible says white is black, therefore I disregard the evidence of my eyes and believe." That is the "fantasy world" I disregard.


Again, word. When the Bible preaches that Woman is inherently sinful and unclean, it loses all credibility for me. Woman is the font which brings forth life. Denying that demonstrates arrogance and ignorance, and is a theological non-starter.

Arion

[JardinPrayer]

First, Justin, let me commend you on your discernment when responding to posts. You certainly can be credited with dealing with individuals as individuals rather than lumping Christians into one big pot. I appreciate your gentleness in response to my own.



Belief does not change fact--no matter how true, sincere, or wholehearted that belief is.

No argument there. I have had some tragic personal experiences with Christians who believe things that are just outrageous and harmful to their own well-being because they have emotionalized their experience with God and had those emotions manipulated by charismatic church leaders who are likely just as deluded as the poor congregation member. I was personally told by my church leaders time and again that I would conceive and bear a child because the "signs" seemed to point to it. I was paraded in front of others in the church as someone a miracle was about to happen to. I believed it for over a year although I have been pregnant only once in my 46 years and could not carry that child because it was terribly unhealthy. Ultimately, I had to have a hysterectomy. I certainly know that it is a FACT that, no matter what anyone prophecies...or even if I think God Himself tells me I will bear a child...there will be no babies coming out of this body. I feel hurt and manipulated by the church that had me so wrapped up in that belief for so long. I equate this to jumping off the roof. I equate your citations that provide the fodder for anhistoric proof to jumping off the roof. I equate many things Lee Merrill is posting to jumping off the roof (my opinion), as well as many fringy things Christians tend to build into their personal belief system because it feels best for them. What I do not equate to jumping off the roof is the absolute certainty I have in my God. There are no facts to either prove or disprove that...that is the transcendent bit I refer to.


However, when Wiccans have the same experience, we are told by some Christians "Oh, your experience wasn't really God, but some demon impersonating him."

Lynn, I have no doubt that you can empathize with my frustration when such an event occurs.

Indeed I can and I would never say that to you. Christians who would are dishonoring God, IMHO, because they miss an opportunity to find the bridge and attempt to share Christian truth from a place of accord. We need to show brotherly love if we are going to preach brotherly love. Again, plant seeds and let God water them. I'm not an in-your-face evangelist, as I have made clear. I believe I am the best possible witness when I am simply living what Jesus has taught me. The example is what moves others, makes them want to draw near, and know more. We should be living our lives in a way that makes the unsaved want to be like us. Otherwise, what are we really offering them? An argumentative, blustering, wrathful path? I think not.


I agree ... but I must also point out that, to the best of my understanding, spiritual truth cannot contradict material fact.

Fact can be a dicey word, dear. Since we are claiming invalidity on the basis of books written by men, all are subject to the same flaws. We know history books are often politically biased. What feels like fact to us may be entirely different for someone in another country who is raised indoctrinated with a different perpsective of history. Sure, documentation can back things up and this is where we need to be objective about our faith. But nothing stands in the way of belief in God and the core tenets of our faith and belief structure.


Again, we're back to jumping off the roof: I don't care if God Himself says "You have wings, and if you just have enough faith, you can fly," I'm going to get hurt jumping off the roof.

If you believed it was God Himself, then you ought to believe as you state below:


But if God tells me "Jump, and I will protect you from harm," then I have faith that he will protect me. By the same token, if God says "Jump--you will be hurt, but I have highter purpose X" ... well, I'd like to think I trust him enough to follow that higher purpose, but I also know I'm human and afraid of heights. So my faith is not perfect ... but I'm working on it.

How wonderful to know you are working on it! So are we all! I think my comments above about "toxic faith" cover your point here.

Our faith is not perfect, our "facts" are not perfect, and our books are no perfect. But, our God is. What a comfort. What a joy!


Dearheart, my "ridicule" (disagreement, actually) is not directed at anyone's belief in God--by whatever name. Yes, I am less than patient with those who say the metaphoric equivalent of "My Bible says white is black, therefore I disregard the evidence of my eyes and believe." That is the "fantasy world" I disregard.

Yes, Justin, I understand. I was not directing the word "ridicule" at you, necessarily. And, I believe some here are disregarding their perception of a "fantasy world," the same as you are for them. So, I am forced to be a broken record and say, why don't we look for the places where we can join rather than disjoin? Heck, I'm moving to the south...I can now say even sillier things like, "Ya catch more flies with honey than vinegar!"

[Sparko]

Which is the circular argument for Faith. You believe it, so it must be true. Therefore, if it is true, you will believe it.

If I were using that as my argument to convince you that I am right, then you would be correct. But I am not. I am merely stating that I believe the evidence for Christianity and that is why I believe Christianity. That is a statement of fact, not an argument for anything.

The actual evidence I will leave for another time because if I were to present it here it would derail the thread into a side track. If you want to discuss that with me then I will be happy to do so elsewhere. If you are actually interested in what the evidence is, I recommend you read books like i mentioned before such as "the Case for Christ" which goes over the evidence point by point.

summarized it boils down to this.

1. There is evidence that the bible is true.
2. I believe this evidence.
3. The bible claims direct revelation from God telling us who he is and what he wants.






Again, have you given any other religions enough study to be convinced that Christianity, alone among them, is more true than the rest?

In fact yes I have.





Well, we don't really hold Gardner up to be a great theologic thinker -- nor as a prophet or other revealer. He was instrumental in rediscovering and popularizing Paganism, but his effectiveness pretty much ends there.

What Gardner and his collegues did do, however, was re-introduce the idea of the existance and importance of the Mother Goddess, and returned Her to Her rightful place as Creatrix. In that he has the insight you requested I produce.

Because in the objective reality, no man was every brought into the world without the agency of the Mother. She birthed the whole universe, She birthed every man and woman, She birthed every animal. Without Her, there would be no humanity. One of the strongest cases against the Christian doctrine is the lack of respect or acknowlegement of the divine componant of the female half of the species. Catholicism comes closest, with the adoration of the Virgin, but comes far short in denying Her the place of prominence She deserves. Likewise, Christianity denegrates the life-force in regards to sexuality -- another real-world, objective reality factor that Paganism celebrates and Christianity shuns (outside of an extremely narrow, limiting, and church-controlled area). Sex, Motherhood, and Death are all Enemies according to Christian doctrine, and denied their natural place at the Divine table.

All of the above is perfectly and utterly logical: which is more impressive, changing water into wine or taking two single cells and manifesting a complete living creature at the end of a fruitful gestation? How can the creative force of the universe, sex, be reduced to "sin and temptation to sin"? It is the single most natural sacrement any being can engage in.

Do you follow the logic of my religion?

Not really. WHY do you think there is a mother Goddess? How do you know what she is like? Who she is? What she wants? What her attributes are? Why would a creator have an actual sex anyway? Christians call God "Father" but we don't actually suppose that he has male genitalia. He is spirit.

Where does your info about this 'Goddess' come from?

You don't have to go into great theological detail about it if you don't want to. I just want an overview/summary, like: "the goddess contacts us in our dreams and tells us about herself" or "she revealed herself to Gardner" or "we found an ancient book from babylon that tells us about her that was revealed by her directly" --- something other than "well we kinda sat around and just decided that is what we would like our creator to be like"

[technomage]

1. There is evidence that the bible is true.

For me, this is the crux of the problem. Yes, there is some evidence that the Bible is "true" ... but there is also evidence that it is not. I feel the Con argument is overwhelming, based on quantity and quality of evidence--you obviously disagree. Yet when I speak with the typical Joe Schmoe Apologist, any and all evidence to the contrary is summarily dismissed.


Not really. WHY do you think there is a mother Goddess? How do you know what she is like? Who she is? What she wants? What her attributes are? Why would a creator have an actual sex anyway? Christians call God "Father" but we don't actually suppose that he has male genitalia. He is spirit.

First and foremost, I do not consider the Lord and Lady to have physical genitalia, as you suggest. Call it a parable, a Myth, or what have you ... it is a metaphor to attempt even a vague understanding of a Creator who is beyond our understanding.


Where does your info about this 'Goddess' come from?

Dreams and mystical visions are certainly part of my own process of discovery. Books ... not so much in my case.

But intellect, reason, and evidence are also important. I certanly would have grave difficulties accepting a mystical vision of the Goddess that told me "You are the savior for the earth." By the same token, I'd have grave difficulties accepting a vision that said "Dig here and you'll find the cities of an ancient civilization" if, when I dig, that city isn't there.

John, Gardner did not make up a religion, per se. What he did make up was a set of techniques for obtaining and understanding mystical experiences. That's why most of his books dealt with witchcraft as technique ... his theology was not "This is what there is," but "This is what I discovered ... go see what you find out."

[technomage]

So, I am forced to be a broken record and say, why don't we look for the places where we can join rather than disjoin? Heck, I'm moving to the south...I can now say even sillier things like, "Ya catch more flies with honey than vinegar!"

Lynn, I normally try to. But I'm only human ... and occasionally the temptation to return insult for insult and rejection for rejection overcomes me.

To the best of my understanding, you, John, Geifodd, Arion, and I ... we're all calling on the same God. That's a conclusion most Christians would object to, and I'm fairly sure Geifodd wouldn't be too happy with it, but that's my best understanding of the nature of God. NONE of the "names" we use are accurate ... but because the Creator loves us, He/She/It will answer to any all of the names that we use, even if those names are wrong.

I am persuaded that God does not care what we call "Him," so long as we sincerely call "Him."

[Geifodd]

Jardin (Lynn?):

Guys...I think what is missing here is acknowledgement on everyone's part that true Christians believe WITH THEIR WHOLE HEART (that means in spite of whatever intellectual struggles they may have with the scriptures or any "evidence" presented to the contrary - anhistoric or otherwise) that God Himself made His presence and His will for us known through certain people and certain writings.

Now hold on there, Jardin! At no point in this thread or any other did I ever say that Christians DON'T believe "with their whole hearts." I really wish that people would quit lumping me together with whoever has been saying this.

Once again:

I understand that Christians honestly believe that their religion is correct. I do not agree that their religion is correct, for what I consider to be logical reasons. But I'm not about to claim that Christians are just liars who "deceive themselves" into believing things that they already know aren't true. I just finished getting into a rather long argument with an atheist on another board about this issue, and he was quite angry that I was willing to say anything positive about Christians. People seem to be surprised whenever they find a Satanist dismantling overgeneralizations that are made about people different from themselves, including Christians -- but this is precisely one of the things that we Satanists are "commanded" to do. And it would appear that a Devil Worshiper's job is never done!

My purpose in even becoming involved in this thread was because I wished to respond to the following statement made by Sparko:

Well logically, you have a better chance connecting to the creator through a religion that claims to be revealed by the creator himself, than by a religion that you know was made up by a person.

Now you can read my initial response on Page 2:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=62996&page=2&pp=16

I understand that Christians believe that their religion is honestly true. However, so far as I can see, most people in ALL religions have this attitude. I do not think that anybody in this thread intended to say that they didn't think their beliefs were honestly true; I think that Sparko misinterpreted what Justin meant.

Sparko's point is that he thinks it is better to practice a religion that you believe in whole-heartedly, rather than "practice" a religion that you accept as wrong.

Justin's point is that all religions, whether they are inspired by divinity or not, are essentially man-made. That is, the sectarian language, symbolism and various practices implemented in such religions are essentially developed by human beings in response to their ideas or experiences of divinity. Even Christianity had a human founder. Whether you believe he was the incarnation of the Supreme Being or not, he is historically accepted as having been a flesh-and-blood human being.

The confusion between these two gentlemen would appear to come in here: Sparko believes that Jesus was not merely human, but the incarnation of God. Justin does not. Therefore, Sparko apparently believes that Christianity is superior to Wicca because Christianity's founder was an incarnate God, whereas Wicca's founder was just a regular joe shmoe. Sparko has every right to believe this way. However, there is insufficient evidence with which it can be proven that Jesus was the incarnation of God. Therefore, Sparko's belief is a claim, and not a verifiable objective fact. In terms of verifiable objective facts, Christianity, as with all other religions, was created by a man (or men, depending on which way you look at it).

A significant part of the confusion would also seem to be that Justin has admitted that Gardner was a joe shmoe, and Sparko has mistaken this for a claim on Justin's part that Wicca is simply "fake." From what I can see, this has never voiced by Justin at all. Justin's view is that all religions are developed by mortal men, yet there is still something inherently spiritual about all of them. In this context, Justin is saying that both Wicca and Christianity are valid, even though he disagrees strongly with Christianity.

My point in this discussion has been to point out what I consider to be the center of conflict: completely different views of divinity and completely different views of Jesus, one based upon Biblical claims and one based upon a lack of conclusive evidence for such. As well as the fallacy of believing a particular religion to be superior simply on the basis of a claim, rather than on verifiable objective evidence. And the assumption that acceptance of the founder of a particular religion as being merely mortal is somehow self-defeatist.

If a Christian were to say, "I believe Christianity is superior to other religions, because I know in my heart that it's true," then even though I would see no reason to agree with this, I would see no reason to debate with it either. In my opinion, judgements concerning people's personal spiritual experiences are best left to the individuals who have them. But if a Christian is to say, "I believe Christianity is superior because it was made by the Son of God, whereas this other religion here was simply made by men," then I am going to have a problem with it, because here the subjective belief is being voiced as objective fact without any qualifying evidence. And I am especially going to have a problem with it if this statement is based upon the assumption that the people in the "other religion" do not claim that their founder was a god-man.

Point being, I have not once stated that Christians do not honestly believe in their religion, and this has never been the point I have tried to make in this entire discussion. I do not appreciate having people put words in my mouth, and I do not appreciate being lumped together with views that I do not share.

[tmancour]

If I were using that as my argument to convince you that I am right, then you would be correct. But I am not. I am merely stating that I believe the evidence for Christianity and that is why I believe Christianity. That is a statement of fact, not an argument for anything.

The actual evidence I will leave for another time because if I were to present it here it would derail the thread into a side track.

Another time, then.



In fact yes I have.


Would you care to elaborate, then on why Christianity is somehow "more true" than another revelatory religion with a historic base and divinely written text, such as Islam? I'd be curious to know.



Not really. WHY do you think there is a mother Goddess?


Because

1. By historical and cultural tradition. Every human culture has in its protohistory a central Mother Goddess. Even the Hebrews did, at one time. Jehovah and She had a falling out, though, and she was forever exiled from Judaism (though remained popular among the Jews, themselves). The mesolithic statues of the Mother are well-documented, and every great civilization of the past worshipped Her and acknowleged Her as their divine Earth Mother. Her worship has continued with most of humanity unbroken, and of all the gods in all the pantheons, She is recognized most universally, both historically and culturally. Only in the Abrahamist religions is she denied. Even Buddha acknowleged her as supreme, when asked by Mara for a witness to his Enlightenment.

2. By observation. The objective reality of Nature demonstrates that every creature more advanced than a worm uses the dualistic method of reproduction, ie male and female. It logically follows that any Divine force manifest in our natural world would be reflective of this most basic set up. There are aspects of Divinity that are, by my observation, uniquely feminine, and there are those that are uniquely masculine. Exceptional individuals may have the ability to cross the line between the genders, and experience that divinity for themselves, but most of us are limited to our own gender's experience of divinity.



How do you know what she is like?


I have a mother. I have a wife. I have a daughter. Just as Christians are taught to seek the Christ in the face of everyone they meet, I have seen the image of the Goddess reflected on the faces of my family. She is loving, caring, compassionate; she is humorous, sexy, and wrathful; She is capricious, curious, and full of wonder. Her moods wax and wane like the Moon she is often symbolized by.



Who she is? What she wants?


She is every woman, and every woman is Her. She wants my love for her, for who She is. She wants my happiness. She wants my respect and acknowlegement. And She wants my participation in Her world, to make the most of the life with which She has gifted me. She wants what every mother wants for her child, what every wife wants for her husband, what every sister wants for her brother, what every daughter wants for her father.



What her attributes are?


Her love is unconditional and eternal, unlike any other love. She is the source of Caritas, the Primal Love of a mother for her child. Such love is universal, even transpecies. Caritas is also the healing power of sexual union. It is also the simple, elegant love of a daughter for her daddy, or a sister for a sibling. Without Caritas, we cannot live. In Christianity they took Caritas and Eros and debased them to Charity and Marriage, robbing Her of Her due, and tried to replace them with Agape and Philios. Agape and Philios may sustain for a while, but life cannot be truly lived without Caritas and Eros. She cannot be thusly bound indefinately.



Why would a creator have an actual sex anyway? Christians call God "Father" but we don't actually suppose that he has male genitalia. He is spirit.

That is your supposition, and is not supported or acknowleged by Christian docrtine and dogma. The Genesis account of creation clearly shows that Jehovah made Man in his image, then as an afterthought made Woman. If that is truly the case in your "true" religion, based upon your "true" Bible, then God must conform to Man's image in every way. Including having a penis. This has long been established by the Church -- just ask all the Catholic nuns who want to be priests, but are not allowed. One cannot claim that the basis upon which one's religion was created is absolutely true -- except the part about the naughty bits, which is just metaphor. Either it is literally true, or the entire work is subject to subjective interpretation.

While modern post-industrial Western Protestant Christians may share your view, the vast majority of Christians around the world do not hesitate to claim the essential Male nature of God the Father. It's pretty important to the whole religion. The Church could have had an out, establishing the Virgin as Goddess via the Holy Spirit, or put the Magdeline in her proper place as the consort of Christ, but St. Paul didn't like girls (not enough Caritas in his youth?) so that was right out. Heck, had he done that I might be a Christian today. Regardless, it is a fact of Christian doctrine that Jehovah is male. Which means he has a penis.

But why have a penis, unless there is a corresponding vagina? Urination? Not likely, being a perfect being and all. Masturbation? The thought is amusing, but unlikely. The fact is that the God who made Man in his image included a penis. Which means that Eve was probably not the afterthought that Genesis claims. As far as the Goddess is concerned, She has a gender because She is one half of a divine couple, the duo from which all advanced life springs.



Where does your info about this 'Goddess' come from?


Observation. Learning about Her in all of Her myriad historical and cultural manifestations in every human culture. Personal experience in meditations, dreams, ritual. Sure, there are books about Her -- plenty of them -- but I prefer direct experience. It is simply more relevent to my life than what Gotor Hoteb of the Second Dynasty thought about Her. My image of Her is informed by such texts, and they provide an interesting place for spiritual meditation to begin, but my experience of Her is by far the most valid source of information.



You don't have to go into great theological detail about it if you don't want to. I just want an overview/summary, like: "the goddess contacts us in our dreams and tells us about herself" or "she revealed herself to Gardner" or "we found an ancient book from babylon that tells us about her that was revealed by her directly" --- something other than "well we kinda sat around and just decided that is what we would like our creator to be like"

I hope I have done just that. We aren't talking about a golden calf, here, we are talking about the Mother that has been the acknowleged Creatrix by all of humanity for at least 50,000 years. It is telling that there are no naturally occuring Paternal Radical Monotheistic cultures -- the practice only arises after the advent of writing -- but the inherent truth of the Goddess is re-written in every generation.

Arion

[JardinPrayer]

Justin and Geifodd...I am not intending to be provocative or to point fingers at any one individual for any offense or wrongdoing. I am responding to the thread as a whole and attempting to bring us to a place where mutual understanding can be maximized. I sense a touch of defensiveness on both your parts, which I do not believe is warranted, since I am not calling you out.

Geifodd...I apologize if you felt "lumped in." I have been advocating not doing exactly that from my first post in this thread. I know absolutely nothing about Satanism save for having read The Satanic Bible about 35 years ago, and I certainly don't know about your personal belief system. I respect you as an individual and potentially someone who might one day hear the call of God.

Justin...

To the best of my understanding, you, John, Geifodd, Arion, and I ... we're all calling on the same God. That's a conclusion most Christians would object to, and I'm fairly sure Geifodd wouldn't be too happy with it, but that's my best understanding of the nature of God. NONE of the "names" we use are accurate ... but because the Creator loves us, He/She/It will answer to any all of the names that we use, even if those names are wrong.
It is my belief that we are all calling on God, but Christians are bound by our faith to insist that it is not "the same God." I came to TheologyWeb with the belief you stated, but have grown into my Christianity since then and realize why we must make this distinction. If Geifodd is worshiping Satan, he CERTAINLY is not calling on the same God. Further, I would agree that God is called by many names, but when we (Christians) call on God, we are calling on the God we believe has revealed Himself directly to us and declared that He is the one true God. This is specifically to draw us away from any other entity, concept, or idol we might otherwise be tempted or misled into attaching His soverign and singluar nature to.


I am persuaded that God does not care what we call "Him," so long as we sincerely call "Him."
And I could not agree more...as long as we are calling the God I described above, that is, the one true God. We should be seeking His face...hungry for revelation...not asking him to get into a costume or mold we have prepared for Him to suit our comfort. Certainly not asking Him to respond when we call on Satan, a word which means "adversary." I wouldn't answer to my adversary's name, would you?

Again, I believe there is essential agreement at the fundamental level here. If we are sincerely calling and open to receive (that's the tricky part), God will draw us to Him. Too often, critics of Christianity refuse to receive anything from God other than what they stand in the middle of the room, arms crossed, foot tapping, demanding he demonstrate. I am not suggesting that has occurred here in this thread...merely illustrating hurdles to understanding and a genuinely open heart.

[technomage]

It is my belief that we are all calling on God, but Christians are bound by our faith to insist that it is not "the same God."

I know. And Christians are also bound by their faith to insist that Wiccans are not calling on the "same God," we are perforce calling on false Gods--demons. The only choice that Christians have in this issue is Hobbes choice.

Yet I am human. As a human, my patience is limited. And ... I tire of people looking at me and speaking to me as if I were somehow a lesser creature. Oh, to be sure, with very few exceptions this condescension is not intentional ... but if you for one moment could see the world from my eyes. Imagine if you will all the times I've heard "How do you know so much about the Bible if you're not Christian?" Or "You're so smart ... how could you have left the Church?"

I invite you to imagine it, but I would not put you, or Matt, or John, or any other Christian in my shoes for so much as one second. I would not inflict the suffering I have experienced at the hands of well-meaning Christians on my worst enemy ... if I had any enemies.

And I do my best to refrain from returning that kind of behavior to the Christians I encounter. I try to return kindness for insult, and understanding for rejection. As you've noticed on this thread, I do not always succeed.

And for that, I apologize--to you, to John, to Matt, and to any other Christian who has read this thread.

[Geifodd]

Jardin:

First: Should I call you Jardin or Lynn?

Geifodd...I apologize if you felt "lumped in." I have been advocating not doing exactly that from my first post in this thread. I know absolutely nothing about Satanism save for having read The Satanic Bible about 35 years ago, and I certainly don't know about your personal belief system. I respect you as an individual and potentially someone who might one day hear the call of God.

I apologize for coming across as "defensive" in my post, my intention was simply to explain my position in this discussion, not to make you feel that I am attacking you. The Satanic Bible is an interesting book, but you might be surprised to know that not all Satanists consider it their "Bible" (including myself). LaVeyans represent only one "faction" of Satanism. If you want to learn more about my belief system -- but only if you are interested, of course -- you can find a link to my personal website in my signature below, which explains the beliefs of Devil Worshipers and other kinds of Satanists quite extensively. (You might also be surprised to know that Devil Worshipers are only one kind of Satanist. All Devil Worshipers are Satanists, but not all Satanists are Devil Worshipers.)

I already heard the call of my god long ago, and in the ten years that I have served Him, He and I have established a healthy relationship that is not susceptible to the interference of other gods. I respect you as an individual, and potentially someone who might one day be susceptible to the influence of my Master -- as are many Christians, however unknown to them. As threatening as some people might find this comment to be, I assure you that I mean it in the same respectful manner as you do when you say that I might "one day hear the call of God."

If Geifodd is worshiping Satan, he CERTAINLY is not calling on the same God.

I would agree with this 100% -- indeed I believe I am not worshiping the same god as do Christians, Muslims and Jews. However, there are Satanists who DO believe that Satan is just "another name for the one true God" (these are called deistic or pantheistic Satanists. I myself am a polytheistic). I disagree with Justin's belief that we are all serving the same "God." However, since Justin has stated this as his own belief and not as some unverifiable objective fact, then I am okay with it. I respect his right to his opinion, just as I respect your right to yours.

Certainly not asking Him to respond when we call on Satan, a word which means "adversary." I wouldn't answer to my adversary's name, would you?

Unless you believe that the "adversary" is really just the Dark Side of God, as do many pantheistic Satanists. However, I digress.

Again, I believe there is essential agreement at the fundamental level here. If we are sincerely calling and open to receive (that's the tricky part), God will draw us to Him.

I suggest what I think is a better alternative: I think the essential agreement at the fundamental level should simply be, let's agree to disagree. There is no way that all of us can see eye to eye; Christians are certianly not about to see eye to eye with a Satanist when it comes to theological concerns (although I would hope that, if they are truly Christians as they define the term, they would not have a problem being friends with a Satanist). As a Satanist, I cannot even assure you that I would agree with the Wiccans. I disagree strongly with elements of both Christianity and Wicca. However, just because I disagree with the various theological beliefs of these and other groups, does not mean that I am above making friends with people who happen to belong to them. An important facet of Satanism is understanding that it is human nature to disagree and to have conflicting opinions, and that this is not evidence of a "fallen" nature but simply the way that things are, and always shall be. We can either learn to use our nature as an advantage and take strength from it, or we can try to deny who and what we really are, and constrict ourselves to both physical and spiritual self-destruction in the process.

[Richbee]

....Belief does not change fact--no matter how true, sincere, or wholehearted that belief is.

Well quoted and I recall someone communicating the same general idea as:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

(John Adams, A Biography In His Own Words, ed. James Bishop Peabody (New York: Newsweek, 1973), 121-122.)

So why deny the historical evidence of eyewitness testimony?

16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." [See: Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

(emphasis mine)

[tmancour]

Well quoted and I recall someone communicating the same general idea as:

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

(John Adams, A Biography In His Own Words, ed. James Bishop Peabody (New York: Newsweek, 1973), 121-122.)

So why deny the historical evidence of eyewitness testimony?

16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." [See: Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35] 18 We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

(emphasis mine)


Fine . . . a few of Jesus' pals/followers/disciples admit to seeing some cool stuff on a mountain. Eyewitnesses. Granted. But were is the non-Biblical text corroborating this? I can imagine some of Brittney Spears' hangers-on saying some pretty cool stuff about her, too. What form would that cools stuff take if it was written in Aramaic, translated to Greek, then Latin, then medieval English? Would you convict someone of murder on that kind of proof?

Please don't mistake me -- again, I have the highest regard for Jesus and much of his teaching. But using the Bible to prove the validity of the Bible is a circular, self-supporting arguement. Show me where (extraBiblically) Pontius Pilate or other credible disinterested third party can support these claims -- then you will be edging towards proof.

It reminds me of a party I attended where John and James (just a coincidence, I swear!), twins, showed up and insisted that they had seen a UFO the previous night. Really close -- "I coulda hit it with a baseball!" -- and begged us all to believe them. They were fairly credible, reasonably sober, and told a compelling story, but would have I staked my life, not to mention my immortal soul, on their "It really happened! Ask John!" and "It really happened! Just ask James!" testimony? True, I could make a leap of faith and say I believed them, but would I be believing the truth?

Arion

[Geifodd]

Clutch Cargo:

So why deny the historical evidence of eyewitness testimony?

Just because they wrote that they had "eyewitness testimony" (whoever "they" really are) does not mean that they were correct or that they were even telling the truth. They might have been crazy. They might have been lying.

By this logic, I could publish a book in which I state that I was an "eyewitness" that saw the ghost of Rodney Dangerfield floating ten feet above my trash can out in the yard. Would you believe me?

[JardinPrayer]

I've gotta say again...you guys really are missing the essence of faith. It is not in the proof...you cannot come to faith by this path, which is why you are frustrated in these kinds of debates. God is asking us to believe IN SPITE of the absence of the kind of proof you are asking for. Doubting Thomas is a case in point. He is calling the earnest seekers, not the foot-tappers. You guys got all up in arms when I suggested you didn't understand faith and whole-hearted surrender to it. Clearly, you really do miss the very core of it.

If God showed up in your kitched, did a few parlor tricks at your behest, answered all your questions, satisfied all your doubts and THEN you believed...why, this is not faith at all. It is what the whole point is, don't you see? He wants us to seek Him and hunger for Him and yearn not to be separated from Him by sin. He has illuminated the path and simply asks us to walk it in faith.

Here's an analogy. You and I are at a crossroads. You tell me you want to find Krispy Kreme because you heard it is sooooooo good. I tell you it is down the road heading East. You say, "Well, what if it is to the West or the North or the South?" I say, There may be others, but I know there is one to the East. You say, "How do you know, have you seen it?" I say, "No, but I have read about it and the guide said it is East." Then you tell me the guide may be incorrect and that it is not proof and that you will only believe the Krispy Kreme is East of us if someone comes from that direction holding a Krispy Kreme donut in his hand. Now, here's the important part....IN THE MEANTIME...you are going to head North because you believe it is just as possible to find the Krispy Kreme by taking an alternate route. So, even if the fella does come down the road with the donut, you won't see it because you've gone wandering down the North path.

Honestly, if you want to achieve understanding, it really is imperative for both sides to loosen their grip on their positions just enough to let the understanding in. If you're heading North all day long, calling back over your shoulder that I just cannot prove East is the way, you will not see me sharing the donut with the guy from the East because your back is turned.

I hope this illustration has not fanned any flames.

[technomage]

So why deny the historical evidence of eyewitness testimony?

For starters, because I am persuaded that the author of 2 Peter was not the Galilean fisherman.

[technomage]

I've gotta say again...you guys really are missing the essence of faith. It is not in the proof...you cannot come to faith by this path, which is why you are frustrated in these kinds of debates. God is asking us to believe IN SPITE of the absence of the kind of proof you are asking for.

I know this statement wasn't primarily in response to me, but Lynn, it's not nearly so simple as all that. I'm not talking about some sort of "absence" of proof--I'm speaking of a preponderance of evidence explicitly contradicting the Bible claims. I can--and do--believe a number of unproven things ... but I cannot and will not believe that black is white merely because a book says so.

[JardinPrayer]

I know this statement wasn't primarily in response to me, but Lynn, it's not nearly so simple as all that. I'm not talking about some sort of "absence" of proof--I'm speaking of a preponderance of evidence explicitly contradicting the Bible claims. I can--and do--believe a number of unproven things ... but I cannot and will not believe that black is white merely because a book says so.

I hear ya, Justin...really I do. Yet, I am not asking anyone to accept that black is white. I am speaking of God and no one on this earth can either prove or disprove His existence, soverignty, or claim to be the one true God. I think we're close enough to being in agreement there, are we not? (Please say we've come at least that far).

Christians, fundamentally, believe Jesus was a living, breathing, flesh and blood embodiment of God who was sent to be an example of God's will for us, to atone for our collective sins and to bring us a message of salvation, so that we might end milennia of separation from Him. I don't see how you can prove or disprove that either unless you are claiming there was never a Jesus.

Beyond that, I realize and accept that there is fertile ground for debate, confusion, apparent contradiction, and misinterpretation (perhaps even corruption) when it comes to the book we follow and the practices we keep. Since one Christian cannot agree with another on those details (just look at this board!), I would not presume to impose a set of rules to live by on anyone.

My message to non-theists, pagans, and any non-Christian would be this: Open your heart to a God who loves you and wants to be present in your life, accept Jesus as your savior and as a darned good model for how to conduct yourself in life, and let the Holy Spirit be a beacon that shines from you and draws others toward you. I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would want to resist such a thing, nor can I understand why anyone, whether they personally hold the belief or not, would want to disabuse anyone of it.

That's my entire message...and it is directed even at my fellow Christian.

[tmancour]

I've gotta say again...you guys really are missing the essence of faith. It is not in the proof...you cannot come to faith by this path, which is why you are frustrated in these kinds of debates. God is asking us to believe IN SPITE of the absence of the kind of proof you are asking for. Doubting Thomas is a case in point. He is calling the earnest seekers, not the foot-tappers. You guys got all up in arms when I suggested you didn't understand faith and whole-hearted surrender to it. Clearly, you really do miss the very core of it.

You are right, in a way. We are missing the "essence of faith". Faith -- absolute belief without proof -- does not fuel my religious experience. Quite the contrary. Paganism is not a Path of Faith. Paganism is a Path of Wisdom. The terms witch, wicca, wicce, wizard, even druid, have at their root the idea of Wisdom. And while Wisdom and Faith are not mutually exclusive, neither are they completely compatable. Indeed, the Bible is replete with people castigating Wisdom in preference to Faith -- the idea being that blind belief is more sacred than wisdom.

I've always considered Faith a kind of religion of last resort. You have recourse to Faith when your Wisdom has failed you -- or you have failed Wisdom. Faith is great in a crisis -- it can keep you going. Wisdom is great for avoiding crisis, and an over-abundence of Faith can detract from Wisdom.

But that in no way means that my religious experience is somehow lessened because I have arrived here by some other agency than Faith. Is it superior? Inferior? Such things cannot be measured or compared. They are a Mystery -- they must be experienced. Having experienced Faith and Wisdom both, I cling to Wisdom.



If God showed up in your kitched, did a few parlor tricks at your behest, answered all your questions, satisfied all your doubts and THEN you believed...why, this is not faith at all. It is what the whole point is, don't you see? He wants us to seek Him and hunger for Him and yearn not to be separated from Him by sin. He has illuminated the path and simply asks us to walk it in faith.


I don't see it that way. Even if Jehovah showed up in my kitchen and answered my questions to my satisfaction, showed me the that he was, indeed, responsible for the creation of the universe, I still would not automatically worship him. My worship is precious coin -- I don't spend it lightly. Beyond the question of faith, there is the question of ethics and morals.

The God of the Bible, Jehovah, simply doesn't measure up to my standards. If the cosmic demiurge really does behave as portrayed in the Bible, then he is not worthy of my worship. Either the creator (creatrix) has the compassion, understanding, and wisdom to accept me as he/She has made me, and appreciate me for that, or they won't. And if they won't, then that cosmic divinity isn't worthy of my worship.

Regulating such petty concerns as masturbation and shellfish, commanding his people not to kill then authorizing the wholesale slaughter of whole cultures, and even setting us up in the Garden of Eden as he was supposed to have done, all of these things make Jehovah an unworthy diety in my book.

I make the distinction here between God, the Cosmic Demiurge, and Jehovah, the National God of Isreal, because I cannot and will not accept that the latter is truly and completely the former. The very idea, when objectively approached, is as ludacris as Pirateology. While I can appreciate the important social, religious, and cultural contributions made to civilzation by the Bible, accepting it as the unerring and factual Word of God when I am not a Jew is so strongly against my nature that I cannot rectify the two in my mind with an application of Faith, no matter how strongly I've tried. If Christianity is, in fact, the only "true" religion then Jehovah will just have to accept me as he made me. To do otherwise would prove to me that he is unworthy of my worship.



Here's an analogy. You and I are at a crossroads. You tell me you want to find Krispy Kreme because you heard it is sooooooo good. I tell you it is down the road heading East. You say, "Well, what if it is to the West or the North or the South?" I say, There may be others, but I know there is one to the East. You say, "How do you know, have you seen it?" I say, "No, but I have read about it and the guide said it is East." Then you tell me the guide may be incorrect and that it is not proof and that you will only believe the Krispy Kreme is East of us if someone comes from that direction holding a Krispy Kreme donut in his hand. Now, here's the important part....IN THE MEANTIME...you are going to head North because you believe it is just as possible to find the Krispy Kreme by taking an alternate route. So, even if the fella does come down the road with the donut, you won't see it because you've gone wandering down the North path.

While I appreciate your analogy, I feel that we do divirge in some important ways. I might not find the Krispy Kreme -- but I will find something. The Path of Wisdom leads somewhere, always, and if it isn't the Holy Donut then it is something as interesting and fulfilling.

Why? Because I don't find submission to a transcendent deity to be an important or even particularly beneficial religious expression. I've met more unhappy Christians, who suffer with their faith on a daily basis, than I've met Christians happy and secure in their faith. I've seen more suffering in relation to the issues of sin and salvation than I care to. I've seen otherwise perfectly decent people go through spiritual torture because despite their overwhelming faith in God, the scriptures condemn who they are and deny them (in their minds) ever having a place in Heaven without insisting they change in intolerable ways.

The Path of Wisdom isn't as strident as the Path of Faith. It acknowleges the individual in ways that Faith -- at least in the Abrahamic sense of the word -- cannot.



Honestly, if you want to achieve understanding, it really is imperative for both sides to loosen their grip on their positions just enough to let the understanding in. If you're heading North all day long, calling back over your shoulder that I just cannot prove East is the way, you will not see me sharing the donut with the guy from the East because your back is turned.

I hope this illustration has not fanned any flames.

Not really! :lol:

I can deal with Christianity, usually. What I have problems with are when Christians insist that I believe as they do, and are willing to stoop to spiritual coercion to make that happen. I have a problem with Christians using Power Over to enforce their allegedly divinely mandated make-over the world in their image. When people call me a devil worshipper, and condemn what I do without any understanding of my beliefs -- which were painstakingly built up over a lifetime of careful thought, study, and introspection, that ticks me off. I have fought long and hard to come to a place that Christianity was unable or unwilling to bring me: happiness with myself and my life. And any divinity who is omnipresent and omnipotent enough to understand that would not condemn me for who I am and be at all worthy of my worship.

Arion

[JardinPrayer]

tmancour...I hear you, I feel we have reaced a place where further efforts to persuade one another will yield diminishing returns, and I am cool with you.

Likewise, Justin.

[Durthorin]

My message to non-theists, pagans, and any non-Christian would be this: Open your heart to a God who loves you and wants to be present in your life, accept Jesus as your savior and as a darned good model for how to conduct yourself in life, and let the Holy Spirit be a beacon that shines from you and draws others toward you. I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would want to resist such a thing, nor can I understand why anyone, whether they personally hold the belief or not, would want to disabuse anyone of it.

That's my entire message...and it is directed even at my fellow Christian.

Opened my heart, was a Christian.. and found a truer, more personal faith following the God and Goddess.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[technomage]

I hear ya, Justin...really I do. Yet, I am not asking anyone to accept that black is white.

Lynn ... that's not quite accurate. You're asking me to accept God as described in the Bible. The Bible makes several "black is white" statements. Therefore.... :shrug:


Christians, fundamentally, believe Jesus was a living, breathing, flesh and blood embodiment of God who was sent to be an example of God's will for us, to atone for our collective sins and to bring us a message of salvation, so that we might end milennia of separation from Him. I don't see how you can prove or disprove that either unless you are claiming there was never a Jesus.

"Disprove?" Well, truth to tell I'm not interested on "disproving" that claim, But I do have to note that this claim is based and centered on the Bible. If the Bible is not factually trustworthy in areas of science and history, how am I supposed to trust it in spiritual areas? And if the Bible must be taken as trustworthy in spiritual areas, how do I blind my eyes to the historical and scientific errors?


My message to non-theists, pagans, and any non-Christian would be this: Open your heart to a God who loves you and wants to be present in your life, accept Jesus as your savior and as a darned good model for how to conduct yourself in life, and let the Holy Spirit be a beacon that shines from you and draws others toward you.

I did. And while I did experience some "contact" (for want of a better word) with God, I did not experience the current fullness of communion that I now enjoy.


I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone would want to resist such a thing, nor can I understand why anyone, whether they personally hold the belief or not, would want to disabuse anyone of it.

I would not disabuse anyone of their faith for all of the world. Yet when people ask me "Why do you not believe as I do," if I give an answer to that question, I am forced to list my reasons. If hearing my reasons runs the risk of "disabusing" others of their faith, then we reach a point where dialog becomes potentially more harmful than beneficial.

[Richbee]

For starters, because I am persuaded that the author of 2 Peter was not the Galilean fisherman.

Where is your "evidence"? Now, do you suppose that pagans all in one day woke up reading in their Athens Gazette, or Roman Daily Times that Zeus, Jupiter and Apollo were dead?

How do you account for Christianity overcoming all odds to replace the pagan myths?

[technomage]

Where is your "evidence"?

First and foremost, the grammar of 1 Pet and 2 Pet are quite different: compared to 1 Peter, 2 Peter is crude.

Secondly, 2 Peter argues against Gnosticism ... yet Gnosticism did not start seriously influencing the Christian community until early in the 2nd century, long after Peter's death.

There are other reasons ... but they're unimportant right now. Suffice it to say that even the early Church doubted that 2 Peter was written by the Apostle.


Now, do you suppose that pagans all in one day woke up reading in their Athens Gazette, or Roman Daily Times that Zeus, Jupiter and Apollo were dead?

How do you account for Christianity overcoming all odds to replace the pagan myths?

I don't have to "account" for this--history demonstrates clearly that the legalization of Christianity, then its mandate as the state religion, clearly shows that the post-Constantine "odds" were heavily in Christianity's favor.

[tmancour]

How do you account for Christianity overcoming all odds to replace the pagan myths?


Christianity didn't replace, per se, the Pagan myths. In most cases they either co-opted them or demonized them.

As far as the success Christianity had during its nascent period, that was due to a few distinct factors: the "worship" of the written word (Pagan religions were not text-based; literacy being a nearly magical skill, a religion based on a "holy book" when 99% of the Western world was illiterate gave it a kind of magical mystique.), the bureacratic organization of the Church, and the idea that rank, nobility and priveleged were not a guarantee of privelege in the afterlife.

Arion

[Richbee]

First and foremost, the grammar of 1 Pet and 2 Pet are quite different: compared to 1 Peter, 2 Peter is crude.

So? Peter was an eyewitness to the life and miracles of Jesus, and yes, I take this on faith based on the evidence of many witnesses.


Secondly, 2 Peter argues against Gnosticism ... yet Gnosticism did not start seriously influencing the Christian community until early in the 2nd century, long after Peter's death.

Ahem. :ahem: (Clears throat, searches for soap box to stand on.) :solly:


The first traces of Gnosticism arise centuries before Christianity and are rooted in the ancient religions of Syria, Babylonia, Phoenicia and Persia, and in the Greek Platonic schools of philosophy. Gnostic communities existed throughout the Roman Empire, and because of the religious apathy toward traditional religion and the fascination with mystery cults, they caused some curiosity. In a sense, they were like the "new-agers" of today’s society. With the founding of our Church and the spread of Christianity, the Gnostics incorporated elements of Christianity into their beliefs. Keep in mind that each Gnostic leader supplied his own nuances to the Gnosticism.

Saunders, Rev. William. "The Gnostic Gospels." (www.catholicherald.com/saunders/03ws/ws031023.htm)

Note, that Paul wrote many apologetic letters against gnosticism, and the notion of a gnostic or spirit Jesus removed from the flesh was early. (Everything material was thought to be of the devil and therefore evil. So, Jesus was alleged to have been in spirit only - not a man. Also called, Docetism which was an integral part of Gnosticism.)

Here is the best example I can think of:




Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with
God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a MAN,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death --
even death on the cross.

(emphasis mine)

[technomage]

So? Peter was an eyewitness to the life and miracles of Jesus, and yes, I take this on faith based on the evidence of many witnesses.

Peter may have been an eyewitness to the life of Jesus ... but the eyewitness was not the same person as the author.




The first traces of Gnosticism arise centuries before Christianity and are rooted in the ancient religions of Syria, Babylonia, Phoenicia and Persia, and in the Greek Platonic schools of philosophy. Gnostic communities existed throughout the Roman Empire, and because of the religious apathy toward traditional religion and the fascination with mystery cults, they caused some curiosity. In a sense, they were like the "new-agers" of today’s society. With the founding of our Church and the spread of Christianity, the Gnostics incorporated elements of Christianity into their beliefs. Keep in mind that each Gnostic leader supplied his own nuances to the Gnosticism.
Saunders, Rev. William. "The Gnostic Gospels."

Nitpick: Saunders is a Catholic priest, therefore the title should be "Fr.", not "Rv."


The elements of gnosticism are pre-Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Christian). Some scholars believe that that orthodox Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) and its canonical texts do not predate the Gnostic movement, but grew up alongside it, out of some of the same sources. Other scholars contend that Gnosticism emerged in the late first and early second centuries C.E., after the key beliefs and writings of orthodox Christianity were already well-established. The negative reaction of Christian leaders to the writings of Cerinthus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerinthus) and Valentinius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentinius) would seem to support this understanding of the emergence of Gnosticism.

Cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism)

I did not say that Gnosticism came after Christianity: I said it had no substantive influence on Christianity until the early second century. Specifically the writings of Marcion (not Gnostic, but with definite Gnostic leanings), Valentius, and Cerinthus were the first attempts to combine Gnosticism and Christianity.


Note, that Paul wrote many apologetic letters against gnosticism, and the notion of a gnostic or spirit Jesus removed from the flesh was early.

Here is the best example I can think of:




Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with
God something to be grasped,
but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a MAN,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death --
even death on the cross!


This is not an argument against Gnosticism--it's a reconciliation of Christ in his roles as historic personage and son of God.

It should also be noted that not all Christian Gnostics teach docetism.

However, Clutch--we are straying from the point of this thread. If you choose, we can continue the discussion on the authorship of 2 Peter elsewhere.

[Durthorin]

Where is your "evidence"? Now, do you suppose that pagans all in one day woke up reading in their Athens Gazette, or Roman Daily Times that Zeus, Jupiter and Apollo were dead?

How do you account for Christianity overcoming all odds to replace the pagan myths?

Well, after it became the offical religion of the Roman Empire... swords. An Imperial laws backed up with swords.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[Darth Executor]

As far as the success Christianity had during its nascent period, that was due to a few distinct factors: the "worship" of the written word (Pagan religions were not text-based; literacy being a nearly magical skill, a religion based on a "holy book" when 99% of the Western world was illiterate gave it a kind of magical mystique.),

Judaism was also based on written word and it was considered a barbaric religion.


the bureacratic organization of the Church, and the idea that rank, nobility and priveleged were not a guarantee of privelege in the afterlife.


Don't know much about the former but the latter is a bit strange as Christianity rose quite a bit among the nobility (who, unlike the peasants, could read the written word mentioned above) and not so much among the average joe.

[Richbee]

Christianity didn't replace, per se, the Pagan myths. In most cases they either co-opted them or demonized them.

What do you mean by "co-opted them"? Some go further and say that the great Philosophers or Philosophical schools of Plato, Stoic, or Epicurus influenced the New Testament and early Christianity. Careful, pick one, some or all?


As far as the success Christianity had during its nascent period, that was due to a few distinct factors: the "worship" of the written word (Pagan religions were not text-based; literacy being a nearly magical skill, a religion based on a "holy book" when 99% of the Western world was illiterate gave it a kind of magical mystique.), the bureacratic organization of the Church, and the idea that rank, nobility and priveleged were not a guarantee of privelege in the afterlife.

Arion

I find the early years of Christianity very interesting and in part I agree with you. For most early Christians they would know the Bible through creeds, hymms and songs. I suppose one can gather the core meaning in one simple act of communion, the breaking of bread and the cup of wine.

There is so much more, and here is some background research:


The predilection of the poor and oppressed for the gospel attested its comforting and redeeming power. But others also, though not many, from the higher and educated classes, were from the first attracted to the new religion; such men as Nicodemus, Joseph of Arimathaea, the apostle Paul, the proconsul Sergius Paulus, Dionysius of Athens, Erastus of Corinth, and some members of the imperial household.

Among the sufferers in Domitian’s persecution were his own near kinswoman Flavia Domitilla and her husband Flavius Clemens. In the oldest part of the Catacomb of Callistus, which is named after St. Lucina, members of the illustrious gens Pomponia, and perhaps also of the Flavian house, are interred. The senatorial and equestrian orders furnished several converts open or concealed. Pliny laments, that in Asia Minor men of every rank (omnis ordinis) go over to the Christians. Tertullian asserts that the tenth part of Carthage, and among them senators and ladies of the noblest descent and the nearest relatives of the proconsul of Africa professed Christianity. The numerous church fathers from the middle of the second century, a Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement, Origen, Tertullian, Cyprian, excelled, or at least equaled in talent and culture, their most eminent heathen contemporaries.

Nor was this progress confined to any particular localities. It extended alike over all parts of the empire. "We are a people of yesterday," says Tertullian in his Apology, "and yet we have filled every place belonging to you—cities, islands, castles, towns, assemblies, your very camp, your tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum! We leave you your temples only. We can count your armies; our numbers in a single province will be greater." All these facts expose the injustice of the odious charge of Celsus, repeated by a modern skeptic, that the new sect was almost entirely composed of the dregs of the populace—of peasants and mechanics, of boys and women, of beggars and slaves.

History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325., by Philip Schaff (www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc2.v.iii.ii.html)

[tmancour]

Judaism was also based on written word and it was considered a barbaric religion.

No arguement -- but Judaism had the good taste to maintain its tribal nature, and was not in the market for converts as the Church was. And by the time the Church had begun its ascendency, Classical paganism was already in a decline, due in large part to imported religions from Asia Minor, Persia, and Egypt.




Don't know much about the former but the latter is a bit strange as Christianity rose quite a bit among the nobility (who, unlike the peasants, could read the written word mentioned above) and not so much among the average joe.

While there was a certain element of the nobility that was attracted to it, don't forget that the early apostles preached to everyone, and preached a doctrine of equality that made the slave and the master equal in the eyes of the Lord. This fact alone ensured the popularity of the cult among the Roman Empire's dregs. You didn't have to read to be a Christian.

Arion

[Richbee]

Peter may have been an eyewitness to the life of Jesus ... but the eyewitness was not the same person as the author.

Well, now you just need to provide some proof? Sorry, but I must turn up the heat on this point. :flaming:

Dr. Simon Greenleaf asserts that the burden to show other sources or authorship rests with the skeptics:


"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise. -

Simon Greenleaf (www.myfortress.org/simongreenleaf.html)



Cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism)

I did not say that Gnosticism came after Christianity:

O.K.


I said it had no substantive influence on Christianity until the early second century. Specifically the writings of Marcion (not Gnostic, but with definite Gnostic leanings), Valentius, and Cerinthus were the first attempts to combine Gnosticism and Christianity.

This is not an argument against Gnosticism--it's a reconciliation of Christ in his roles as historic personage and son of God.

It should also be noted that not all Christian Gnostics teach docetism.

However, Clutch--we are straying from the point of this thread. If you choose, we can continue the discussion on the authorship of 2 Peter elsewhere.

O.K., but my point was that both Paul and Peter, and even John wrote apologetics aimed straight at Gnostic ideas. (Perhaps as divine wisdom, but clearly Paul was writing specifically against false teachers.)

BTW, I don't acknowledge "Christian Gnostics", as these were just old fashion heretics and false teachers. I would say that Christianity influenced Gnosticism, but not the other way around.

There is this great quote from Tertullian: Truth and the hatred of truth come into our world together.

[tmancour]

What do you mean by "co-opted them"? Some go further and say that the great Philosophers or Philosophical schools of Plato, Stoic, or Epicurus influenced the New Testament and early Christianity. Careful, pick one, some or all?


Simply put, the early Church used the cultural inertia of existing pagan festivals and grafted Church holidays on to them, such as the co-option of the Mithraic holiday and the association of some of the symbolic elements of the popular cult with Christian popular religion. In addition, as the Church spread into Gaul and other, less cosmopolitan areas, it co-opted plenty of local deities into sainthood -- or reviled them as demons. St. Brigit, my Patroness, is among them, but St. Ann in Celtic Britain and Gaul was also widely seen as a cognate of the goddess Danu/Don. There are others in other cultures, but those are the ones I'm most familiar with. I believe at one point the early church mistakenly canonized Buddha, under the name St. Jehosaphat. It was later rescinded, of course.



I find the early years of Christianity very interesting and in part I agree with you. For most early Christians they would know the Bible through creeds, hymms and songs. I suppose one can gather the core meaning in one simple act of communion, the breaking of bread and the cup of wine.


Don't forget that in the early Church a lot of traditions that would later be found heretical were responsible for spreading the word. And the sacrament of communion was not unique to Christianity -- a lot of Pagan religions used a similar sacrament. I find it fascinating that the early Biblical texts were used as de facto magic spells in popular religion.

Arion

[Darth Executor]

While there was a certain element of the nobility that was attracted to it, don't forget that the early apostles preached to everyone, and preached a doctrine of equality that made the slave and the master equal in the eyes of the Lord. This fact alone ensured the popularity of the cult among the Roman Empire's dregs. You didn't have to read to be a Christian.
Arion

That they preached to everyone is of little consequence to the fact that a disproportionate ammount of Christians came from above average families (who had a lot to lose by joining in). If you want an unbiased opinion (not one I hold), I'd say that Christianity attracted more rich people than peasants because the peasants suffered enough and Christianity promised them even more suffering. Not very attractive to somebody who can barely feed his family but would look quite noble to bored rich people who had decent living conditions and had the means by which to pursue a philosophy.

[Krusader]

Justin, have you ever read Lee Stroebel's book, "The Case for Christ." Is it possible that Christianity isn't the fantasy that you may think it is?

[technomage]

Justin, have you ever read Lee Stroebel's book, "The Case for Christ."

Yes, I did--though it's been a few years. I was unimpressed, mainly because the book does a wonderful job of challenging "skeptical strawmen," but does not address all of the real issues. However, his critique of the "Jesus Seminar" was amusing, if not very scholarly.

The biggest deficit is Strobel only looked at the evidence for Christ--and even at that, only concentrated on Christ as defined by orthodox Christology. He didn't take a critical look at the history--he took an apologetics-oriented look at the history.

It's one of my biggest problems with apologetics: your typical apologist only looks at the evidence that supports his case. It's even a deficit in JP Holdings writings: that and the "scattershot maybes" so frequent in apologetic writings make apologetics literature somewhat trying for me to read.


Is it possible that Christianity isn't the fantasy that you may think it is?

Crusader, we need to make a distinction here. The religion of Christianity is not a fantasy. It is primarily the historical and scientific claims that many Christians--primarily, but not exclusively, from Fundamentalist Christianity--espouses that makes my incredulity meter go off the scale.

[Richbee]

Simply put, the early Church used the cultural inertia of existing pagan festivals and grafted Church holidays on to them,

Horse manure.


.....such as the co-option of the Mithraic holiday and the association of some of the symbolic elements of the popular cult with Christian popular religion.

Which one? Persian before Christ, or Roman 2nd or 3rd century? Did you want to pick a certain stage of the evolved mystery cult and cite some objective evidence?


In addition, as the Church spread into Gaul and other, less cosmopolitan areas, it co-opted plenty of local deities into sainthood -- or reviled them as demons.

:lmbo:


St. Brigit, my Patroness, is among them,

Really? How do you spell that? Are you sure? That would be Saint Bridget to you. What manuscript evidence can you cite? From what century? In truth, you have confused a pagan girl who converted and became an outstanding Christian Lady, so special, they called her a Saint.. (Not long after St. Patrick - go figure)

Your mythological goddess, as some might call Brig, is safe to go about what ever the goddess was doing before the girl Bridget was born into a Druid family around 450 A.D.. Now, nothing really special about Celtic or Druid girls (or boys) coverting to Christianity - everyone was doing it.

[Richbee]

Yes, I did--though it's been a few years. I was unimpressed, mainly because the book does a wonderful job of challenging "skeptical strawmen," but does not address all of the real issues.

I thought it was excellent, but I did notice that the "skeptics" moved on to new issues and objections.


The biggest deficit is Strobel only looked at the evidence for Christ--and even at that, only concentrated on Christ as defined by orthodox Christology. \

Is there another Christ? Or, just the one we have recorded in the Gospels? Please do inform us.


He didn't take a critical look at the history--he took an apologetics-oriented look at the history.

Do you mean that, he didn't address every heretical notion of Jesus? Elaine Pagels? (Note, that was not the purpose of his most excellent book.)


It's one of my biggest problems with apologetics: your typical apologist only looks at the evidence that supports his case. It's even a deficit in JP Holdings writings: that and the "scattershot maybes" so frequent in apologetic writings make apologetics literature somewhat trying for me to read.

The same can be said of skeptics like, Elaine Pagels, who casts aside the scripture for 2nd and 3rd century ant eaten rotted manuscripts, and the tries to read in meanings in the holes! No joke.

Let's invite this man, J.P. Holding to answer you.

[Geifodd]

I would like to see this thread returned to the original topic. Therefore, I am going to re-quote Justin's OP and respond to it with my own observations, in the hopes that this discussion can be brought back on track.

Justin wrote:

I'd like the opinions of both Christians and Pagans on this one.

Since I consider my Satanism to be a subset of Paganism, then I hope no Pagan here will mind that I respond to this. There are an awful lot of people out there who try to tell me that I'm "not a Pagan" despite the fact that I practice a path which is polytheistic, earth-based, and (partially) inspired by pre-Christian sources. Usually their claim is made upon the fact that I venerate Satan (or Azazel-Lucifer the Shaitan), who is commonly considered to "belong" to the Judeo-Christian culture and none other. I hope that I have successfully argued my position in earlier discussions that this is not the case -- that the concept of the Devil is pre-Judaic, that it originated from OUTSIDE of Judaism, that it was originally completely alien to Judaic culture, and that it was only imported into some sects of Judaism after the Babylonian Exile. To say that Satan is "only Judeo-Christian" and "not Pagan by any means" is a fallacy, since ideas of the Devil (i.e, spirit of darkness associated with snakes and horned critters, who instigates differentiation from the norm and exploration of that which is unknown and taboo) stretch back to Persian Zoroastrianism and pagan Egypt, at least. I may be venerating a deity who is maligned, scapegoated and demonized in Judeo-Christian scripture, but this does not make me any less Pagan than a person who wishes to follow the goddess Asherah and/or the god Ba'al.

Of course, it should be pointed out that not all Satanists consider themselves Pagans. It really depends on what variety of Satanism they are practicing. It is really an individual issue.

But, I digress.

When dealing with Christians, what is the best path? Do we simply agree to disagree?

In my view, that is all that we can do. Suggest that we agree to disagree. If they refuse to agree to disagree, then that is their problem. I have much better things to do with my time than to concern myself with what uncooperative Christians might think of me or my beliefs.

As Pagans, we can do that--but as Christians, they can't and won't.

Now this is a bit of an overgeneralization. There are many Christians who agree to disagree with people of other paths -- Church of the Brethren, Quakers, and Progressive Christians being primary examples.

And at that, there are more times than I care to admit that I'm tempted to follow the path of those who (pardon the pun) "evangelically" broadcast their reasons for disbelieving the Bible.

As we have seen in this thread:

(1) One Christian chose to assert that Wicca (and Satanism) are "made up religions."

(2) This Christian made the assertation without bothering to present proof of the claims of their own religion.

(3) Since no such proof has been presented, it is quite easy (and only fair) to likewise assert that Christianity is a "made up religion."

I do not believe in "evangelizing." I believe in educating. I do not care to change anyone's opinion on their own religion beliefs. But when it comes to Satanism, if people are going to disagree with my religion (which they do), they ought to be able to disagree with it for reasons that pertain to the reality of the religion (which more often they don't), not for reasons that are based on sensationalistic claims about my religion (which more often they do). This is the entire purpose why I accepted the invitation that I was given to this board in the first place: to dispell rumors and get the facts about Satanism straight. I am not interesting in converting anyone, or in having any theological pissing contests.

However, when a person chooses to accuse me of practicing a "made up" religion, when they themselves are unable to present absolute proof that their OWN religion is true, then we are going to have a problem. I consider such a situation to be an INVITATION to share my reasons for disagreeing strongly with the person's theology. And this sort of situation is not limited just to Christians. It is the same way for everyone else. If a Wiccan were to accuse me of practicing a "made up" religion without being able to prove to me that their own religion is not "made up," then I am going to call them out on it. And I would hope that if a Satanist accuses others of practicing a "made up" religion without being able to prove their theological claims, that they would be made subject to the same scrutiny of logic.

Yet I also look back and see how traumatic that realization was in my life. Yes, to be perfectly succinct, Christians are following a fantasy ... and the more "literalist" their interpretation of the Bible is, the more fantastic their beliefs.

It would be helpful to characterize this with terms of subjectivity, rather than to try and qualify it as objective fact. As far as you and I are concerned, Christians are most definitely believing in fantasies. However, that is not the way they see it. They honestly think that what they believe is true. We may disagree with their beliefs, but we cannot disagree with the fact that they believe their beliefs are right. Many would argue that the more "literalist" their interpretations of scripture become, the more realistic their views become.

This may be part of the reason why some -- not all -- Christians refuse to agree to disagree. Perhaps because they feel that unfounded claims to objective truth are being made. If we characterize our counter-arguments against them as subjective statements rather than objective ones, we may have more success in getting them to agree to disagree. Or rather, we should just point out the issue of subjectivity on all sides, in general.

Are there any Christians in the house who would agree/disagree with what I just said in the last paragraph? Why or why not?

"Credo qui absurdum" has been taken to its ultimate limit in professing that God "planted" the evidence of the fossil record, the age of the universe, and the structures and similarities in the various species, making God out as a deceiver who places false evidence within His creation.

I agree that these are ridiculous beliefs; however, since I am uninterested in evangelizing, I am uninterested in running up to Christians and shouting, "YOU'RE WRONG!" at them. I will only exhibit such behavior when such behavior is exhibited toward myself first.

Do I force Christians to see the evidence ... or do I simply shrug and go on my merry way, allowing them to remain in their fantasy world?

If we are to have any success at public relations with Christians, we must first learn to accept that there are many different kinds of Christians, and that different Christians will respond to us in different ways. We cannot simply lump all Christians together in the same box and make overgeneralized statements to or about them. Different Christians will have to be approached in different manners.

For instance, a Progressive Christian is unlikely to have a problem with someone believing in Paganism rather than Christianity, since one of the tenets of Progressive Christianity is a general acceptance that there is more than one "way." However, in dealing with groups such as Baptists for instance, we may be required to make a bit more of an effort in presenting ourselves. For one thing, the "fantasy" lingo will have to go. I include some suggestions in how to approach Christians in religious debates in the following article on my website:

Satanist Apologetics:
http://www.theisticsatanism.com/geifodd/apologetics.html

Granted this article is directed toward a Satanist audience, but I would be much interested in your opinions concerning the suggestions listed therein.

For one thing, we cannot "force" Christians to see anything, and the more we try to "force" it on them, the more antagonism we will create. And dismissing their beliefs as mere fantasies is not particularly useful, or even appropriate. It may be appropriate within our own circles, when we are not dealing with them face-to-face; but in actually speaking with Christians, we are required to tone our own rhetoric down. Only by toning down the rhetoric can we hope to appeal to their sense of common decency.

And do you wonder that I'm unsure of which is the best way to handle things?

I would be much interested in your comments concerning my article linked above, Justin. Please let me know what you think of it. Specifically, I wonder if you think it is particularly helpful.

[technomage]

Since I consider my Satanism to be a subset of Paganism, then I hope no Pagan here will mind that I respond to this.

Object? Nah ... we'll just call you a nasty evil devil-worshipper. :tongue:

In all seriousness, as much as I admire Isaac Bonewits, the continuing argument he's got going with "Satanists" of any stripe is probably his greatest disservice to modern Neo-Paganism. But heck ... not even Uncle Isaac is perfect.


As Pagans, we can do that--but as Christians, they can't and won't.
Now this is a bit of an overgeneralization. There are many Christians who agree to disagree with people of other paths -- Church of the Brethren, Quakers, and Progressive Christians being primary examples.

I've been reminded of that by more than one wonderful Christian on this thread. That was more frustration on my part than logic--and you're quite correct, it was an overgeneralization. And .. heck, even in the midst of my argument with John, or some of my past arguments with Crusader, I still consider them to be people worthy of respect.

I guess my big problem with those Christians who cannot "agree to disagree" is the fact that I sometimes do not receive the respect that I extend to them. It's frustrating sometimes, and like anyone else I lose control of my frustration from time to time.


Yet I also look back and see how traumatic that realization was in my life. Yes, to be perfectly succinct, Christians are following a fantasy ... and the more "literalist" their interpretation of the Bible is, the more fantastic their beliefs.

It would be helpful to characterize this with terms of subjectivity, rather than to try and qualify it as objective fact.

Hmmm ... I can see the logic to your statement, but when I am presented with the assertion that Christianity is "objective fact," even your apologetics method (listed in your article) states that such an assertion makes the Christian propositions "fair game." And while I can't go as far as advocating the 11th Satanic Rule, sometimes frustration becomes a temptation to render to Christians as they have attempted to render to me.

But I also see that such behavior is overgeneralization on my part. Not all Christians have made libelous accusations to me or my faith.


Satanist Apologetics:
http://www.theisticsatanism.com/geifodd/apologetics.html

Granted this article is directed toward a Satanist audience, but I would be much interested in your opinions concerning the suggestions listed therein.

This is largely what I attempt to do ... like you, I'm not interested in having people convert to Wicca, or even to turn away from Christianity. I am interested in refuting false accusations (both those levied against Wicca, and those levied by Wiccans against other faiths).

There is one change I would suggest considering: you conflate apologetics (defense of one's faith) with polemics (arguing the superiority of one's faith). Truth to tell, my objection is a nit-pick, but there is a technical difference.

[Geifodd]

Object? Nah ... we'll just call you a nasty evil devil-worshipper. :tongue:

You dirty heathen you! :teeth:

In all seriousness, as much as I admire Isaac Bonewits, the continuing argument he's got going with "Satanists" of any stripe is probably his greatest disservice to modern Neo-Paganism. But heck ... not even Uncle Isaac is perfect.

Well, when it comes to Druidism, I think the guy is an expert. When it comes to Satanism, I have to wonder if he even knows how to read.

But, to be fair, his opinions of Satanism seem to be largely based upon his dealings with Michael A. Aquino. And it is understandable that someone would not like Aquino because Aquino can overgeneralize things quite a bit (often in his "LHP" vs. "RHP" rhetoric). However, Aquino's never supported trying to "destroy" Paganism, so I'm not quite sure where Bonewits is getting that idea.

I guess my big problem with those Christians who cannot "agree to disagree" is the fact that I sometimes do not receive the respect that I extend to them. It's frustrating sometimes, and like anyone else I lose control of my frustration from time to time.

It's understandable. I'm not always able to maintain my cool either. It is one thing when a Christian is willing to express their disagreement in a civil tone. But I happen to live in the American Bible Belt, and I am surrounded on all sides by some pretty ultraconservative people who constantly make claims about my religion and who hypocritically get angry whenever I should point out the things I consider wrong about their own. Often I will get the saying, "You need to respect other people's religion, because even if you yourself do not believe it, it's important to them!" And it completely mystifies me how they can tell me this, right after accusing me of murdering infants or wanting to take over the country and senselessly murder all Christians everywhere.

However, even though I am surrounded by this attitude on all sides in my home area, I try very hard to always remember that not all Christians behave this way, and that some would even be appalled by the way these people act toward me. Just because such people are not in my immediate area does not mean that they are not out there in the world to be found. It can be extremely difficult, especially when one is by themselves; but considering that I am a believer in religious tolerance, I do my best to not make generalizations about any particular group or groups of people -- Christians included.

Hmmm ... I can see the logic to your statement, but when I am presented with the assertion that Christianity is "objective fact," even your apologetics method (listed in your article) states that such an assertion makes the Christian propositions "fair game."

Indeed. If a Christian is to make such a statement, then they become "fair game." However, it is helpful to walk into such situations with at least an initially positive attitude. In talking with Christians that I first meet, I am nice to them and I treat them as I would like them to treat me. I at least give them the chance to know me as a rational human being and wait for them to make a false move before I start tearing their claims to pieces.

And while I can't go as far as advocating the 11th Satanic Rule, sometimes frustration becomes a temptation to render to Christians as they have attempted to render to me.

The 11 Rules of the Earth are overly simplistic, in my view. Sometimes it is good to "do unto others as they do unto you." But in terms of public relations between alternative religions like our own and conventional religions such as theirs, we really need to play our cards right. By continuing to be polite and well-mannered, even when we dismantle their arguments, and if they continue to treat us nastily, then we come out looking like the more rational persons to third-party observers. Even Satanists could take an example from Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.; instead of fighting back nastily, let 'em be as nasty as they want and don't punch 'em back. That way, we are the ones who will get more sympathy in the long run.

Some Satanists that I have proposed this idea to have accused me of being a "closet Christian" because I am "preaching that we should 'turn the other cheek.'" I don't think that turning the other cheek is solely a Christian thing, and I don't think it necessarily has to be viewed as the "wussy" thing that many Satanists view it as. Rather, I see it as a political tool that can be used to our long-term advantage.

This is largely what I attempt to do ... like you, I'm not interested in having people convert to Wicca, or even to turn away from Christianity. I am interested in refuting false accusations (both those levied against Wicca, and those levied by Wiccans against other faiths).

I am interested primarily in dismantling various claims made about Satanism, and secondarily in dismantling various claims that are made about different groups of people in general. I will defend Satanists from Christians, but I will also defend Wiccans from Christians, Christians from Atheists, Christians from Wiccans, and even Christians from Satanists. For me, it all depends upon the individual situation: what sorts of claims are being made, and who is being unfairly persecuted?

There is one change I would suggest considering: you conflate apologetics (defense of one's faith) with polemics (arguing the superiority of one's faith). Truth to tell, my objection is a nit-pick, but there is a technical difference.

Thank you very much for pointing this out. I will make the necessary adjustments.

[tmancour]

In all seriousness, as much as I admire Isaac Bonewits, the continuing argument he's got going with "Satanists" of any stripe is probably his greatest disservice to modern Neo-Paganism. But heck ... not even Uncle Isaac is perfect.[/I]

Well, when it comes to Druidism, I think the guy is an expert. When it comes to Satanism, I have to wonder if he even knows how to read.

While I have all the respect in the 'verse for Uncle Isaac, I think he has an undeserved blind spot towards Satanism. In my experience, Satanists are typically some of the most well-read, most articulate people in the room. Geifodd is a case in point.

The 11 Rules of the Earth are overly simplistic, in my view. Sometimes it is good to "do unto others as they do unto you." But in terms of public relations between alternative religions like our own and conventional religions such as theirs, we really need to play our cards right. By continuing to be polite and well-mannered, even when we dismantle their arguments, and if they continue to treat us nastily, then we come out looking like the more rational persons to third-party observers. Even Satanists could take an example from Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.; instead of fighting back nastily, let 'em be as nasty as they want and don't punch 'em back. That way, we are the ones who will get more sympathy in the long run.

Some Satanists that I have proposed this idea to have accused me of being a "closet Christian" because I am "preaching that we should 'turn the other cheek.'" I don't think that turning the other cheek is solely a Christian thing, and I don't think it necessarily has to be viewed as the "wussy" thing that many Satanists view it as. Rather, I see it as a political tool that can be used to our long-term advantage.

I like to call it "conversational Judo", and I have used it to great effect. Sometimes the best way to win an arguement is to let the opposing side amp themselves up to the point where they appear silly and bombastic and their arguements lose cohesion. This is especially true when dealing with rural Southern evangelists who feel that shouting their arguments equates to "making a joyful noise". All it really does is alienate any potential sympathisers from their position.


This is largely what I attempt to do ... like you, I'm not interested in having people convert to Wicca, or even to turn away from Christianity. I am interested in refuting false accusations (both those levied against Wicca, and those levied by Wiccans against other faiths). [/I]

I am interested primarily in dismantling various claims made about Satanism, and secondarily in dismantling various claims that are made about different groups of people in general. I will defend Satanists from Christians, but I will also defend Wiccans from Christians, Christians from Atheists, Christians from Wiccans, and even Christians from Satanists. For me, it all depends upon the individual situation: what sorts of claims are being made, and who is being unfairly persecuted?



I agree with this sentiment -- but I cannot deny the appeal of arguement for the sake of the joy of reasoned debate. That, and finding Christians (and, to be honest, some Pagans) who are speaking ex cathedra out of their sphincters.

But in the end, I feel the "agree to disagree" philosophy is likely the best one to take with reasonable Christians. The unreasonable ones, the Christo-fascists who see as their mission the converstion of every "un-churched" person in sight or the elimination thereof, they are the real problem. Telling them "Love thy neighbor means ALL your neighbors, not just your Christian ones!" usually gets you no-where. It's even worse now that I have children. I've seen the rudest attempts to subvert my kids into Christianity. Telling my five year old that Daddy and Mommy are going to burn in Hell unless he convinces us to go to church -- that's beyond the pale. You can't agree to disagree with that kind of pressure.

Arion

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,


Justin: And Babylon? Babylon was occupied in 538 BCE by Cyrus ... but Cyrus did not plunder or destroy. Indeed, Cyrus was Persian, not Median. And Cyrus did not "destroy" the city--it surrendered to him, and he occupied it.
All this is fine, and Babylon was declining, and Esarhaddon came before the prediction that Babylon would never be rebuilt, which implies a decline, never to return again.


Babylon was never "overthrown," Lee--most especially not by the Medes. It was allowed to fall into ruin over three centuries after the Medes ceased to exist as a people.
This would seem to fit with overthrow, though, "The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine."


Alexander didn't have to rebuild Babylon--it was a living and vibrant city when he entered it.
Yes, but not substantially its former self! Which is why Alex undertook rebuilding it, and let us notice that he failed.


Arion: let's say that fulfillment of prophecy is the ultimate validation of a religion. Putting aside for a moment the many thousands of fulfilled prophecies from non-Christian sources, from Delphi and beyond...
Which prophecies would those be, though? And which of them are falsifiable today? And do they meet the standard of 100% accuracy? Only that would imply real knowledge of the future.

Prophecy in Scripture is quite unique, as is the standard set in this book for prophecy.


And the biggie (I quote):

"There will come a day when America will fight a great war in the middle east, and we will be victorious. But the second war, fought in the same land, will drag along for years, cost thousands of American lives on the banks of a river. This second war will begin a period of great uncertainty and polarization in America that will bring it to the brink of civil war, until crisis intervenes and draws the country together and revitalizes it."
Isn't the war in Iraq over, though? Has America not be victorious militarily? Having soldiers there, and such military missions as they have there now, is not generally considered a war. So I must say, I would conclude that your prophecy was wrong.


the current pope, Benedict. According to my prophesy, he will reign for a little over two years.
Well, we will see, as you said, yet you are not at 100%, so I think we may conclude that you, and the spirit(s) you are or were in contact with, do not have firm knowledge of the future, either. That is what sets the Bible apart, real knowledge of what will happen implies that the truth claim made in Scripture should be considered quite seriously. There is supernatural power there, unlike any other.

Isaiah 41:21-23 "Present your case," says the Lord. "Set forth your arguments," says Jacob's King. "Bring in to tell us what is going to happen. Tell us what the former things were, so that we may consider them and know their final outcome. Or declare to us the things to come, tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods. Do something, whether good or bad, so that we will be dismayed and filled with fear."


But I have met a few genuine Psychics (My hometown is also home to the Rhine Institute of Parapsychology) and they are scary accurate. Depending on their gift and how it's working that day, they can hit so often...
Well, then they have their off days! And why do we never read the headline "Psychic wins lottery"? And would you please ask one of them for me, whether Babylon will ever be rebuilt?


Lee: And yet one wrong prediction by a prophet in the Bible meant they should take him out and stone him. That's different! And to defend that successfully is a good seal on the claim that the Bible has the real truth...

Arion: In consideration of the data presented above, I have to disagree.
Well, you could rebuild Babylon, and then I would disagree with this conclusion too.


Arion: There is a temple in central India where a prophet of uncanny and unerring ability spent his life writing prophesies for people who weren't born yet. Legend has it that he wrote a specific prophecy for every person who would ever visit the temple for that purpose. Some of these are vague and mystical -- but hey, it's a temple in India, what do you expect? But some are as plain as a grocery list. And they are rarely provably wrong.

Does this mean Hinduism is likewise valid under your conjecture?
I would need to hear more specifics! And was he really 100% accurate? If so, then indeed I would have a problem here...

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Justin: And Babylon? Babylon was occupied in 538 BCE by Cyrus ... but Cyrus did not plunder or destroy. Indeed, Cyrus was Persian, not Median. And Cyrus did not "destroy" the city--it surrendered to him, and he occupied it.
All this is fine, and Babylon was declining, and Esarhaddon came before the prediction that Babylon would never be rebuilt, which implies a decline, never to return again.

Wrong. Esarhaddon rebuilt Babylon after Isaiah died.



Babylon was never "overthrown," Lee--most especially not by the Medes. It was allowed to fall into ruin over three centuries after the Medes ceased to exist as a people.
This would seem to fit with overthrow, though, "The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind exceeding fine."

Oh. So let's see ... Babylon was to be "overthrown" ... but that's OK, you'll accept a gradual decline. It was to be utterly destroyed by the Medes ... but that's OK, you'll accept that the Selucid Greeks just moved away.



Alexander didn't have to rebuild Babylon--it was a living and vibrant city when he entered it.
Yes, but not substantially its former self! Which is why Alex undertook rebuilding it, and let us notice that he failed.

Wrong again, Lee. Babylon was a vibrant city when Alex came through.

That's three strikes, Lee. What's more, that's the most dishonest and mendacious attempt at "apology" I've ever seen in my life--and I am forced to say it was deliberately dishonest, because you twisted and ignored the facts that were clearly and plainly available to you.

You may be willing to tell lies for your God, Lee, but you'll pardon me if I'm persuaded that your God is just as empty as your excuses, and just as false as your lies.

And as for the accusations of deliberate dishonesty--I invite any moderator to examine the material in this post, Lee's post, and my previous post (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1227780&postcount=56) to clearly see that Lee has all the information available.

Lee, you are a lying witness. You don't speak for Christ, you don't speak for Kernunos, and you do not speak for God. Get you hence until you learn honesty.

[gharfish]

When dealing with Christians, what is the best path? Do we simply agree to disagree? [/I]

In my view, that is all that we can do. Suggest that we agree to disagree. If they refuse to agree to disagree, then that is their problem. I have much better things to do with my time than to concern myself with what uncooperative Christians might think of me or my beliefs.

As Pagans, we can do that--but as Christians, they can't and won't. Yes, finally we get back to the OP question.

Between the two of you; any others who have made a longstanding, firm decision to reject the salvation made possible and freely offered through Jesus' (you know the story...) - once making that perfectly clear here - Christians certainly can/should be OK with moving on, after a reasonable effort has been made, to the many others who might believe. There are some who seem "won't" do so, but they really ought to go elsewhere once they see the offer has been fully understood, and soundly rejected repeatedly. And fought !

Some are admirably (I guess) too kind to give up, soon enough vs. some feel it too much rather a sort of personal defeat. It can become very ego-involved, unfortunately; the sinful human nature in full swing sometimes. Or maybe it is a solemn duty that stands above the rest, that the striving must go on indefinitely...just in case a satanist, or hardened atheist, "ex-christian" on a deconversion mission, a neo-pagan (even after 20 years steeped in it ? No !) .....these might, might, snowball of a chance, have come around, if, if, if just ...and shamefully they shirked, giving up only minutes too soon.

I have noticed that alot of those who are at odds with what is presented as the Truth (yes, the capitalized "T" means just what you suspect !), have come -departed- from a former intimate knowledge, which they retain, of the Bible. They quote it like pros, as if they once were -dare I say it ? ...believers, or very close to...?!

*now likely only talking to himself:*

So, especially for them, the wise Christian has to take a look at unchanging "track records,"so to speak, and if there isn't even the slightest of budges, call it quits, IMO. And, no, I don't mean "cutting one's losses." But, evangelization is a world effort, afterall, and those who have precisely what they need to decide should be left to themselves. Seriously; not bugged and bugged.

With that in mind I will hold my tongue here at a third posting. This thread is miles and pages and miles of bad road.

=====================================







Dear Lee,

You're super -I've seen you "in action"- but COM has you in a mexican standoff (or am I not seeing what you see ?)

Good grief; I have found that even breaking down Christ's gospel to a single chapter (which is unerringly, easily possible in John 3) actually gets howls of protest. It is much more often than not a *'thankless task,' as it should be,, I suppose, ESPECIALLY given it need be done consistently with right motives/purely for the benefit of one's fellow man...which is the very sole heart's concern of God, and thus the work God's desires/designed to be helped in doing.

Who is up to it ? Who is worthy to speak ?! It's the forgiven sinner here, fighting within and without, & still somehow simultaneously trying to relay absolutely critical information to (other) sinners ...yet to be forgiven. Wow. It's 'the Holy Spirit's work,' it's said, but how can the transmission process by kept anywhere near clean ?!

God bless you, LM :)


--now, like a ghost, I'm gone...!





-----------------------------------------------------------------
*The gospel is undistortedly presented, but there are no discernable results -acceptance- whatsoever in the hearers.

[tmancour]

Yes, finally we get back to the OP question.

Between the two of you; any others who have made a longstanding, firm decision to reject the salvation made possible and freely offered through Jesus' (you know the story...) - once making that perfectly clear here - Christians certainly can/should be OK with moving on, after a reasonable effort has been made, to the many others who might believe. There are some who seem "won't" do so, but they really ought to go elsewhere once they see the offer has been fully understood, and soundly rejected repeatedly. And fought !

Some are admirably (I guess) too kind to give up, soon enough vs. some feel it too much rather a sort of personal defeat. It can become very ego-involved, unfortunately; the sinful human nature in full swing sometimes. Or maybe it is a solemn duty that stands above the rest, that the striving must go on indefinitely...just in case a satanist, or hardened atheist, "ex-christian" on a deconversion mission, a neo-pagan (even after 20 years steeped in it ? No !) .....these might, might, snowball of a chance, have come around, if, if, if just ...and shamefully they shirked, giving up only minutes too soon.

I have noticed that alot of those who are at odds with what is presented as the Truth (yes, the capitalized "T" means just what you suspect !), have come -departed- from a former intimate knowledge, which they retain, of the Bible. They quote it like pros, as if they once were -dare I say it ? ...believers, or very close to...?!

*now likely only talking to himself:*

So, especially for them, the wise Christian has to take a look at unchanging "track records,"so to speak, and if there isn't even the slightest of budges, call it quits, IMO. And, no, I don't mean "cutting one's losses." But, evangelization is a world effort, afterall, and those who have precisely what they need to decide should be left to themselves. Seriously; not bugged and bugged.


What you and your coreligionists may not realize here, Vance, is just how offensive ANY evangelical arguement can be. Especially to us Pagan parents. I can hold my own in a theological debate, but my kids should be off limits!

How would you like it if my kids tried to get your kids to come to a sabbat? Even if we served punch and cookies? Or just sang some perfectly innocent songs about glorifying Nature, and the compassionate wisdom of the Goddess? What you see as a "harmless" bit of evangelism, I see as an affront to a) my right to bring up my children in my religion and b) my right to practice my religion free from harrassment and abuse. It's bad enough that fundies in positions of power automatically write off Wiccans as "devil worshippers" -- Pagan parents have undeservedly lost their children in such cases -- but to have special programs at school that are back-door attempts at evangelism, these things are threatening to us. Getting adolescent kids, who are already under tremendous pressure to "fit in", to sign statements of faith they don't understand, or luring them to friendly pizza parties that are thinly disguised religious interventions -- that's beyond the pale.

It's about respect. You may not agree with my religion, and if you want to tuck a non-threatening tract into my screen door, fine. You want to walk up and down the public street with a bullhorn shouting Bible-verses, again, fine -- if highly annoying. But to prey on pagan kids, or to use the power of position to impose your religious views on pagans within your pervue, that is offensive and disrespectful. Both of these things are happening. And as the third generation of pagans grows up in their faith, I can already sense the impending violence these kids will face when confronted by a zealous gang of evangelical teenagers.

Care to respond?

Arion the Blue

[gharfish]

What you and your coreligionists may not realize here, Vance, is just how offensive ANY evangelical arguement can be. Especially to us Pagan parents. I can hold my own in a theological debate, but my kids should be off limits!

How would you like it if my kids tried to get your kids to come to a sabbat? Even if we served punch and cookies? Or just sang some perfectly innocent songs about glorifying Nature, and the compassionate wisdom of the Goddess? What you see as a "harmless" bit of evangelism, I see as an affront to a) my right to bring up my children in my religion and b) my right to practice my religion free from harrassment and abuse. It's bad enough that fundies in positions of power automatically write off Wiccans as "devil worshippers" -- Pagan parents have undeservedly lost their children in such cases -- but to have special programs at school that are back-door attempts at evangelism, these things are threatening to us. Getting adolescent kids, who are already under tremendous pressure to "fit in", to sign statements of faith they don't understand, or luring them to friendly pizza parties that are thinly disguised religious interventions -- that's beyond the pale.

It's about respect. You may not agree with my religion, and if you want to tuck a non-threatening tract into my screen door, fine. You want to walk up and down the public street with a bullhorn shouting Bible-verses, again, fine -- if highly annoying. But to prey on pagan kids, or to use the power of position to impose your religious views on pagans within your pervue, that is offensive and disrespectful. Both of these things are happening. And as the third generation of pagans grows up in their faith, I can already sense the impending violence these kids will face when confronted by a zealous gang of evangelical teenagers.

Care to respond?

Arion the BlueI agree; once we know -both sides- that a segregation is in order it should stay that way, with your children raised free of Christian evangelism. No, I would not want my children any more lured away to pray to a Goddesss of some sort than you do your's praying to Jesus.

I'm not aware of "school programs" that prey on children of other religions: pressuring them to sign statements of faith, etc. -done by fundies in positions of power (who also take away children from Wiccans...using the courts to show them unfit parents, for their devil worshipping ?)

I guess I am not aware of such harrassment and abuses going on against pagans.

I've never once heard a bullhorn preacher, other than the hell-fire breather ones; as portrayed in TV and movies. I am shocked to find Christian tracts ever appearing on my doorstep (Now JW's "Awake" is all over the place, 'Fear them,' instead !)

I guess what I am saying is that out in the open Christian evangelism is about down to nothing, as best I can tell. Shoot; children in Christian families are not even taken to Sunday school ! My only "children:" two nephews, are as likely to grow up as practical pagans as they are to ever trust Jesus as saviour and go on to follow Him ...because my Christian sister and bro-in-law won't darken the door of a church.

Don't get too concerned, I say. Christians, now, by-and- large, just don't much care anymore about their own spiritual growth, the spiritual plight of their own kids, much less the nameless nextdoor neighbors.

(You can already sense the impending violence of gangs of evangelical teenagers coming after your kids ?! Seriously ? Come on now !)

No one is open to this kind of change anymore. Not here, anyway. Maybe in some foreign lands, but... The lines are drawn, the sides are firmly polarized in the U.S. I thought that was obvious to all. It's everyone for themselves. The Christian proselytizing that looms large in your mind is really kept in places like this; safely contained and batted-around as relative abstractions, between unyeilding adults. The youth of America are being well-trained to be the super-selfish consumers of tomorrow; spiritually-adrift, pleasure-loving, Godless - bound to materialism...and naturalists by faith. I really have my doubts that your children are at risk at all for being stolen-away from you, by anyone religious.

Public square kind of Christian evangelism is dwarfed BY FAR by inwardly-turned Christian programming meant only for Christian consumption. Most of it is so custom-made for the already churched, that passers-by get next to nothing out of it. Just get to your children first and predispose them to not believe the 700 Club or whatever else, Christian, they might happen across while clicking from Jerry Springer on over to That 70's Show.

I suggest that, as a concerned parent, you shoot-out your TV sets. Yep, that's where you will lose the battle for your children's hearts and minds (and, no, not from TBN !) I'd be shocked if your kids ever heard the gospel (not more than once, maybe twice), by design -much more by chance; but that's where your job lies. Bring them up as pagans. It's not a hard religion 'to keep,' is it ?

Good luck to us all.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for the encouragement, Vance!


Justin: Wrong. Esarhaddon rebuilt Babylon after Isaiah died. ... Uzziah's reign ended around 742-740 BCE, and Hezekiah's reign ended around 687 BCE. Isaiah lived and prophesied between those times--but not all of the book attributed to him is actually believed to be from his hand, or from his time.
Well, the crucial requirement is that the prophecy that Babylon would never be rebuilt must refer to Babylon at the time before Esarhaddon rebuilt it. And again, "this site (http://i-cias.com/e.o/babylon.htm) puts Esarhaddon before Neb's rule, and Esarhaddon ascending the throne is placed before the captivity, in Isaiah (Isa. 37:38). And the destruction of Babylon is clearly a destruction after the captivity:"

Isaiah 13:17-19 See, I will stir up against them the Medes, who do not care for silver and have no delight in gold. Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children. Babylon, the jewel of kingdoms, the glory of the Babylonians' pride, will be overthrown by God like Sodom and Gomorrah.

So your conclusion will only hold if we say Isaiah thought the Medes were before Esarhaddon, which won't do, as you say: "the Medes threatened Babylon in 612 (about 75 years after Isaiah's death, and about fifteen years before the "first wave" of the Babylonian Captivity)."


Oh. So let's see ... Babylon was to be "overthrown" ... but that's OK, you'll accept a gradual decline.
As long as it ends in overthrow! If that is all the prophecy requires, then that is all the prophecy requires...


Babylon was a vibrant city when Alex came through.
Well, Arrian says ("The Campaigns of Alexander") Alex set out rebuilding a major temple, which implies at least that this temple was not very vibrant! Here are some other quotes:

"The towering burned brick ramparts, though now old and crumbling, still 'gleamed like burnished bronze' in the autumn sunlight. ... Some landmarks were crumbling after the Persian occupation: the great temple Etemenanki (where the Amran shrine stands today in a walled garden) was decrepit and in need of renovation. Babylon had seen better days, but it was still probably the biggest and most glamorous city in the world." (Michael Wood, "In the Footsteps of Alexander the Great," p. 92)

"In 539 bc, Cyrus the Great captured Babylon and incorporated Babylonia into the newly founded Persian Empire. Under the Persians, Babylon for a time served as the official residence of the crown prince, until a local revolt in 482 led Xerxes I to raze the temples and ziggurat (temple tower) and to melt down the statue of the patron god Marduk."

"Alexander the Great captured the city in 330 BC and planned to rebuild it and make it the capital of his vast empire, but he died before he could carry out his plans. After 312 bc, Babylon was for a while used as a capital by the Seleucid dynasty set up by Alexander’s successors. When the new capital of Seleucia on the Tigris was founded in the early 3rd century BC, however, most of Babylon’s population was moved there. The temples continued in use for a time, but the city became insignificant and almost disappeared before the coming of Islam in the 7th century AD." (Microsoft Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761560431/Babylon_(ancient_city).html))

So Alex set out to rebuild it, it needed rebuilding. And yet he failed, as did Saddam, as will any attempt to rebuild this city. Though you (or anyone else) may try, it would be most convincing, if some attempt at this succeeded...

Blessings,
Lee

[tmancour]

I'm not aware of "school programs" that prey on children of other religions: pressuring them to sign statements of faith, etc. -done by fundies in positions of power (who also take away children from Wiccans...using the courts to show them unfit parents, for their devil worshipping ?)

I guess I am not aware of such harrassment and abuses going on against pagans.


The programs I speak of are not school organized and funded -- they are organized by various churches and "non-denomenational" programs, things like "Meet Me at the Pole", FCA, the Silver Ring, etc. All perfectly "wholesome" on paper. But they can be quite militant in actuality. The Meet Me at the Pole people recently caused a ruckus in the Pagan community. The idea is for all the Christians in a high school to meet for a prayer meeting at the school's flagpole -- which is fine, in and of itself. I don't mind that part. But when the kids are encouraged to write down the names of all the non-Christians at a school and nail them to a cross erected for the purpose, it crossed a line. A lot of Pagan kids found this pretty intimidating, being magically oriented and realizing the spiritual violence behind such an action. Pagan kids have gotten kicked out of clubs and kept out of sports by fundie teachers and coaches. They don't use their religion as an offical reason, of course. They just misuse their authority in obnoxious ways -- like doing drug tests for sporting events preportionaly greater for Pagan kids, and then denying them a place because "the tests haven't come back yet", or strictly and selectively enforcing other regulations. And 'devil worshipper' whispered behind the back is as unnerving as any other derrogatory name.

As far as Pagan parents losing their kids, I've known of at least three incidents personally. The most poignant was of a couple in the military in Hawaii, whose three kids were stolen because the babysitter, a teenage fundie, discovered their altar. So she trashed the house and called base Social Services. All three of their kids (under 10) were taken away and sent to live with military foster families -- and each one was a fundamentalist. The couple were still trying to get redress through the courts when I last spoke with them, about two years ago. Their oldest kid was 15 by that time.



I've never once heard a bullhorn preacher, other than the hell-fire breather ones; as portrayed in TV and movies. I am shocked to find Christian tracts ever appearing on my doorstep (Now JW's "Awake" is all over the place, 'Fear them,' instead !)


I do. But I've heard bullhorn preachers every week for the last 30 years -- an unfortunate side-effect when one lives in the Bible Belt. But I won't move -- this is my home, and there are more and more Pagans around. It disturbs your average red-neck red-stater that the guy at the bookstore wears a pentagram, especially when he recently attended a PTA meeting where they played up how the pentagram is a gang-related symbol. And hellfire is a pretty hot commodity around here at any time of the year. I get asked if I've been 'saved' about three times a week. Usually by total strangers.



I guess what I am saying is that out in the open Christian evangelism is about down to nothing, as best I can tell. Shoot; children in Christian families are not even taken to Sunday school ! My only "children:" two nephews, are as likely to grow up as practical pagans as they are to ever trust Jesus as saviour and go on to follow Him ...because my Christian sister and bro-in-law won't darken the door of a church.

Don't get too concerned, I say. Christians, now, by-and- large, just don't much care anymore about their own spiritual growth, the spiritual plight of their own kids, much less the nameless nextdoor neighbors.

(You can already sense the impending violence of gangs of evangelical teenagers coming after your kids ?! Seriously ? Come on now !)



Seriously. I won't say it's a particularly common -- or violent -- thing right now, but the wind is blowing in that direction. My oldest boy is in kindergarten. He's been asked if he's been saved twice now. He's also gotten picked on for praying to the Goddess at meals ("Goddess, Great, Goddess, Good, Let Us Thank Her For Our Food.") And while I can appreciate the painful apathy felt in most mainstream churches, the conservative Christian Pat Robertsonite folk of the South are alive and well. How do they keep their congregations running? On spiritual growth? No, on militancy and an appeal to extremeism. They find those souls who want to be on the front line of a spiritual war.



No one is open to this kind of change anymore. Not here, anyway. Maybe in some foreign lands, but... The lines are drawn, the sides are firmly polarized in the U.S. I thought that was obvious to all. It's everyone for themselves. The Christian proselytizing that looms large in your mind is really kept in places like this; safely contained and batted-around as relative abstractions, between unyeilding adults. The youth of America are being well-trained to be the super-selfish consumers of tomorrow; spiritually-adrift, pleasure-loving, Godless - bound to materialism...and naturalists by faith. I really have my doubts that your children are at risk at all for being stolen-away from you, by anyone religious.


Oh, I can only hope! :lol: But while that is true in the arena of public schools, the religious based home-schoolers and private Christian academies are raising kids away from the mainstream, for the express purpose of "Fighting for Christ" -- which can mean a lot of different things.



Public square kind of Christian evangelism is dwarfed BY FAR by inwardly-turned Christian programming meant only for Christian consumption. Most of it is so custom-made for the already churched, that passers-by get next to nothing out of it. Just get to your children first and predispose them to not believe the 700 Club or whatever else, Christian, they might happen across while clicking from Jerry Springer on over to That 70's Show.


If only that were true. I know several people who send Pat $5 a week, every week of the year. And thank God for TiVO so they don't miss a show. They expect Armageddon will happen next week, be carried live on FoxNews, and be narrated by Charleton Heston. For real.



I suggest that, as a concerned parent, you shoot-out your TV sets. Yep, that's where you will lose the battle for your children's hearts and minds (and, no, not from TBN !) I'd be shocked if your kids ever heard the gospel (not more than once, maybe twice), by design -much more by chance; but that's where your job lies. Bring them up as pagans. It's not a hard religion 'to keep,' is it ?
Good luck to us all.

It can be. It takes a lot of discipline. And imagination. I'm not worried about my kids converting as much as I am them getting upset that other people hate them for what they believe.

But I agree. Good Luck!

Arion

[Richbee]

Re: Babble-on-and-on

Lord have mercy!

Jeremiah 50:24-32 - Babylon: Humbled by God

I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon, and thou wast not aware: thou art found, and also caught, because thou hast striven against Jehovah. 25 Jehovah hath opened his armory, and hath brought forth the weapons of his indignation; for the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, hath a work to do in the land of the Chaldeans. 26 Come against her from the utmost border; open her store-houses; cast her up as heaps, and destroy her utterly; let nothing of her be left. 27 Slay all her bullocks; let them go down to the slaughter: woe unto them! for their day is come, the time of their visitation. 28 The voice of them that flee and escape out of the land of Babylon, to declare in Zion the vengeance of Jehovah our God, the vengeance of his temple. 29 Call together the archers against Babylon, all them that bend the bow; encamp against her round about; let none thereof escape: recompense her according to her work; according to all that she hath done, do unto her; for she hath been proud against Jehovah, against the Holy One of Israel. 30 Therefore shall her young men fall in her streets, and all her men of war shall be brought to silence in that day, saith Jehovah. 31 Behold, I am against thee, O thou proud one, saith the Lord, Jehovah of hosts; for thy day is come, the time that I will visit thee. 32 And the proud one shall stumble and fall, and none shall raise him up; and I will kindle a fire in his cities, and it shall devour all that are round about him.

Words of wisdom told from an old time long ago.

[technomage]

Words of wisdom told from an old time long ago.

One more broken prophecy among many others.

[tmancour]

Re: Babble-on-and-on

Lord have mercy!



Not Jehovah's strong suit, I'm afraid.


Jeremiah 50:24-32 - Babylon: Humbled by God

I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon, and thou wast not aware: thou art found, and also caught, because thou hast striven against Jehovah. 25 Jehovah hath opened his armory, and hath brought forth the weapons of his indignation; for the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, hath a work to do in the land of the Chaldeans. 26 Come against her from the utmost border; open her store-houses; cast her up as heaps, and destroy her utterly; let nothing of her be left. 27 Slay all her bullocks; let them go down to the slaughter: woe unto them! for their day is come, the time of their visitation. 28 The voice of them that flee and escape out of the land of Babylon, to declare in Zion the vengeance of Jehovah our God, the vengeance of his temple. 29 Call together the archers against Babylon, all them that bend the bow; encamp against her round about; let none thereof escape: recompense her according to her work; according to all that she hath done, do unto her; for she hath been proud against Jehovah, against the Holy One of Israel. 30 Therefore shall her young men fall in her streets, and all her men of war shall be brought to silence in that day, saith Jehovah. 31 Behold, I am against thee, O thou proud one, saith the Lord, Jehovah of hosts; for thy day is come, the time that I will visit thee. 32 And the proud one shall stumble and fall, and none shall raise him up; and I will kindle a fire in his cities, and it shall devour all that are round about him.

Words of wisdom told from an old time long ago.

Emphasis mine. This bloodthirsty warmonger is your "god of mercy and love"?

Arion

[roddmann]

"What is the chaff to the wheat?"

[technomage]

"What is the chaff to the wheat?"
I'm not willing to call anyone "chaff" Roddmann. That's awfully close to dehumanizing them ... and every time that happens--everytime one group sees another group as "less" than they are--bad things happen.

[draoi]

The argument that wicca was made up is flawed. Gardner didn't pick wicca out of his bum one day. Wicca was crafted over years from parts of the Quabbalah, parts of ancient Paganism, and parts of Speculative Masonry. This is no different than the Catholic Religion taking from Judaism, taking from Latin, and taking from the (at the time) Cult of Christ, and creating a religion.

As for how to deal with christians, dont. Christians (on a whole) are so convinced they are right that they refuse to even listen to alternative arguments and often turn a blind eye to non-christian viewpoints. Just accept that it's not thier fault (years of being tought that no matter what else is said they are right is to blame) and move on. Just MHO

[technomage]

As for how to deal with christians, dont. Christians (on a whole) are so convinced they are right that they refuse to even listen to alternative arguments and often turn a blind eye to non-christian viewpoints. Just accept that it's not thier fault (years of being tought that no matter what else is said they are right is to blame) and move on. Just MHO

When I originally started this thread, I was Wiccan. Now I'm Christian--well, most Christians would probably consider me a bit odd, to say the least, and downright heretical at worst--but I find my position hasn't changed. I'm still of the opinion that the Creator works with those who sincerely seek, regardless of the Name they seek the Creator by.

[draoi]

I respect that. It sound very Masonic in nature (you aren't a brother are you?), and it is much more "live and let live" then the majority of christians I have interacted (though I have also interacted with some very decent christian folk, just depends on the day I guess). Interestingly enough you did the oposite switch that I did, I went from Christian to Pagan (but that was years ago).

[technomage]

I respect that. It sound very Masonic in nature (you aren't a brother are you?),

No, but of course you're familiar with Freemasonry's influence on Wicca.


and it is much more "live and let live" then the majority of christians I have interacted (though I have also interacted with some very decent christian folk, just depends on the day I guess). Interestingly enough you did the oposite switch that I did, I went from Christian to Pagan (but that was years ago).

I actually switched from Fundamentalist Christianity to Paganism back in 1989--just switched back to a (quite liberal) Christianity a couple of months ago. Though in truth, at least right at this moment I can't say that changing from Christianity to Wicca to Christianity was "changing what God I worship." From where I sit, it was simply a change in my perspective of God.

[draoi]

I am quite aware of Freemasonry's influence on Wicca, or rather Gardners use of Masonic ideas in creating Wicca. :)

[OckhamsRazor]

I'd like the opinions of both Christians and Pagans on this one.

When dealing with Christians, what is the best path? Do we simply agree to disagree? As Pagans, we can do that--but as Christians, they can't and won't.

And at that, there are more times than I care to admit that I'm tempted to follow the path of those who (pardon the pun) "evangelically" broadcast their reasons for disbelieving the Bible. Yet I also look back and see how traumatic that realization was in my life. Yes, to be perfectly succinct, Christians are following a fantasy ... and the more "literalist" their interpretation of the Bible is, the more fantastic their beliefs.

"Credo qui absurdum" has been taken to its ultimate limit in professing that God "planted" the evidence of the fossil record, the age of the universe, and the structures and similarities in the various species, making God out as a deceiver who places false evidence within His creation.

Do I force Christians to see the evidence ... or do I simply shrug and go on my merry way, allowing them to remain in their fantasy world?

:lol: And do you wonder that I'm unsure of which is the best way to handle things?

I may be repeating somethings as I didn't read the previous posts given the number of them.
First, you would do better if you drop the condescending and insulting tone.
Second, you should become more familiar with the full range of views Christians have on the issues you brought up. Third, you are the one living a fantasy when it comes to your appeal to the fossil record. I'm assuming you are going with the "Evolution disproves the Bible" view. The explanation that you have heard about God placing fossils and evidence is not a view that I've ever heard expressed by Creationists. I would recommend a book by an Agnostic called "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis". If you want to know all the facts that is. I would dismiss the dogmatic assertions of Atheists and Evolutionists and their opinions and evaluate the book yourself. BTW not all Creationists believe the earth is young.
Further, you need to get the facts on what literalism is. You apparently don't understand what it is yet.

[guacamole]

This is largely irrelevant to the topic at hand but I've seen Pagans talk about this before:


especially when he recently attended a PTA meeting where they played up how the pentagram is a gang-related symbol.

The pentagram and Star of David have been drafted as iconic symbols by two of the largest gang "nations" (an informal alliances of separate gangs): Folks and People. The gangs incorporate images that make heavy use of the numbers 5 and 6 in their clothes, graffiti, and whatnot.

At one time it would have been unheard of for schools outside of the midwest to forbid wearing such things (unless one is a Jew or a Pagan), but the gangs have been increasing their membership outside of the large midwestern cities that were their traditional homes.

http://www.ci.madison.wi.us/police/pf.html

It is useful for a Pagan to know this. This isn't a conspiracy by Christian educators to keep the wiccan down. This is an attempt by educators, Christian or otherwise, to keep gange violence out of their schools.

If you send your child to a school with a gang problem, and you insist on displaying a pentagram as a symbol of your religious identity, be aware that gang-members are not necessarily the best and brightest students and aren't known for getting clarification before they jump someone.

fwiw,
guaca.

[Meh_Gerbil]

Do I force Christians to see the evidence ... or do I simply shrug and go on my merry way, allowing them to remain in their fantasy world?

I think you'd be alot happier if you realized you cannot 'force' anything.
I personally like talking with people about their views - but the moment it becomes a 'force' issue it becomes wrong, IMHO.