Thou shalt not suffer a with to live- the truth
Talesin
When I try to warn people about the hatred and intolerance xians
have towards Witches, I find that a very useful and concise verse is
Exodus 22:18. And every time I illustrate my point with this verse some
snert or xian in spiritual drag pops up and says "Oh no, King James put
that in- it really means 'poisoner.'"
This argument has been disproven time and time again yet it still
rears its ugly head. In an effort to once and for all end this baseless
supposition, I have dine a little research. Here is what I have found
(please note only one of these translations is the KJV):
Interpretation of 19 English Translations of Exodus 22:18
According to the Scofield Reference Bible this verse from the Hebrew
Scriptures (Old Testament)
was written in the year 1491 BCE.
Various Biblical translations render this verse as:
1.American Standard Version "Thou shalt not suffer a sorceress to
live."
2.The Answer: Put to death any woman who does evil magic.
3.Amplified Bible: You shall not allow a woman to live who practices
sorcery.
4.Good News Version: Put to death any woman who practices magic.
5.James Moffatt Translation: You shall not allow any sorceress to
live.
6.Jerusalem Bible: You shall not allow a sorceress to live.
7.King James Version: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
8.Living Bible: A sorceress shall be put to death.
9.Modern Language Bible: Allow no sorceress to live.
10.New American Bible: You shall not let a sorceress live.
11.New American Standard Bible: You shall not let a sorceress live.
12.New Century Version: Put to death any woman who does evil magic.
13.New International Version: Do not allow a sorceress to live.
14.New Living Translation: A sorceress must not be allowed to live.
15.New Revised Standard Version: You shall not permit a female
sorcerer to live.
16.New World Translation: You must not preserve a sorceress alive.
17.The Promise: Contemporary English Version: Death is the punishment
for Witchcraft.
18.Revised Standard Version: You shall not permit a sorceress to live.
19.Revised English Bible: You must not allow a witch to live.
In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah
to describe the person
who should not be allowed to live. The word means a woman who uses
spoken spells to harm others
- e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly " evil
Sorceress" or "woman who does evil
magic" would be the most accurate phrases in current common English
usage for this verse.
So there you have it. The word does not even remotely mean
"poisoner" it means Witch. More specifically, female Witch. So xianity
is sexist (what a shock) as well as religiously intolerant.
Once and for all, xian doctrine, law, and philosophy mandate that
Witches be killed. It's about time that some of you "enlightened" Pagans
wake up and quit defending the people who would kill you, your friends,
and your children just because you dare to think differently than they
do.
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
Morgan guide me
Badbh protect me
Macha bring me home.
***remove the REMOVETHIS to reply by e-mail***
James Wheat
But Talesin, it is only towards "evil women who do evil spells to hurt
others" - which would only fit Raven BlackBane! *She* is the only
female witch here that claims doing evil spells to hurt others!
James Wheat
(Sorry RBB, couldn't resist! hee hee hee<snicker> )
Simoun
It seems to me that the word sorceress appears more often than witch in this
threads assertion. Sorcery is quite different from witchcraft. Sorcery is
what is sometimes called low magic, witchcraft is what is sometimes called
high magic. Sorcery involves evocation (by any definition) of spirits,
witchcraft involved asking for the presence of the gos or elementals or
watchers.
It is interesting to note that some popes practised sorcery! and that in a
response from an inquisitor, sorcery was NOT to be punished, only witchcraft.
Later, sorcery could be punished if heresy as involved, and finally sorcery
was defined as heretical.
So, IF the word witch really means sorcerer, why did the early church exclude
sorcery from the list of nasty things?
Any way, thank you for your research. I would have liked you to address root
translations, and what the word means that was translated as poinoner,
however.
KymeeAnn
The original meaning of the verse was that any woman who cast spells to harm
someone should be put to death. There are also a number of other verses
which refer to woman as evil, yes the bible is male-chauvinistic. I got
most of this from a book called "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism"
written by an Episcopalian Bishop, sorry I forgot his name. Though the
author is Christian, I learned an awful lot from the book, it was a key
factor in my leaving Christianity.
The fact of the matter is that Christians throughout the ages have used the
bible to suit their own purpose. First they stole our religion from us (via
holidays, etc..) then decided we were heretics & should be put to death. Of
course they use that verse to back up their beliefs ~ changing it themselves
to mean "all Witches", then they killed anyone they wanted, especially
strong-minded women and women with money and property.
I wonder if the Christians are aware that the bible also says that if a man
and woman have sex while the woman is menstruating then they shall both be
unclean and should be cut off from their people? What would the world be
like today if they really thought they should follow those rules?
--
E-mail: Uz...@Juno.com
Talesin wrote in message <3545084A...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>...
Peter Russell Elfvin
Talesin wrote:
All you had to do is check Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with Greek and
Hebrew dictionaries..it clearly says "a mumbler of spells"
Also, you are forgetting your basic Christian doctrine. Jesus released
people from the law (not that the law is to be forgotten altogether, but it
does not compel Christians) Jews, on the other hand, would take their Torah
very seriously. Why don't I see more anti-Jewish hatred on this newsgroup
(or is that too non-PC)?
black bourbon
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Peter Russell Elfvin wrote:
>
> Also, you are forgetting your basic Christian doctrine. Jesus released
> people from the law (not that the law is to be forgotten altogether, but it
> does not compel Christians)
No, actually, Jesus never did any such thing -
"Anyone, therefore, who sets aside even the least of the law's demands,
and teaches others to do the same, will have the lowest place in the
kingdom of Heaven, whereas anyone who keeps the law, and teaches others to
do so, will rank high in the kingdom of Heaven."
-Matthew 5:19
It was Paul who said that the Law wasn't binding on Christians. And even
he never really went beyond claiming that anything more than the *ritual*
aspects of the Mosaic law - the sacrifices and what not - weren't binding.
He may have wanted to, but was stymied by the Apostolic Council in
Jerusalem. I doubt, in any case, that the witchcraft prohibition was one
he would have got rid of.
>Jews, on the other hand, would take their Torah
> very seriously.
Maybe, maybe not. Reform and Conservative Jews don't really bother to pay
much attention to the Torah at all, except when it can be interpreted to
agree with what they think. Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, do indeed
take the Torah very seriously - and you'd be well advised not to call
yourself a 'witch' in the middle of an orthodox yeshiva.
>Why don't I see more anti-Jewish hatred on this newsgroup
> (or is that too non-PC)?
It's too non-PC. It would also bring up unpleasant comparisons with those
happy schlappy Germanic neo-pagans in the upper echelons of the SS and
NSDAP.
In any case, the Jews aren't really seen as a threat. The
Christians are.
>
-Jason
"You shall become as gods."
_______________________________________
University of Arizona
pos...@u.arizona.edu
1550 N Euclid Ave, #6
Tucson, AZ 85719
(520) 792-0767
Rev. Rowane
Merry Meet Talesin
This is the first time I've ever responded to one of your articles, but you've
finally said something that I wholly believe. The Xtian faith teaches that any
who are not of their faith are no fully people. It's getting quite late so,
Brightest Blessings of the God and Goddess upon you,
Rev. Rowane
Peter Russell Elfvin wrote:
> Also, you are forgetting your basic Christian doctrine. Jesus released
> people from the law (not that the law is to be forgotten altogether, but it
> does not compel Christians) Jews, on the other hand, would take their Torah
> very seriously. Why don't I see more anti-Jewish hatred on this newsgroup
~Ed Howdershelt
JC may have released people, but the preachers haven't. Their motives
are different, and require that people HAVE the sins that JC supposedly
died to help people eliminate.
I think you may have hit the nail on the wrist, there, about criticizing
Judaism being un-PC. It is, after all, the source of Xtianity and far
more fundamentalist and every bit as misogynistic in nature, even if it
doesn't proselytize as the Xtians do.
I can't understand why there are female Christians at all, but then, I
can't understand Sado/Masochism, either.
Peter Russell Elfvin wrote:
> Also, you are forgetting your basic Christian doctrine. Jesus released
> people from the law (not that the law is to be forgotten altogether, but it
> does not compel Christians) Jews, on the other hand, would take their Torah
> very seriously. Why don't I see more anti-Jewish hatred on this newsgroup
> (or is that too non-PC)?
--
Wicca Works! at: http://www.atlantic.net/~wiccan/
(distributors) http://members.tripod.com/~wiccan1/index.htm
Articles-Jewelry-Tiles-Chalices-Poetry-ClipArt-Other(!)Stuff
Tony Veca
Talesin wrote in message <3545084A...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>...
[...deletia...]
>In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah
>to describe the person
>who should not be allowed to live. The word means a woman who uses
>spoken spells to harm others
>- e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly " evil
>Sorceress" or "woman who does evil
>magic" would be the most accurate phrases in current common English
>usage for this verse.
Talesin, I have a question for you. Did you know that written ancient
Hebrew had no vowels they were added in when spoken? The word *m'khashepah*
is a close approximation of what scholars think it pronounced, same as
Jehovah is a close approximation of what scholars think what has been
translated YHWH from Hebrew scriptures.
What is even more disturbing is the fact you are using 19 variations of the
bible, already poor mistranslated as your proof, have you forgotten that
many of the Christian sects stand more to gain by keeping proper translation
out of the Bible, because it radically changes the meaning and would call
the leaders of those sect into question among their 'flocks' of sheep?
==========
When one is frightened of the truth . . . then it is
never the whole truth that one has an inkling of.
-- Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
Austrian philosopher. Notebooks 1914-1916
(ed. by Anscombe, 1961), entry for 15 Oct. 1914.
==========
Tony Veca
tv...@gte.net
Graham & Katie Hockley
Talesin wrote in message <3545084A...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>...
>In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah
>to describe the person
>who should not be allowed to live. The word means a woman who uses
>spoken spells to harm others
>- e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly " evil
>Sorceress" or "woman who does evil
>magic" would be the most accurate phrases in current common English
>usage for this verse.
>
>
> So there you have it. The word does not even remotely mean
>"poisoner" it means Witch. More specifically, female Witch. So xianity
>is sexist (what a shock) as well as religiously intolerant.
> Once and for all, xian doctrine, law, and philosophy mandate that
>Witches be killed. It's about time that some of you "enlightened" Pagans
>wake up and quit defending the people who would kill you, your friends,
>and your children just because you dare to think differently than they
>do.
>--
>
>Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft
>
>Can I ask a silly question? Too late I will anyway :). I'm new to this
news group, so please enlighten me....Who or what are Xians?
Blessed Be
Wiccan Babe
>
>
Nicole Delessert Shields
> All you had to do is check Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with Greek and
> Hebrew dictionaries..it clearly says "a mumbler of spells"
>
> people from the law (not that the law is to be forgotten altogether, but it
> does not compel Christians) Jews, on the other hand, would take their Torah
> very seriously. Why don't I see more anti-Jewish hatred on this newsgroup
> (or is that too non-PC)?
Probobly because Jewish people as a group don't go psycho and try to
impose their religion on people as often as Christians do, all though
while I was in Jerusalem there was this guy who was desperately trying to
convinve me I had a Jewish "soul" and should start practising Judaism...
-Nicole
Talesin
Peter Russell Elfvin wrote:
>
>
> All you had to do is check Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with Greek and
> Hebrew dictionaries..it clearly says "a mumbler of spells"
>
> Also, you are forgetting your basic Christian doctrine. Jesus released
> people from the law (not that the law is to be forgotten altogether, but it
> does not compel Christians) Jews, on the other hand, would take their Torah
> very seriously. Why don't I see more anti-Jewish hatred on this newsgroup
> (or is that too non-PC)?
Worng! Jesus said "I came not to do away with the law, but to fulfill it."
Next player. . .
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
Talesin
Tony Veca wrote:
> Talesin wrote in message <3545084A...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>...
>
> [...deletia...]
>
> >In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah
> >to describe the person
> >who should not be allowed to live. The word means a woman who uses
> >spoken spells to harm others
> >- e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly " evil
> >Sorceress" or "woman who does evil
> >magic" would be the most accurate phrases in current common English
> >usage for this verse.
>
> Talesin, I have a question for you. Did you know that written ancient
> Hebrew had no vowels they were added in when spoken? The word *m'khashepah*
> is a close approximation of what scholars think it pronounced, same as
> Jehovah is a close approximation of what scholars think what has been
> translated YHWH from Hebrew scriptures.
>
> What is even more disturbing is the fact you are using 19 variations of the
> bible, already poor mistranslated as your proof, have you forgotten that
> many of the Christian sects stand more to gain by keeping proper translation
> out of the Bible, because it radically changes the meaning and would call
> the leaders of those sect into question among their 'flocks' of sheep?
> ==========
> When one is frightened of the truth . . . then it is
> never the whole truth that one has an inkling of.
> -- Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
> Austrian philosopher. Notebooks 1914-1916
> (ed. by Anscombe, 1961), entry for 15 Oct. 1914.
> ==========
> Tony Veca
> tv...@gte.net
Note: please add Tony Vacant to your "xian in spiritual drag" list.
CRan124261
> why did the early church exclude
>sorcery from the list of nasty things?
There were quite a few things the early church didn't exclude - reincarnation
was one of them.
BB
Chris
paul...@lan2wan.com
Tal -
You sneaky bastard. When I saw your post's title I was gearing up to beat you,
thinking "Oh NO, not the poisoner thing again!" And what do you do? You do
some research! Unheard of on the internet, much less the Neopagan internet.
Some errors in your conclusions, however.
- Exodus is in which part of the Bible? The "New Testament"? Nope. So it must
be in Tanakh, aka the "Old Testament." Was it written by Christians? Nope, try
again. So is Christianity "sexist" or do you need to move your accusation to
Judaism? Is it more popular to tear down Christians than Jews in Neopaganism?
Yep.
- Do you similarly condemn Hammurabi for allowing men significant control
over their women? How about the sequestration of Greek wives and daughters?
Branching more widely, are slavery, infanticide, etc. praiseworthy when they
form part of a code promulgated by classical Paganism, and only to be
condemned when they are part of a biblical reference?
- Do you want to be held responsible for the persecutions under Nero or
Diocletian? Seems only fair since you want to condemn modern Christians for a
piece of their scripture written before Christianity even existed.
Oh, on the research side of the house, I think I have a glimmer where the
popular error that makesaph'ha means poisoner snuck in. The Greek word for
witch/witchcraft etc. used in the Septuagint is from the root pharmouseia, the
same word that today gives us pharmacy/pharmacology/etc. Hellenic witch
beliefs ran to vast amounts of wortcunning, viz. the myths involving Medea,
references to the potions of Thessalian witches, etc. The word didn't mean
poisoner either, but witchcraft, but as the language evolved, and the
scientific study of drugs developed, the old word's connotations led to its
modern meaning. However, one can see how someone could make the leap. Like the
9.000.000 alleged casualties of "the Burning Time," I am not clear who first
trotted this factoid out - I think I first saw it in a piece by the Farrars,
but don't know if it predates them.
Paul
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
paul...@lan2wan.com
Tony -
> Talesin, I have a question for you. Did you know that written ancient
> Hebrew had no vowels they were added in when spoken? The word *m'khashepah*
> is a close approximation of what scholars think it pronounced, same as
> Jehovah is a close approximation of what scholars think what has been
> translated YHWH from Hebrew scriptures.
Actually, you are overlooking several points. The orthography m'kasepha and
variants are indeed standard modern usage for the word (its a samekh, not a
shin, so not sure about the "sh" - but the two letters can produce similar
vocables in modern Hebrew). If ASCII supported a Hebrew font, we could just
spell it out. Halevi's Hebrew dictionary would provide the same spelling as
Strong's or Gesenius, by the way - and the same meaning.
The Jehovah thing, by the way, cannot be laid at the door of "scholars." It is
specifically a rendering of the Vulgate, ie. the translation of the Bible inot
Latin by St. Jerome. It spread from there. I would commend to you the Oxford
Companion to the Bible, an chunky encyclopedia of articles on all sorts of
points, including translations, source versions, etc.
>
> What is even more disturbing is the fact you are using 19 variations of the
> bible, already poor mistranslated as your proof, have you forgotten that
> many of the Christian sects stand more to gain by keeping proper translation
> out of the Bible
Um, all you have to do is look at any study of the Biblical Hebrew to see that
the point that the word does NOT have diddly to do with "poisoner" is valid.
You will find similar translations in renditions of the Tanakh into English,
by translators with no stake in some shadowy notion that saying "witch"
somehow gave the Church more power than saying "poisoner."
(Hey, anyone know if Jerome translated it "veneficia" or "maleficia"? I still
haven't gotten a copy of the Vulgate after all these years)
Rune
What exactly IS a xianist?
- Rune Spellsinger
black bourbon
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Talesin wrote:
> So there you have it. The word does not even remotely mean
> "poisoner" it means Witch. More specifically, female Witch. So xianity
> is sexist (what a shock) as well as religiously intolerant.
> Once and for all, xian doctrine, law, and philosophy mandate that
> Witches be killed. It's about time that some of you "enlightened" Pagans
> wake up and quit defending the people who would kill you, your friends,
> and your children just because you dare to think differently than they
> do.
Thank you. I tried to point this out over the net a couple years ago.
I find it remarkable that so many Pagans make such an effort to 'make up'
with Christianity - especially those of us who identify as 'witches'
(Wiccan or otherwise).
> --
>
> Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
>
> Morgan guide me
> Badbh protect me
> Macha bring me home.
>
> ***remove the REMOVETHIS to reply by e-mail***
>
>
>
>
>
>
-Jason
black bourbon
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998, Graham & Katie Hockley wrote:
> >
> >Can I ask a silly question? Too late I will anyway :). I'm new to this
> news group, so please enlighten me....Who or what are Xians?
'Xian' is shorthand, of course, for 'Christian.' 'Xian' is *not*, as some
Christians and pagans have assumed, an insult or put-down - it derives
from the ancient Greek usage, where X (chi) was used as a symbol for
Christ - the same as 'Xmas.' It is sommonly used to this day by Catholic
and Orthodox clergy, including the Pope.
>
> Blessed Be
> Wiccan Babe
> >
> >
All praise to the Great Serpent
Jaime LeFay
> to describe the person
> who should not be allowed to live. The word means a woman who uses
> spoken spells to harm others
> - e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly " evil
> Sorceress" or "woman who does evil
> magic" would be the most accurate phrases in current common English
> usage for this verse.
>
> "poisoner" it means Witch. More specifically, female Witch. So xianity
> is sexist (what a shock) as well as religiously intolerant.
> Once and for all, xian doctrine, law, and philosophy mandate that
> Witches be killed. It's about time that some of you "enlightened" Pagans
> wake up and quit defending the people who would kill you, your friends,
> and your children just because you dare to think differently than they
> do.
>
> Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
>
> Morgan guide me
> Badbh protect me
> Macha bring me home.
>
> ***remove the REMOVETHIS to reply by e-mail***
Ah but Tales, my mother was born and raised Catholic and I'd bet
anything she doesn't even know that phrase is in there...never mind
going out Witchhunting in the name of Christ. Many Christians love
Jesus and abide by his "love one another" while using the bible only for
it's beneficial context. They are not all skimming pages looking for an
excuse to incinerate us all. While many of them are a scary lot of
narrow minded, deluded fools (primarily those I encountered while living
down south in the bible belt), MOST of them are decent people living
life in a goodhearted way.
As I tell all my Christian friends..."I love Jesus, betchya he
would've been GREAT in bed!"
Jaime :-)
ShieldWolf
>Also, you are forgetting your basic Christian doctrine. Jesus released
>people from the law (not that the law is to be forgotten altogether, but it
>does not compel Christians) Jews, on the other hand, would take their Torah
>very seriously. Why don't I see more anti-Jewish hatred on this newsgroup
>(or is that too non-PC)?
Greetings Peter and Blessed Be!
What you say is true, but unfortunately, there are too many 'whatever'
(Christian, "fundie", etc.) out there who still retain the OT in
*spite* of what Christ taught. They still teach their children from
it in Sunday School and many a sermon to the 'flock' as well. Instead
of 'turning the other cheek' they still preach 'an eye for an eye, a
tooth for a tooth'.
Irregardless, while I hold no love for the Christians, I do not think
calling for their destruction is in order. They become martyrs and
such, fulfilling their self-fulfilling prophecies. about persecution
and such. Yes they *used* to be persecuted, but they have become that
which they despised. Let us not fall into the same trap. Besides,
why empower them further?
Personally, I see the decline of Christianity every day. More and
more people are losing their faith in the 'church', in God, in
anything remotely Christian. Perhaps the revelation is truly a book
about the end of Christianity. I have noted that many prophecies
about doomsday seem to come about, but not in the way the followers
expect. Usually, the end of the world is only the end of the world
for *them*!
Yours in service to our Lord and Lady,
ShieldWolf
nc...@gte.net
The MoonGlade
Baird Stafford wrote:
> snip
>
> Ummm.... The definitions for "High" and "Low" Magic with which I'm
> most familiar are generally given the other way around: Witchcraft
> is "Low" and Sorcery or its equivalent is "High." .... snip
> Witchcraft is concerned with Malkuth (this
> present, physical world), the Sephira at the base of the Tree, and
> draws its energies from there. Sorcery (sometimes aka "Ceremonial
> Magick") is concerned primarily with all the other sephiroth and
> draws its energies from the other nine. ....... snip
Your definition is correct as I have read. However witchcraft can be just
asinvolved in the higher worlds and attaining spirituality as those studying
Cabbala.
The difference is that witchcraft uses natural energies of the elements and
invites
the Lord and Lady to help. Witchcraft does not try to control the energies but
works
with them in a natural way for the good of all. Perhaps Witchcraft was considered
'low' magic because we are not as concerned with the correct time, words, colors,
etc. and our rituals are more informal than 'high' magic.
> In my opinion, the Church was probably using the definition I gave
> above. Most "High Magick" with which I'm acquainted is derived from
> Qabbalistic practice and employs Angels and other heavenly spirits
> to produce its effects. The Church seems to approve of
> Angels....and it has never approved of the material world,
Yep, I agree, also 'high ceremonial magic' was used mostly by men. Women usually
used the 'low magic' of witchcraft. The church being full of misogynists condemned
the women's magic. But the high magic that called on Yhwh and the angels
was approved of. There were exceptions of course, St. Hildregard was an example.
Whatever trad works is the one that is right for you, I like to compare
the differences. The more I learn the more I find the details don't matter.
Blessings
Lynnaea
V. Young
According the Torah of my late husband's, the word they use is
sorceress. According to Rabbi Abrami (very liberal) the word sorceress
is used to mean an evil woman, a woman who use death curses.
He, like most Rabbi's I have meant hold with the word sorceress or
poisoner, not witch. But the mother-in-law is going to Florida so I'll
have her ask a Hassidic Rabbie she knows out there.
Wulfrenne
Talesin wrote:
> In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah
> to describe the person
> who should not be allowed to live.
>
-
Even I have to ask - when was the last time you received a moral,
ethical OR
legal spam?
-
Sanford Wallace 4-18-98
Naunet
http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm
It's a page I am currently reading through right now but it contains
information *of which you have posted part, in order to explain
references and the meanings of the words first used, etc.* At some
point further down on the page one of the words is said to mean
someone who prepares poisons and such to kill someone, thereby I can
see where poisoner could come from.
I'm still checking out the rest of the page so can't vouch for what it
does or doesn't say etc etc.
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:35:54 -0500, Talesin
<Paga...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom> wrote:
> When I try to warn people about the hatred and intolerance xians
>have towards Witches, I find that a very useful and concise verse is
>Exodus 22:18. And every time I illustrate my point with this verse some
>snert or xian in spiritual drag pops up and says "Oh no, King James put
>that in- it really means 'poisoner.'"
Nau...@hotmail.com
http://www.llion.org/~sdinwidd
X/USA/H3+/X3/4C,6c/X,H/0,H,S/:-D~/S/G/W+/D/M/B/b/R~/S/K+/E/Not judging/
Salma Hayek/Anne McCaffrey/Chocolate
Talesin
paul...@lan2wan.com wrote:
> Tal -
> You sneaky bastard. When I saw your post's title I was gearing up to beat you,
> thinking "Oh NO, not the poisoner thing again!" And what do you do? You do
> some research! Unheard of on the internet, much less the Neopagan internet.
>
> Some errors in your conclusions, however.
>
> - Exodus is in which part of the Bible? The "New Testament"? Nope. So it must
> be in Tanakh, aka the "Old Testament." Was it written by Christians? Nope, try
> again.
Excuse me, but even though the OT is Jewish history, it is the firm basis for
xianity. The xians use the prophecies concerning the Messiah in the OT as proof
that jesus is the man. Also Exodus 22:18 is considered a law. Jesus said he came
to fulfill the law, not do away with it, thus proving that he also endorsed the OT
and intended that it be adhered to.
> So is Christianity "sexist" or do you need to move your accusation to
> Judaism? Is it more popular to tear down Christians than Jews in Neopaganism?
> Yep.
>
Yes xianity is sexist. Paul, author of most of the NT, said that "woman should
be silent in the churches," "man is the head of the woman," and "wives submit to
your husband." It is more vital to illustrate the hatred and intolerance of
xianity in neopaganism because they want us eliminated, i.e. know your enemy.
AFAIK Jews never burned Witches.
> - Do you similarly condemn Hammurabi for allowing men significant control
> over their women? How about the sequestration of Greek wives and daughters?
> Branching more widely, are slavery, infanticide, etc. praiseworthy when they
> form part of a code promulgated by classical Paganism, and only to be
> condemned when they are part of a biblical reference?
>
No one praised any of this. The gist here is the condemnation of Witches with
special emphasis on female Witches. In practice, xians have applied murder and
torture about equally to both sexes.
> - Do you want to be held responsible for the persecutions under Nero or
> Diocletian? Seems only fair since you want to condemn modern Christians for a
> piece of their scripture written before Christianity even existed.
>
Nero was a nut case and the only reason the Romans "persecuted" xians was
because they refused to adhere to the Roman law. The Romans were very accepting of
alternative religions but the xians demanded things be done their way. I can not
condone they way the prexian Caesars handled the problem, but it was temporarily
effective. As far as when the scripture was written is irrelevant. It is taught
and preached and mandated today as Holy writ and god's law.
> Oh, on the research side of the house, I think I have a glimmer where the
> popular error that makesaph'ha means poisoner snuck in. The Greek word for
> witch/witchcraft etc. used in the Septuagint is from the root pharmouseia, the
> same word that today gives us pharmacy/pharmacology/etc. Hellenic witch
> beliefs ran to vast amounts of wortcunning, viz. the myths involving Medea,
> references to the potions of Thessalian witches, etc. The word didn't mean
> poisoner either, but witchcraft, but as the language evolved, and the
> scientific study of drugs developed, the old word's connotations led to its
> modern meaning. However, one can see how someone could make the leap.
Pharmakaeia was translated a sorcery not witchcraft.
> Like the
> 9.000.000 alleged casualties of "the Burning Time," I am not clear who first
> trotted this factoid out - I think I first saw it in a piece by the Farrars,
> but don't know if it predates them.
>
> Paul
>
Okay, you were doing fine until the "alleged" part. There is historical
and archaeological evidence to prove that the Burning Times were real. I bet you
are one of those people that claims the holocaust never happened either.--
Talesin
Jaime LeFay wrote:
> Ah but Tales, my mother was born and raised Catholic and I'd bet
> anything she doesn't even know that phrase is in there...never mind
> going out Witchhunting in the name of Christ. Many Christians love
> Jesus and abide by his "love one another" while using the bible only for
> it's beneficial context. They are not all skimming pages looking for an
> excuse to incinerate us all. While many of them are a scary lot of
> narrow minded, deluded fools (primarily those I encountered while living
> down south in the bible belt), MOST of them are decent people living
> life in a goodhearted way.
>
> As I tell all my Christian friends..."I love Jesus, betchya he
> would've been GREAT in bed!"
>
> Jaime :-)
Proabably not. He was gay.
Talesin
CRan124261 wrote:
> > why did the early church exclude
> >sorcery from the list of nasty things?
>
It did not excluse sorcery. Read Deuteronomy 18:10-11
Michael Smith
Apparently, on Mon, 27 Apr 1998 18:17:09 -0700, Simoun (swhe...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: It seems to me that the word sorceress appears more often than witch in this
: threads assertion. Sorcery is quite different from witchcraft. Sorcery is
: what is sometimes called low magic, witchcraft is what is sometimes called
: high magic. Sorcery involves evocation (by any definition) of spirits,
: witchcraft involved asking for the presence of the gos or elementals or
: watchers.
This may not occur to you, but your average Christian doesn't know the
damn difference, and isn't going to care.
For that matter, I myself don't see a difference between spirits,
elementals and watchers. Spirits is spirits.
: It is interesting to note that some popes practised sorcery!
This is only rumored, at least according to Waite.
: [snippage]
:
: So, IF the word witch really means sorcerer, why did the early church exclude
: sorcery from the list of nasty things?
Frankly, we don't know that it did. But it did seem to permit Qabala and
Astrology.
--
Blessed Be,
Michael Smith
For reliable information on paganism, magick and witchcraft, start
with The Witches' Voice: http://www.witchvox.com/
TPAO is GONE. Don't let the same thing happen to the Witches' Voice!
http://www.witchvox.com/twv/webnotes3.html and
http://www.witchvox.com/white/wsponsor.html for details.
Who Cybersits the Cybersitter?
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5341/freedom.html
Tony Veca
Talesin wrote in message <3545BFE8...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>...
>
>
> Note: please add Tony Vacant to your "xian in spiritual drag" list.
>
Okay, I have had enough of this. It is time to get this out in the open. To
be honest, I really hate getting into these things, but there comes a time
to stand up for what you believe in regardless the cost.
Talesin, I know you don't like me. And to be perfectly honest, I don't
really give a rip. I frighten you because, I dare defend the right of
freedom of religion. Not just for Wiccans, but for those you have a beef
with namely Christians.
My .sig line truly sums it all up "When one is frightened of the truth . . .
then it is never the whole truth that one has an inkling of." And it is one
particular truth, that scares the hell out of you. There is one Wiccan out
there who is willing to defend the right of freedom of religion those who
don't agree with his religion from members of his own faith, regardless of
cost.
You have a right to your opinions and I would not dream of denying your
right of freedom of speech and post them, but I also have the right to call
those same opinions into question with my freedom of speech.
Simoun
High and low magic.
While there are many who believe High magic is equated to ceremonial magic
and low magic is equated to witchcraft, I offer that other equally valid
interpretations exist. Just as the words INVOKE and EVOKE have different
meanings, and legitimately.
Liking the Gardnerian concepts, I like his implicit definition as high magic
being spiritual. In fact that was the point of his first book. For those who
like a more recent book, that is also the definition in Chaos Magic. Evident
Authority p4 supports low magic as witchcraft and high as ceremonial
however. You pays yer money and takes yer choice.
Popes & Sorcery:
My research indicates John XXII was a practitioner, and acquired some ritual
objects for that practice.
Popes who accepted sorcery:
In 1257 Pope Alexander IV specifically excluded magic and sorcery (and usery
interestingly enough) p 89 The Inquisition, Hammer of Heresy.
St Thomas Aquinas later linked sorcery to heresy in Summa Theologica and was
quoted constantly between 1323 and 1327. p 124, same reference.
Happy Bealtaine
Simoun
Raven BlackBane
BARF!!!
Look folks, read Exodus 22:16-22:19 and not just 22:18 in a void.
22:16 says if a man has sex with an unmarried woman then he has
to marry her (common marriage ... hehehe <snicker>)
22:17 says if Dad will not let the horny fellow marry his little girl
after poking her, then the poor fellow has to pay something
like child support
22:18 let me skip this for now.
22:19 says that beastiality (having sex with animals) is a BIG NO-NO
OK! What we have here is 22:16 and 22:17 explaining the facts of life
while 22:19 says if you're too much of a Wossy (like M. Smith) to get laid,
don't take the easy way out option by doing a goat.
Now think why in the heck 22:18 is stuck in the middle of all this X rated
sex talk.
A Witch means WHORE, HOOKER, JANE ON THE STREET. Look at the flow! If
you're too scared of being stuck with some hag or fear Daddy might say no
to marriage after you did his little princes, the concept of hiring a Whore
or doing a Goat ain't no options either.
So:
22:16 If you got the balls to screw a woman, your stuck with her fellow
22:17 And if Daddy says "NOPE" then sorry fellow time for child support
22:18 If you're to much of a Wossy to even try going through with 22:16
and 22:17 above getting a Whore ain't your way out.
22:19 And if your too scared to go through with 22:16 and 22:17
above, and too cheap to hire a hooker, like M. Smith, humping a
pooch ain't an option either.
Side note, the absolute last measure is jerking off, *BUT* notice there's
no reference to not do so, hummm..., must be OK.
OH! I do like the best reading of all. Since King James version of the
Bible was written in the days of old, "to live" was viewed as the start
of the sentence. Sort of like English and German. In English, one would
say "I am going to the house" while in German it's said "To the house I go".
So the correct reading would be:
"To live, thou shalt not suffer a witch"
In Old Hebrew "to suffer" also means to pay, so we have:
"To live, thou shalt not pay a whore"
So Exodus 18:22 is saying:
If you pay a hooker for sex you run the risk of death.
(Hummm.., AIDS seems to come to mind)
No Just because I'm a Witch doesn't equate me to be a Whore, I'm not for
sale/rent ... I'm free! hehehe <snicker>
Another thing, add up the numbers of Exodus 22:18
2+2+1+8
hehehe <snicker>
--
http://www.anneli.com/blackbane
creator of alt.witchcraft
creator of alt.traditional.witchcraft
original creator of alt.religion.wicca
.--. .----------------
// / \ __ / ---------
///////\( `-, -------
//// /// '~ ( -----
// / // : ) ----- Raven
/ / / /) / ---- BlackBane
/ //..\\
~~~~~~~~~~~~~UU~~~~UU~~~~~~~~~~~~~
'//||\\`
Simoun
Er, what about Onan, I believe the old testament did consider "jerking off" an
unacceptable act.
The MoonGlade
> Talesin wrote in message <3545084A...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>...
> >
> >
Something just occurred to me, the bible seems to say that 'women' can't
practice magic.But 'men' can? Elijah consulted a sorceress, should he have been
put to death also?
There were (and still are) many male Rabbis and Christian priests that
practiced Kabalah, ceremonial magic using angels and calling YAHWEH to control
spirits and demons to do personal biding. The bible doesn't seem to forbid the
men's magic, only the women's.
This is to be expected from a patriarchal misogynist religion.
BB
Lynnaea
Talesin
Tony Veca wrote:
> Talesin wrote in message <3545BFE8...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>...
> >
>
> >
> > Note: please add Tony Vacant to your "xian in spiritual drag" list.
> >
>
> Okay, I have had enough of this. It is time to get this out in the open. To
> be honest, I really hate getting into these things, but there comes a time
> to stand up for what you believe in regardless the cost.
>
Regardless of the cost? What the hell does it "cost" you to post your
drivel?
> Talesin, I know you don't like me. And to be perfectly honest, I don't
> really give a rip. I frighten you because, I dare defend the right of
> freedom of religion. Not just for Wiccans, but for those you have a beef
> with namely Christians.
>
Yeah, I'm so scared I could just fart. Ooops! I did! You just want to defend
the right of xians to harass and denigrate Pagans.
> My .sig line truly sums it all up "When one is frightened of the truth . . .
> then it is never the whole truth that one has an inkling of." And it is one
> particular truth, that scares the hell out of you. There is one Wiccan out
> there who is willing to defend the right of freedom of religion those who
> don't agree with his religion from members of his own faith, regardless of
> cost.
>
Listen bud, I know the truth and I fight for it every day f my life. Mostly
against liars like yourself. You are defending those who would cost our jobs,
our children, and our very lives. There have been many like you since the
inception of the Burning Times. So many, in fact, that you have your own special
name. Want to guess what that might be?
> You have a right to your opinions and I would not dream of denying your
> right of freedom of speech and post them, but I also have the right to call
> those same opinions into question with my freedom of speech.
>
> ==========
You are a thinly disguised xian coming on here to sway everyone to your way
of thinking. "Freedom of religion" is a catch phrase often used by your kind to
mean "freedom of the xian religion." You want us to believe you all are just
inert little people who love your neighbor and wish goodwill for all mankind,
when your greatest hope is our destruction.
If you indeed have any cajones and truly believe the tripe you spout, go
join WADL or the LLL or the Witches Voice and put your efforts where your mouth
is. Otherwise, you are what I have labeled you to be and thus you are now a
resident of the infamous dumper.
Perhaps it would be best if you took some time to compose yourself.
Tony Veca
Talesin wrote in message <35469615...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>...
[...deletia...]
>> Okay, I have had enough of this. It is time to get this out in the open.
To
>> be honest, I really hate getting into these things, but there comes a
time
>> to stand up for what you believe in regardless the cost.
>>
>
> Regardless of the cost? What the hell does it "cost" you to post your
>drivel?
It means that I am willing to lay it all on the line. Can you say the same?
>
>> Talesin, I know you don't like me. And to be perfectly honest, I don't
>> really give a rip. I frighten you because, I dare defend the right of
>> freedom of religion. Not just for Wiccans, but for those you have a beef
>> with namely Christians.
>>
>
> Yeah, I'm so scared I could just fart. Ooops! I did! You just want to
defend
>the right of xians to harass and denigrate Pagans.
Is that all you can do is insult me? Talk about poor debate skills.
>
>> My .sig line truly sums it all up "When one is frightened of the truth .
. .
>> then it is never the whole truth that one has an inkling of." And it is
one
>> particular truth, that scares the hell out of you. There is one Wiccan
out
>> there who is willing to defend the right of freedom of religion those who
>> don't agree with his religion from members of his own faith, regardless
of
>> cost.
> Listen bud, I know the truth and I fight for it every day f my life.
Mostly
>against liars like yourself.
Where have I lied? What scares you so much, that all you can do is insult
me? Come on Talesin it is time to face your fear.
>You are defending those who would cost our jobs, our children,
>and our very lives.
No I am not, but those are individual people, not the whole group. You don't
judge a whole group on the basis of the actions of a few assholes.
>There have been many like you since the
>inception of the Burning Times. So many, in fact, that you have your own
special
>name. Want to guess what that might be?
I don't need to guess, why don't you just accuse me of being an oath
breaker, or is all you can do is infer, because you have no proof. The Lord
and Lady know what is in my heart, they no my cause is right and just. I
have broken no oath before them.
>> You have a right to your opinions and I would not dream of denying your
>> right of freedom of speech and post them, but I also have the right to
call
>> those same opinions into question with my freedom of speech.
>>
>> ==========
>
> You are a thinly disguised xian coming on here to sway everyone to your
way
>of thinking. "Freedom of religion" is a catch phrase often used by your
kind to
>mean "freedom of the xian religion." You want us to believe you all are
just
>inert little people who love your neighbor and wish goodwill for all
mankind,
>when your greatest hope is our destruction.
You are so wrong. You know nothing about the principles that I live my life
by.
> If you indeed have any cajones and truly believe the tripe you spout,
go
>join WADL or the LLL or the Witches Voice and put your efforts where your
mouth
>is. Otherwise, you are what I have labeled you to be and thus you are now a
>resident of the infamous dumper.
I am a member of the WLPA. And I am also a Lobbyist for religious freedom
for my state of Washington. You see I have put a lot more on the line than
you will ever realize.
> Perhaps it would be best if you took some time to compose yourself.
I don't need to compose myself. I am always in control. There are very few
things in this life that will set me off, the number one being anyone who
attacks my wife or family.
Tony Veca
Simoun wrote in message <35467F12...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Er, what about Onan, I believe the old testament did consider "jerking off"
an
>unacceptable act.
>
Jerking Off wasn't the crime that Onan committed. According to the Bible
Onan was commanded by God to impregnate the woman, and instead "spilt his
seed upon the ground". It was for disobeying god and not impregnating the
woman that he was put to death.
==========
When one is frightened of the truth . . . then it is
never the whole truth that one has an inkling of.
DoveFen
In article <3546542B...@DeathsDoor.com>, Talesin
<Paga...@DeathsDoor.com> writes:
>Proabably not. He was gay.
Bi at most dear, did you know him personally? We all know who Mrs. Christ was
right?
Fen~~
~~Dove
Joshua Weiner
Talesin (Paga...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom) wrote:
:
: In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah
: to describe the person
: spoken spells to harm others
: - e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly " evil
: magic" would be the most accurate phrases in current common English
: usage for this verse.
:
You should try doing a bit more research into the context of the original
word and concept of sorcerer. The word pharmakia was used quite often to
refer to both the actions that can be considered magical today as well as
herb lore. Plato used the term pharmakia to describe both of those
actions in his Laws which he thought deserved death (this from a man who
claimed to have a personal daemon). Roman law also made no distinction
between poisoning and magic which implies that both were practiced by the
same person. The Romans were fairly tolerant (and highly economically
supportive evidently) of magicians unless they practiced magic which
caused actual harm. Knowledge of magic was strongly associated with
knowledge of poison.
However this is roman, and the OT is Jewish and you're talking about
Christians who are entirely different from both of them although derived
from both. Xian interpritation is both Roman and Jewish so these
distinctions are probably valid in all three systems.
THe real crime was harmful action, not the method used to accomplish them.
THere are numerious examples of bowls and other objects which are
inscribed by Jews in hebrew, aramaic, and greek which are unmistakably
magical. Astrological symbols and maps have been found inlaid into the
floors of synagogues. Obviously there was a professional class of Jews
who were engaged in magical practices.
Speaking of xians and pagans and relations. Today the Oberlin pagan group
got chartered and is now recongized by a school that once represented the
finest in missionary training. The school that hosted Charles Finney, the
great evanglist now officially and strongly (its a absolute pain to get
chartered) supported by the school. Yippie. I just love the irony.
Damn, I forgot to tell brother jed all about it.
--
Strangelove*|*jwe...@physics.oberlin.edu*|*Joshua Weiner
Pope of the Church of the Invisible Pink Unicorn
http://www.physics.oberlin.edu/students/jweiner
Gothcode 2.0 GoPS+HuSS+ TAnAdNr B/5Bk\]2^1 cNR(LBR)W+3GM PRNiSh V+s
M+g ZGoCl-- C++P2u a20 n+F b:- H165 g++T mEa3)Ni2(+ w++T r+P D++!*
h+ s7 k? RN SsYy NWPFn LusOh- HZXXL
vessekx
Talesin wrote:
< SNIP >
> > Like the
> > 9.000.000 alleged casualties of "the Burning Time," I am not clear who first
> > trotted this factoid out - I think I first saw it in a piece by the Farrars,
> > but don't know if it predates them.
> >
> > Paul
> >
>
> Okay, you were doing fine until the "alleged" part. There is historical
> and archaeological evidence to prove that the Burning Times were real. I bet you
> are one of those people that claims the holocaust never happened either.--
You've misassociated the word allged' in his statement. He was refering
to the aleged number (9,000,000) of deaths (nobody knows how many people
actually died as a result of that bit of stupidity).
- Bran Faol
--
'An harm it none, do what you Will,' is an ideal.
At times it is necessary to take the path of least
harm because taking no path at would cause more harm.
janet
In article <3546AF...@geocities.com>, vessekx
<ves...@geocities.com> writes
>>
>> Okay, you were doing fine until the "alleged" part. There is
>historical
>> and archaeological evidence to prove that the Burning Times were real. I
>bet
>you
>> are one of those people that claims the holocaust never happened either.--
>
>You've misassociated the word allged' in his statement. He was refering
>to the aleged number (9,000,000) of deaths (nobody knows how many people
>actually died as a result of that bit of stupidity).
>
And the documents will only talk about documented cases, (obviously).
They don't take into account "trials" by community and summary
executions, which did go on.
But most of the scholars tend to put the actual number at around one
hundred thousand, AND make it clear that we will probably never know the
true numbers.
100.000 or nine million, though: even one death is too many.
--
janet
Time bears away all things, even the mind....
Virgil
Talesin
Tony Vacuous wrote:
According to Hebraic law, if a man died with no children his brother was
obligated to impregnate the man's wife so the dead guy would have someone to
carry on his line. After the woman was pregnant, it was no longer permissible
for the brother and the widow to doink.
Onan's brother died and Onan got to doink his sister in law. He decided he
liked it and decided to prolong the relationship by making sure she didn't get
knocked up. He did this by pulling out and splooging on the ground. God got
pissed because Onan outsmarted him so he killed him.
Talesin
DoveFen wrote:
Yeah, there were 12 of them.
Pen
--
PK
The MoonGlade <Moon...@twlakes.Net> wrote in article
<35462DAC...@twlakes.Net>...
>
> Your definition is correct as I have read. However witchcraft can be just
> asinvolved in the higher worlds and attaining spirituality as those
studying
> Cabbala.
> The difference is that witchcraft uses natural energies of the elements
and
> invites
> the Lord and Lady to help.
That is Wicca. Many witches deal strictly in folk magick and call on no
deities to help them cast their spells.
Witchcraft does not try to control the energies but
> works
> with them in a natural way for the good of all.
Again, that is Wicca - the "do no harm" advice.... Cursing is a
long-standing part of witchcraft that goes back centuries.
Perhaps Witchcraft was considered
> 'low' magic because we are not as concerned with the correct time, words,
colors,
> etc. and our rituals are more informal than 'high' magic.
Folk magick is Low Magick and High magic deals with aspirations to the
Divine. And witchcraft does indeed use color and words in some
spellcasting.
--
PK
mike
Talesin wrote:
> Tony Vacuous wrote:
>
> > Simoun wrote in message <35467F12...@ix.netcom.com>...
> > >Er, what about Onan, I believe the old testament did consider "jerking off"
> > an
> > >unacceptable act.
> > >
> >
> > Jerking Off wasn't the crime that Onan committed. According to the Bible
> > Onan was commanded by God to impregnate the woman, and instead "spilt his
> > seed upon the ground". It was for disobeying god and not impregnating the
> > woman that he was put to death.
> >
> > ==========
> > When one is frightened of the truth . . . then it is
> > never the whole truth that one has an inkling of.
> > -- Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
> > Austrian philosopher. Notebooks 1914-1916
> > (ed. by Anscombe, 1961), entry for 15 Oct. 1914.
> > ==========
> > Tony Veca
> > tv...@gte.net
Must have been a pretty smart guy to outsmart an all knowing omnipotent being like
that. Ya gotta give him some credit. Personally, one wonders why God didn't see
that coming. No pun intended.
Mike
>
>
> According to Hebraic law, if a man died with no children his brother was
> obligated to impregnate the man's wife so the dead guy would have someone to
> carry on his line. After the woman was pregnant, it was no longer permissible
> for the brother and the widow to doink.
> Onan's brother died and Onan got to doink his sister in law. He decided he
> liked it and decided to prolong the relationship by making sure she didn't get
> knocked up. He did this by pulling out and splooging on the ground. God got
> pissed because Onan outsmarted him so he killed him.
>
Peter MacGown
That verse has been used as a bludgeon by the christians as the example
of how their God feels about masturbation. It is not exactly clear the
particular sex act, but it could just as easily be coitus interruptus.
The actual "sin" was violating a cultural obligation. It was truely
death for them to have no continuation of the patrilineage, so for the
wife to bear no male children, was unthinkable. It is the same reason
that Abraham empregnated his concubine to produce a male heir. In the
case of a surviving widow, the brothers (or even cousins) of her husband
were obligated to empregnate her so that there was a male heir. This
tradition seemed to continue all the way to the time of Jesus, if you
examine one of the questions posed by the religious leaders (the one
about whose wife is it in heaven if all the brothers had her).
This particular verse is a typical example of the term "eisogesis". It
simply means to read into. A common method of determining correct
doctrine among christians is to take a cultural bias (for example - one
against masturbation), and find a couple of verses within the approved
canon which might be related, and then develop a doctrine, and a code of
acceptable behaviour to go along with it that supports the cultural
bias. Bob Jones U is famous for it's use of the Tower of Babel as a
reason to not allow interracial dating and (gods forbid) marriage. The
sin of sodom and gommorrah was not that they were homosexuals (as is
often stated as the doctrine of god's hatred of homosexuals), but that
they worshipped other gods, and violated the rule of sanctuary, which
was a strong cultural rule at the time. During that period of time, if
one came to your door, you were obligated to feed, shelter and protect
your guests, up to and including offering your daughters to pacify the
crouds (which was done in this story). They were punished for being
inhospitible.
The old testament says very little, if nothing about masturbation, or
homosexuality. It's just the christians who have read into, and created
eisogetic doctrine due to their own hangups about sexuality.
The Color of Nothing
Shez
In article <Pine.A41.3.96.980428110750.66500B-
100...@aruba.u.arizona.edu>, black bourbon <pos...@U.Arizona.EDU> writes
>
>Thank you. I tried to point this out over the net a couple years ago.
>
>I find it remarkable that so many Pagans make such an effort to 'make up'
>with Christianity - especially those of us who identify as 'witches'
>(Wiccan or otherwise).
Living peacfully with your neighbours who happen to be christian is not
making up to . or sucking up to either.
get some sense, pagans have lived with christians for centuries on
perfectly good terms, often using christianity as a cover in times of
need,
forgeting that pagens hid under the umberella of christianity for
centuries, seems to be one of the things, the folks who yell about the
burning times are fond of.
Their have been christians in our pagan past who have, helped, aided,
and even sheltered pagans. it was a christian preacher who put an end to
the witch hunts in this country by accusing those who were doing the
hunting of being far worse than the people they hunted.
While you remember our pagan past, remember also that pagans were always
part of the community no matter what the religion was, that was the best
hiding place possible.
Their were christians who killed, their were many who would not have
done so, most,
would have not interfered either way.
I dont want to see christians having to hide under the cloak of
christianity in times to come.
that would make us just as bad as they.
--
NOTICE: This e-mail address is being spoofed on USENET. Obvious trolls and
needlessly incendiary remarks should be ignored. All authentic
messages from this address will bear this disclaimer, although spoofed messages
may as well.
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------
The MoonGlade
> mike wrote:
> >
> snip
> . According to the Bible
> > > > Onan was commanded by God to impregnate the woman, and instead "spilt his
> > > > seed upon the ground". It was for disobeying god and not impregnating the
> > > > woman that he was put to death.
> > > >
>
Just one more reason I am glad I do not worship Yahwah. (shudder) He must be a bitter
old man, he certainly had no respect for the woman.Lynnaea
The Color of Nothing
cyhi...@nojunk.juno.com
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 21:53:09 -0500, Talesin spouted out:
<SNIP THE BULL>
If we didn't have freedom or religion, you couldn't practice your
religion!!! Or mine or any others. We do need to stand up for
freedom of religion, but we dont' need to stand up for intolerance
which is what you practice. Your way is right for you but not for the
majority of us or any other religion/people.
So go about your way but remember to harm none. I think you have
forgotten that very basic rule with all of your harassment,
intolerance, hypoctacies and hatred.
BB
Cyhiraeth
cyhi...@nojunk.juno.com
On Tue, 28 Apr 1998 22:40:16 -0700, "Tony Veca" <tv...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>Talesin wrote in message <35469615...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>...
>
>[...deletia...]
>
>>> Okay, I have had enough of this. It is time to get this out in the open.
>To
>>> be honest, I really hate getting into these things, but there comes a
>time
>>> to stand up for what you believe in regardless the cost.
>>>
>>
>> Regardless of the cost? What the hell does it "cost" you to post your
>>drivel?
>
>It means that I am willing to lay it all on the line. Can you say the same?
>
>
>>
>>> Talesin, I know you don't like me. And to be perfectly honest, I don't
>>> really give a rip. I frighten you because, I dare defend the right of
>>> freedom of religion. Not just for Wiccans, but for those you have a beef
>>> with namely Christians.
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, I'm so scared I could just fart. Ooops! I did! You just want to
>defend
>>the right of xians to harass and denigrate Pagans.
>
>Is that all you can do is insult me? Talk about poor debate skills.
>
>>
>>> My .sig line truly sums it all up "When one is frightened of the truth .
>. .
I admire your self control and your convictions. I think we could all
learn more from your example.
BB
Cyhiraeth
The Color of Nothing
Eduard Na Rosaich
On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Talesin wrote:
> When I try to warn people about the hatred and intolerance xians
> have towards Witches, I find that a very useful and concise verse is
> Exodus 22:18. And every time I illustrate my point with this verse some
> snert or xian in spiritual drag pops up and says "Oh no, King James put
> that in- it really means 'poisoner.'"
> This argument has been disproven time and time again yet it still
> rears its ugly head. In an effort to once and for all end this baseless
> supposition, I have dine a little research. Here is what I have found
> (please note only one of these translations is the KJV):
I'm usually quick to jump on anyone who says who is or is not a
Pagan/Wiccan, but Christianity is a religion of black and white. You can
quite clearly say whether someone is or is not a Christian.
The following people are most definately NOT Christian.
Anyone who hate's their enemies... in this case, Witches. Christ t
old his followers to love their enemies.
Anyone who breaks any of the 10 commandmants. Christ quite
clearly said that his followers were to hold true to the commandmants.
But said nothing about the rest of the Old Testament which, by
definition, is before Christ came to show Wisdom to the world.
Anyone who claims the title Priest or an equivilent/higher
title (Including Bishop and Pope). Christianity has but one Priest, Christ
himself. And I quote "I am the way, the truth and the light. None come
to the father except through me."
As a point of reference, also. No where in the bible does it say
that there is only one god. It refers to God as "The one true God" and
tells Christians to put no other God before the father. If Christians
would just swallow their pride and accept the mother as well as the father
(Without putting her above the father or bowing to idols of her) then we
would be one step closer to tolerance. Christians do not hate us,
Christians will not kill us, Christians are some of the most wonderful
people in the world. Problem is, there are very few Christians about.
Most of them that call them selves Christians are only following Christ's
words as much as they feel like. No wonder he's not come back yet, he
said he wouldn't return till Heathenism was wiped from the planet. And
as he said "Judge not your brother for the splinter in his eye until you
have removed the stake from your own eye." It seems ironic that us lot
seem to stick closer to Christ's teachings than the so called Christians
do, yet they seem to insist on breaking their own saviour's rules in an
attempt to wipe heathens from the world. They're attacking the wrong
heathens.
Let he who is WITHOUT sin cast the first stone at me.
Love and blessings,
Dr Zip.
paul...@lan2wan.com
Tal -
Not to encourage you in riding your hobby horse (I assume somewhere in your
posts you get around to defining yourself by what you are, rather than by what
you are not...I just never seem to see those):
> > - Exodus is in which part of the Bible? The "New Testament"? Nope. So it
must
> > be in Tanakh, aka the "Old Testament." Was it written by Christians? Nope,
try
> > again.
>
> Excuse me, but even though the OT is Jewish history, it is the firm
basis for
> xianity. The xians use the prophecies concerning the Messiah in the OT as
proof
> that jesus is the man.
As the Jews do to prove he is not.
>Also Exodus 22:18 is considered a law. Jesus said he
came
> to fulfill the law, not do away with it, thus proving that he also endorsed
the OT
> and intended that it be adhered to.
Amazing to see a magician fixing on a literal interpretation of a passage
which has been subject to so much exegesis.
>
> > So is Christianity "sexist" or do you need to move your accusation to
> > Judaism? Is it more popular to tear down Christians than Jews in
Neopaganism?
> > Yep.
> >
>
> Yes xianity is sexist. Paul, author of most of the NT, said that "woman
should
> be silent in the churches," "man is the head of the woman," and "wives
submit to
> your husband."
Surely - so you might quote Paul when going after Christianity, instead of
the Torah.
> It is more vital to illustrate the hatred and intolerance of
> xianity in neopaganism because they want us eliminated, i.e. know your
enemy.
You really like feeling persecuted, don't you?
> AFAIK Jews never burned Witches.
>
Nope, stoning was the prescribed penalty.
> > - Do you similarly condemn Hammurabi for allowing men significant control
> > over their women? How about the sequestration of Greek wives and
daughters?
> > Branching more widely, are slavery, infanticide, etc. praiseworthy when
they
> > form part of a code promulgated by classical Paganism, and only to be
> > condemned when they are part of a biblical reference?
> >
>
> No one praised any of this. The gist here is the condemnation of Witches
with
> special emphasis on female Witches. In practice, xians have applied murder
and
> torture about equally to both sexes.
And no one else has, of course. Much of what you dislike in Christianity is
equally despicable in human cultures across time all over the planet. As a
species, we are awfully clever at figuring out ways to hurt each other - yes,
and to pin the blame on the Gods.
>
> > - Do you want to be held responsible for the persecutions under Nero or
> > Diocletian? Seems only fair since you want to condemn modern Christians
for a
> > piece of their scripture written before Christianity even existed.
> >
>
> Nero was a nut case and the only reason the Romans "persecuted" xians
was
> because they refused to adhere to the Roman law.
Um - since the Law in question required public adherence to the state
religion, how does this differ from the same requirement in Catholic Europe
through the Middle Ages? Not that the Reformation made it much better - just
made for different state religions to off the dissenters (though things began
tapering off around then).
> The Romans were very
accepting of
> alternative religions but the xians demanded things be done their way.
Yup - the Romans accepted the hell out of the Christians, the Jews, and the
Druids, for example. Three classic cases of genocide by Rome because the
religion in question would not collaborate.
Terrific example of freedom of religion - as long as you let us tell you our
Gods are tougher than your Gods, and maybe how your Gods are just imitations
of our Gods, and oh yeah, as long as your priesthood enforces our rule, of
course, you can worship any way you like.
> I can
not
> condone they way the prexian Caesars handled the problem, but it was
temporarily
> effective.
Pretty close to permanently effective for the Druids, and kicking the Jews out
of Palestine for 2000 years - while ineffective as far as eliminating their
religion - pulled their teeth as a threat to the Roman state - or any state -
for awhile.
> As far as when the scripture was written is irrelevant. It is
taught
> and preached and mandated today as Holy writ and god's law.
>
Not sure I follow this argument. Really hardshelled fundamenalists would go
with some of the OT injunctions - though a lot of those have fallen beside the
way, apart from kashrut (tossed out on the basis of Peter's vision). You
don't find Biblical inerrancy or literal interpretation being trotted out in,
say the Episcopalian or even the Roman congregations - seems like calling all
Wiccans man-haters because of the most militant Dianics.
> > Oh, on the research side of the house, I think I have a glimmer where the
> > popular error that makesaph'ha means poisoner snuck in. The Greek word for
> > witch/witchcraft etc. used in the Septuagint is from the root pharmouseia,
the
> > same word that today gives us pharmacy/pharmacology/etc. Hellenic witch
> > beliefs ran to vast amounts of wortcunning, viz. the myths involving
Medea,
> > references to the potions of Thessalian witches, etc. The word didn't mean
> > poisoner either, but witchcraft, but as the language evolved, and the
> > scientific study of drugs developed, the old word's connotations led to
its
> > modern meaning. However, one can see how someone could make the leap.
>
> Pharmakaeia was translated a sorcery not witchcraft.
>
By whom and in what? And is the distinction a genuine one in context? It's the
word used in Exodus in the Septuagint, at any rate, so the translators there
must have found the meanings equivalent.
> > Like the
> > 9.000.000 alleged casualties of "the Burning Time," I am not clear who
first
> > trotted this factoid out - I think I first saw it in a piece by the
Farrars,
> > but don't know if it predates them.
> Okay, you were doing fine until the "alleged" part. There is
historical
> and archaeological evidence to prove that the Burning Times were real. I
bet you
> are one of those people that claims
Um, excuse a blunt reply you pathetic little mammyjamming turd, but fuck you
on several points...
- Did you lose relatives (they died before I was born in 1950, but relatives
they were) at the hands of the Nazis? No? Then keep your mouth off the
Holocaust.
- I've seen you try and play the Nazi card on people who disagree with you
before. It is a pathetic little scam by a hatemongering little cretin with so
little understanding of what the Holocaust meant that you befoul yourself when
you put your mouth to it.
- The allegation of 9,000,000 killed during a unified movement across Europe,
etc. etc. - is appallingly bad history. If you troubled yourself with the same
amount of trifling research you put yourself to in exploding the "poisoner"
factoid, you might have observed that. The witch crazes are indeed well
documented...too well documented to support the figure I disagreed with, which
excited your Neopaganically correct wroth.
Paul
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
KymeeAnn
Oh Peter, go home... your mommy's calling you!
Peter Russell Elfvin wrote in message
<6i3r42$7...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>Talesin wrote:
>
>> When I try to warn people about the hatred and intolerance xians
>> have towards Witches, I find that a very useful and concise verse is
>> Exodus 22:18. And every time I illustrate my point with this verse some
>> snert or xian in spiritual drag pops up and says "Oh no, King James put
>> that in- it really means 'poisoner.'"
>> This argument has been disproven time and time again yet it still
>> rears its ugly head. In an effort to once and for all end this baseless
>> supposition, I have dine a little research. Here is what I have found
>> (please note only one of these translations is the KJV):
>>
>> In the original Hebrew manuscript, the author used the word m'khashepah
>> to describe the person
>> who should not be allowed to live. The word means a woman who uses
>> spoken spells to harm others
>> - e.g. causing their death or loss of property. Clearly " evil
>> Sorceress" or "woman who does evil
>> magic" would be the most accurate phrases in current common English
>> usage for this verse.
>>
>> So there you have it. The word does not even remotely mean
>> "poisoner" it means Witch. More specifically, female Witch. So xianity
>> is sexist (what a shock) as well as religiously intolerant.
>> Once and for all, xian doctrine, law, and philosophy mandate that
>> Witches be killed. It's about time that some of you "enlightened" Pagans
>> wake up and quit defending the people who would kill you, your friends,
>> and your children just because you dare to think differently than they
>> do.
>> --
>>
>> Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
>>
>> Morgan guide me
>> Badbh protect me
>> Macha bring me home.
>>
>> ***remove the REMOVETHIS to reply by e-mail***
>
>All you had to do is check Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with Greek and
>Hebrew dictionaries..it clearly says "a mumbler of spells"
>
>Also, you are forgetting your basic Christian doctrine. Jesus released
>people from the law (not that the law is to be forgotten altogether, but it
>does not compel Christians) Jews, on the other hand, would take their Torah
>very seriously. Why don't I see more anti-Jewish hatred on this newsgroup
>(or is that too non-PC)?
>
>
kg
Shez wrote in message ...
Good point Shez,
From what I have read about the burning times a majority of the "witches"
executed were falsely accused and were usually uneducated, not having the
faintest idea what a witch did.
Many ritual tools were modified to hide them from the "witch hunters"
eg. The athame became and ordinary kitchen knife, the wand or stave became
a broom, all herbs were kept in the kitchen & used in general cooking (where
safe).
Besides I would consider living in peace with a Christian neighbour as
religious tolerance.
Blessed Be
Wiccan Babe
"Above all be true to thine ownself" - Shakespeare
ShieldWolf
Greetings Tony and Blessed Be!
I just have one point I would like to debate. What I take issue with
is this one statement made by yourself in a response to Talesin.
>No I am not, but those are individual people, not the whole group. You don't
>judge a whole group on the basis of the actions of a few assholes.
True and it would seem beyond debate. However, the Christians believe
that any and all who are not "saved" are sinners. They believe that
any who do not worship their God are worshipping the devil. They
believe that they are to "put on the armor of God" and fight. They
claim to believe in the "Revelation" in which the wicked will be
destroyed. They believe that they are in battle with the forces of
darkness. They believe that their way is the only way and the only
*true* way and that all else is of the devil.
There is *no* way we can "all get along" with this attitude that their
very children are taught in Sunday School. Each and every Christian
believes this way. Here in the south, in the "buckle of the bible
belt", they *all* believe this way. Now, while there are a lot of
Christians that are not militant or deranged and are out bombing
Abortion Clinics, there are enough that *are*. I know, they are my
neighbors.
Talesin wants what we all want. That is to be treated with the same
courtesy and respect that our Constitutional rights *demand*. Until
this day happens (and it cannot by virtue of their own beliefs), we
remain steadfastly *against* Christianity as a *whole*, period. I am
not talking about this "new-age mamby, pamby, Christ(ian) Venusian
Brotherhood" crap either.
In case you think I don't know whereof I speak, let me tell you a bit
about myself (but by no means complete or in depth). I was involved
in Church for many years. I grew up in it. I was a black sheep, to
be true, for I had a hard time believing that I was hearing the
"whole" story. I questioned. This caused problems. However, as I
had nothing else, I remained steadfast, resolute that one day I would
find the answers to the questions I asked. It was when I attended
seminary, I found my "truth".
I have done my research and put my time in. There is no prejudice
here - only cold, hard fact. Christianity is dying, Tony. It is
killing itself. I only have to stand firm and wait.
In summation, I agree that they have the right to speak and believe
the way they want to. However, when they overstep the bounds and
infringe upon *MY* rights, I have every right to defend myself.
Agreed?
Yours in service to our Lord and Lady,
ShieldWolf of Spirit Mountain Coven
nc...@gte.net
ShieldWolf
Greetings and Blessed Be !
>- Do you want to be held responsible for the persecutions under Nero or
>Diocletian? Seems only fair since you want to condemn modern Christians for a
>piece of their scripture written before Christianity even existed.
Then why do they retain it in their scriptures and still teach from
it? They did it to me and also to my children in Sunday School. From
*all* of it. If you make the posit that the OT was Jewish Law and NT
Gentile, you err in your assumation for Jesus stated that he was here
to fulfill the law, not break it.
Yours in service to our Lord and Lady,
ShieldWolf
nc...@gte.net
James Wheat
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 02:52:44 GMT, nc...@gte.net (ShieldWolf) wrote:
>Greetings Tony and Blessed Be!
>
>I just have one point I would like to debate. What I take issue with
>is this one statement made by yourself in a response to Talesin.
>
>>No I am not, but those are individual people, not the whole group. You don't
>>judge a whole group on the basis of the actions of a few assholes.
>
>True and it would seem beyond debate. However, the Christians believe
>that any and all who are not "saved" are sinners. They believe that
>any who do not worship their God are worshipping the devil. They
>believe that they are to "put on the armor of God" and fight. They
>claim to believe in the "Revelation" in which the wicked will be
>destroyed. They believe that they are in battle with the forces of
>darkness. They believe that their way is the only way and the only
>*true* way and that all else is of the devil.
Another point to make.....most every militant group around is of the
christian kind....KKK, for a well known example. There have been
specials on Nightline, 20/20, the local news, and other about these
militia groups. Most all of them have bibles in their homes and in
the leaders quarters, and most of those profess to be doing "god's
work".
James Wheat
janet
In article <354be328...@news.supernews.com>, ShieldWolf
<nc...@gte.net> writes
>Greetings Tony and Blessed Be!
>
>I just have one point I would like to debate. What I take issue with
>is this one statement made by yourself in a response to Talesin.
>
>>No I am not, but those are individual people, not the whole group. You don't
>>judge a whole group on the basis of the actions of a few assholes.
>
>True and it would seem beyond debate. However, the Christians believe
>that any and all who are not "saved" are sinners. They believe that
>any who do not worship their God are worshipping the devil. They
>believe that they are to "put on the armor of God" and fight. They
>claim to believe in the "Revelation" in which the wicked will be
>destroyed. They believe that they are in battle with the forces of
>darkness. They believe that their way is the only way and the only
>*true* way and that all else is of the devil.
>
Sorry to intrude and all, but can I point something out?
There are over 3,000 denominations of christians.
Saying "they" all beleive something is just not going to work.
In point of fact, aside from the first point, (and I beleive that all
people are sinners at times, looking at the world convinces me that few
of us are perfect...), I don't beleive any of the above, and some of it
is actually taught to be heretical by the denomination I belong to.
I'm sorry, but I thought it should be pointed out.
>There is *no* way we can "all get along" with this attitude that their
>very children are taught in Sunday School. Each and every Christian
>believes this way.
Sorry to disappoint, and all, but the idea of a spiritual battle between
good and evil, the idea that all who are not "saved", by which I assume
you mean baptised, and the idea of the Revelation are NOT taught by the
largest christian group.
> Here in the south, in the "buckle of the bible
>belt", they *all* believe this way.
Unsupported universals tend to cause more harm than good...
> Now, while there are a lot of
>Christians that are not militant or deranged and are out bombing
>Abortion Clinics, there are enough that *are*. I know, they are my
>neighbors.
>
>Talesin wants what we all want. That is to be treated with the same
>courtesy and respect that our Constitutional rights *demand*.
Can I just suggest that treating EVERYONE that way might be a good idea?
Even christians?
> Until
>this day happens (and it cannot by virtue of their own beliefs), we
>remain steadfastly *against* Christianity as a *whole*, period. I am
>not talking about this "new-age mamby, pamby, Christ(ian) Venusian
>Brotherhood" crap either.
Grin.... ain't part of NO brotherhood, can't be done... just an old,
large denomination....
>
>In case you think I don't know whereof I speak, let me tell you a bit
>about myself (but by no means complete or in depth). I was involved
>in Church for many years. I grew up in it. I was a black sheep, to
>be true, for I had a hard time believing that I was hearing the
>"whole" story. I questioned. This caused problems. However, as I
>had nothing else, I remained steadfast, resolute that one day I would
>find the answers to the questions I asked. It was when I attended
>seminary, I found my "truth".
>
>I have done my research and put my time in. There is no prejudice
>here - only cold, hard fact. Christianity is dying, Tony. It is
>killing itself. I only have to stand firm and wait.
Forgive me, but I think it is cold hard fact about specific
denominations, in a particular part of the country.
I am NOT trying to defend christianity, I am merely pointing out that it
is not possible to use such sweeping generalisations. Nor do I think it
will help. Misinformation about *each other* will cause more problems,
as well.
Tiberius
>"Anyone, therefore, who sets aside even the least of the law's demands,
>and teaches others to do the same, will have the lowest place in the
>kingdom of Heaven, whereas anyone who keeps the law, and teaches others to
>do so, will rank high in the kingdom of Heaven."
>
> -Matthew 5:19
So, there are RANKS in heaven? Low ranks and middle ranks and high
ranks, huh?
I wonder how different an experience of heaven is for the LOW-RANKER
as opposed to the high-ranker.
Does the high-ranker get more joy somehow?? So will the low-ranker in
heaven be unhappy at some point.. in HEAVEN??
Jeez.. doesn't anyone ever question this stuff???
Tony Veca
ShieldWolf wrote in message <354be328...@news.supernews.com>...
>Greetings Tony and Blessed Be!
>
>I just have one point I would like to debate. What I take issue with
>is this one statement made by yourself in a response to Talesin.
>
>>No I am not, but those are individual people, not the whole group. You
don't
>>judge a whole group on the basis of the actions of a few assholes.
>
>True and it would seem beyond debate. However, the Christians believe
>that any and all who are not "saved" are sinners. They believe that
>any who do not worship their God are worshipping the devil.
So do Muslim's, do we add them to the list to? There are quite a few
religions out there beside Christianity who think we do evil, where do you
draw the line?
> They
>believe that they are to "put on the armor of God" and fight. They
>claim to believe in the "Revelation" in which the wicked will be
>destroyed. They believe that they are in battle with the forces of
>darkness. They believe that their way is the only way and the only
>*true* way and that all else is of the devil.
That is the doctrine of *MAN* supported by selective quotation of the bible.
>There is *no* way we can "all get along" with this attitude that their
>very children are taught in Sunday School. Each and every Christian
>believes this way.
That is where you are wrong. Each and every Christian does not believe this
way. My wife is proof of that, the pastor of her church who works as a
lobbyist with me in Olympia, WA is proof that Wiccans and Christians can not
only get along but can work together for a common goal and respect each
others religious beliefs.
>Here in the south, in the "buckle of the bible
>belt", they *all* believe this way. Now, while there are a lot of
>Christians that are not militant or deranged and are out bombing
>Abortion Clinics, there are enough that *are*. I know, they are my
>neighbors.
That is the south, you can't say what happened to you down there is the same
everywhere else. This comes back to the statement I made "You don't judge a
whole group on the basis of the actions of a few assholes." From what it
sounds like the South has more than its share of assholes. I don't know if
that's true, but it sure sounds that way.
>
>Talesin wants what we all want. That is to be treated with the same
>courtesy and respect that our Constitutional rights *demand*. Until
>this day happens (and it cannot by virtue of their own beliefs), we
>remain steadfastly *against* Christianity as a *whole*, period. I am
>not talking about this "new-age mamby, pamby, Christ(ian) Venusian
>Brotherhood" crap either.
This is where I think you are dead wrong in your attitude. If you are going
to take that attitude you might as well add Muslims and Jews to the list.
They are not real fond of anyone who isn't a member of their faiths. But why
stop there, how about the Hindu's, the Buddhist, Shintoists, Confusious,
etc. etc.
Some time ago, at a business seminar I attened, a speaker said "If not you,
then who?" I choose not to be a religious bigot. I may be the only one
(though I know that I am not alone) who will stand up and defend everyones
religious freedom even those who disagree with my religion. To do anything
less is to be a hypocrit, and that is something I refuse to be. Religious
Freedom, like any other freedom or right, is something that you can not have
unless you are willing to give it to others, even if you disagree or don't
like the religious path they choose to follow.
[...deletia...]
>In summation, I agree that they have the right to speak and believe
>the way they want to. However, when they overstep the bounds and
>infringe upon *MY* rights, I have every right to defend myself.
>Agreed?
Yes, you have the right to defend yourself. But defending yourself, does not
mean going on the offensive and bashing the whole group because of the
actions of a few. If someone wants to bitch about the actions of an
individual, go right ahead. But broad brushing a whole group on the basis of
the actions of a few assholes is intellectual laziness of the highest order.
==========
When one is frightened of the truth . . . then it is
never the whole truth that one has an inkling of.
ShieldWolf
Greetings Tony and Blessed Be!
Again, I admire your staunch support in something you believe
whole-heartedly in. However, I have already agreed to disagree and
will not be drawn into senseless debate with you regarding this issue.
I am against *any* religion that infringes upon my rights
The Christians have a book called the Bible. In this book, their God
claims to be the only true God and no one else is to be worshipped.
Their paradigm is one of good pitted against evil. Good is defined in
their book as being of or from God. Evil is defined as everything
else and, by default, of or from the devil. Christians see themselves
as warriors for God.
This is indisputable regardless of which translation of the Bible you
choose to read. It is evident in the Old Testament as well as the
New. It applies to Jew and Gentile alike. Period.
Now, you may try to draw other groups into the fray, but here you are
trying to blow smoke in the face of the real issue. You are comparing
apples to oranges. True the Jews believe much the same way, but they
aren't in my face about it.
I don't hear stories in the news about Jewish kids gunning down fellow
schoolchildren and teachers. I do about the Christians. I don't hear
about Buddhist leaders forcing children to drink cyanide laced
Kool-Aid. The Christian Jim Jones did. I don't hear Jews talk about
how they want to kill all "devil worshipping heathens", queers, dykes,
fags, etc. I do hear Christians say this. I heard it in the North,
out West, in the South.
The day it does, though, I will be steadfastly against *them* as well.
I am against *any* religion that oversteps its bounds and says I have
no right to believe as I may and must be destroyed (whether by God,
their followers, etc.). I am against *any* religion that infringes
upon my rights. Period. Have I stated that clearly enough for you?
Irregardless, their own beliefs pit us against them. It is
irrefutable. Their own book(s), publications, Bible, etc. back me up
100% on this one. You know as well as I do the only possible outcome
of such a belief system. War. And their Revelation clearly points to
that same conclusion.
ShieldWolf
Greetings Janet and Blessed Be !
As always it is good hearing your responses. I admire your
level-headedness and your open mind. I defer to your argument
regarding my broad generalizations. It is true that I tend to lump
all of the Christians into one group. However, I feel that my broad
generalizations are justified.
The basic tenets of faith are spelled out in their Bible. I don't
care which translation (KJV, NIV, etc.) you desire to use. Their
tenets pit us squarely *against* them and vice versa. It doesn't take
a rocket scientist to figure out that their God wants to be "King of
the sandbox" and to hell with everyone else (quite literally).
All Christians believe they are "warriors" for God. Their paradigm is
one in which good is pitted against evil. Good is defined as being of
God. Anything else is of the devil and is, by default, evil. Do you
agree?
I agree that there are certain groups that are "sympathetic" however,
this is not the case with the majority of mainstream Christian groups
(note I said mainstream). You have only to refer to the number of
news stories of crimes committed by Christians or followers of various
Christian "Cults" that happen nearly every day. You only have to
refer to the various tracts and documents produced by them. You only
have to read their Bible, regardless of translation. Etc., etc., etc.
...
Rowan Hawthorne
Probably because they don't walk up to us and tell us we're going to their
hell for following our religion.
Rowan Hawthorne
================================================
You can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some
of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Peter Russell Elfvin wrote in message
<6i3r42$7...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>...
>Why don't I see more anti-Jewish hatred on this newsgroup
Rowan Hawthorne
The low rankers get to mop the floors in utter bliss. }:)
Rowan Hawthorne
================================================
You can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some
of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Tiberius wrote in message <35491e19...@sd.znet.com>...
Tony Veca
ShieldWolf wrote in message <35499748...@news.supernews.com>...
[...deletia...]
>Now, you may try to draw other groups into the fray, but here you are
>trying to blow smoke in the face of the real issue. You are comparing
>apples to oranges. True the Jews believe much the same way, but they
>aren't in my face about it.
I wasn't trying to blow smoke. I taking the attitude to its most logical
extreem.
The overall issue is bigotry be it against race, color, nationality,
religion, sexual orientation, etc. is wrong. And nothing is going to change
that fact.
You made a statement in an earlier post that you think Christianity is
dying. Personally I don't think so. I think it is finally making a long over
due change. A lot of this can be found in the growth of Christian Unitarian
churches. My wifes church had maybe 30 members 3 years ago, today it has
over 250 members. It is one of around 15 churchs that I know of that truly
teaches religious tolerance and really teaches the "Do unto others, as you
whould have them do to you" reguardless of religion.
I think part of this change is coming from, as the late comedian Lenny Bruce
once said "People are leaving the church, and returning to God." There are
many people in America today who are sick and tired of the ridged dogma
taught by the Catholic, Lutherin, and Methodist, etc. churches. They wish to
hold to there beliefs in God and Christ, but they don't like what is being
taught in the churches because they can't reconsile what is being said with
what they know is true in their hearts.
I don't think there is a Christian in the world today, other than hard core
fanatics, who really want to see the Dahli Lama in hell, he is too good a
person. Those of us who have been fortunate enought to see and hear the
Dahli Lama speak during his tour of the US understand what what I am talking
about. The man's aura radiates wisdom and goodness so strongly that you can
physically feel it.
I think what we are going to see is a weakening of the major Christian sects
and the rise of of the more tolerant sects.
janet
In article <3548945f...@news.supernews.com>, ShieldWolf
<nc...@gte.net> writes
>Greetings Janet and Blessed Be !
>
>As always it is good hearing your responses.
bows...
(you HEAR them??) :)
> I admire your
>level-headedness and your open mind.
Mind so broad I can tie it under my chin...
>I defer to your argument
>regarding my broad generalizations. It is true that I tend to lump
>all of the Christians into one group. However, I feel that my broad
>generalizations are justified.
>
>The basic tenets of faith are spelled out in their Bible.
Sheildwolf, for me, it is MY bible! I hope I haven't given you a wrong
impression, here! :)
But again, there is a big divide between groups of christians on that:
some take ONLY the bible, some take the Bible plus tradition, and this
isn't the place to go into the difference... :)
> I don't
>care which translation (KJV, NIV, etc.) you desire to use. Their
>tenets pit us squarely *against* them and vice versa. It doesn't take
>a rocket scientist to figure out that their God wants to be "King of
>the sandbox" and to hell with everyone else (quite literally).
>
for the OT God, that's about true.
However, many christians (such as those in my denomination) do NOT take
every word of the OT to be, if you like, "gospel"....
>All Christians believe they are "warriors" for God.
Um, this one doesn't...
And I can name dozens of others who don't, either.
> Their paradigm is
>one in which good is pitted against evil. Good is defined as being of
>God. Anything else is of the devil and is, by default, evil. Do you
>agree?
Nope!! :)
Because, to many christians, (eg, my lot) evil is --not--.
Evil is the LACK of a due good, the LACK of that which should be there.
The idea of the cosmic battle between good and evil isn't ours,
actually: it's a LOT older than christainity!! :)
Persia, I beleive...?
>
>I agree that there are certain groups that are "sympathetic" however,
>this is not the case with the majority of mainstream Christian groups
>(note I said mainstream).
Grin... Shieldwolf, I'm a catholic, and I don't think you can GET much
more mainstream!!
Except of course, in the deep south, and I agree: people used to
actually stop and look at us in the street! ;)
>You have only to refer to the number of
>news stories of crimes committed by Christians or followers of various
>Christian "Cults" that happen nearly every day.
Sigh... I know.
But then, since the majority of people in the US are christians, the
majority of crimes will be committed by christians, yes?
> You only have to
>refer to the various tracts and documents produced by them. You only
>have to read their Bible, regardless of translation. Etc., etc., etc.
>...
Um, no, actually.
You need to suppliment that with the NT, with, "Do unto others as you
would have them do to you", "love your neighbour as yourself", and so
on.
You need to add church documents which proclaim that freedom of religion
MUST be guaranteed by the state!
We are NOT all fundamentalists! :)
>
>
>Yours in service to our Lord and Lady,
And yours, in the service, (I hope!!) of the deity!
>
>ShieldWolf
James Wheat
>In article <3548945f...@news.supernews.com>, ShieldWolf
><nc...@gte.net> writes
Janet, you and the ones saying "the bible" hit on one of my major
petpeeves about christianity......."which 'the bible'?" :)
I used to be a Baptist Preacher many moons ago....and I found out
about the many translations and kinds of bibles. I am curious - do
you go by what is called the "king james 1611?" It has 6-10 more
books in it than the protestant's KJV.
James Wheat
bil
> So there you have it. The word does not even remotely mean
>"poisoner" it means Witch. More specifically, female Witch. So xianity
>is sexist (what a shock) as well as religiously intolerant.
Hmmm... I think I'll add "Thou shalt smite sexist Christian ninnies with
large church pews until they doth stop being ninnies" to my Holy Book of Me.
I advice you all to do similarly just in case some xian fool decides that
selective biblical enforcement is requiered.
bil
d=)
Tony Veca
Talesin wrote in message <354913C6...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>...
[...deletia...]
> Tony your cover is blown, dude. why don't you just put your shirt on
>backward, pick up that ten pound Bible, and preach to us? At least it would
be
>honest.
Talesin, nothing in the world is going to change the fact that your
religious bigotry is wrong. Say what you want about me. But you know as well
as I do, there is nothing you can do to change that particular truth.
Tony Veca
elliot wrote in message <354918...@cafemagnolia.com>...
>I would agree with you. Unfortunatly, I have never met a christian who
>doesn't contradict the Bible in many ways. And Christianity is most
>definitly *not* a Black&White religion. In Exodus 20 Yahweh states
>"Thou shalt not kill" and the next chapter says "Go into Cannan(?) and
>kill everyone in it"
Depending on which bible you are using, you either get: 1) "Thou shall not
kill" or 2) "Thou shall not murder.", or some variation thereof.
This is one of those cases where translation is important and
mis-translation can seriously alter the meaning.
There is a major difference in meaning between 'Thou shall not kill' and
'Thou shall not murder'.
Tony Veca
elliot wrote in message <354918...@cafemagnolia.com>...
>Eduard Na Rosaich wrote:
><yeah yeah>
>> The following people are most definately NOT Christian.
><'n' stuff>
>
>I would agree with you. Unfortunatly, I have never met a christian who
>doesn't contradict the Bible in many ways. And Christianity is most
>definitly *not* a Black&White religion. In Exodus 20 Yahweh states
>"Thou shalt not kill" and the next chapter says "Go into Cannan(?) and
>kill everyone in it"
>No one is perfect. As the Bible states many laws, 10 commandments,
>Duteronomy, turn the other cheek, 'it is mine to avenge, i will repay'
>etc. no one always follows them.
>I'm sure you don't follow all of the tenets of your religion all of the
>time.
>Some thoughts
>e
Rowan Hawthorne
As a former Christian involved in Teen Challenge and other organizations I
have attended over 60 churches in the NE from DE to Ontario. These were
churches of many different denominations spanning from Pentecostal to
Messianic Jewish. in each and every one the same basic facts were taught:
1. Jesus is the only way to salvation (not baptism)
2. If you don't believe he is the Savior you are destined for Hell
3. All other religions are of Satan and God will destroy them
4. The Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God
5. Unitarian Universalism, Catholicism, Mormonism, LDS, Christian Science,
and many other denominations of Christianity are cults.
6. Witchcraft is Satanism and consists of human sacrifice
7. Revelation will come to pass.
8. As Acts 1:8 states it is their job to preach to people of Jesus even if
the people don't want to hear it.
I have witnessed exorcisms<ugh> (called deliverance) in which supposed
"demons of witchcraft" were "cast out" as well as the same for such "demons"
as alcoholism, homosexuality, sex, rock and roll, drugs, eating disorders,
anger, unforgiveness, gossip, etc... I have seen and experienced "slayings
of the spirit" in which the pastor pushes you over in the hopes of a
religious experience. When I first became a Christian I destroyed by the
prescribed method of fire every previous Wiccan article I owned including
several precious gifts from others, and my entire library because it was
evil and Satanic. This may not be what every individual in the Church
believes, but it is what Christianity teaches and the leaders major
denominations thereof will tell you that if you don't believe these things,
you are not "saved" and will go to Hell. After several years of wrestling
with things in Christianity which I could not reconcile with (even though I
was studying for a doctorate in Theology and was to be ordained) and a fear
of going to Hell, I was finally able to overcome that fear and break away
from that cult which calls itself chosen among men. I do not regret my
involvement in Christianity because through it I gained the strength to
overcome my fears, and the wisdom to always seek the truth no matter what
that truth may be. Unfortunately many others will remain trapped within a
religion which makes women obedient slaves and human nature evil until they
die, but the Earth calls back to her that which is hers (me).
janet wrote in message ...
>Saying "they" all beleive something is just not going to work.
Christianity is based on the Bible, is it not. Do not all Christians believe
that. Their Laws come from it and their belifs are derived from it.
>Sorry to disappoint, and all, but the idea of a spiritual battle between
>good and evil, the idea that all who are not "saved", by which I assume
>you mean baptised, and the idea of the Revelation are NOT taught by the
>largest christian group.
Which would be Catholicism. It most certainly does. As a matter of fact
Catholicism's beleif in salvation by works even further condemns the average
man to Hell.
>Can I just suggest that treating EVERYONE that way might be a good idea?
>Even christians?
Agreed. But if I have some fundie in my face telling me I'm on my way to
hell, you'd better believe I'm gonna have a comeback.
*******
>> Until
>>this day happens (and it cannot by virtue of their own beliefs), we
>>remain steadfastly *against* Christianity as a *whole*, period. I am
>>not talking about this "new-age mamby, pamby, Christ(ian) Venusian
>>Brotherhood" crap either.
*******
>Forgive me, but I think it is cold hard fact about specific
>denominations, in a particular part of the country.
Well between the two of us we just gave you a cross section of appx. 50
denominations spanning from Canada to Florida. I'd call that a pretty large
"part" of the country.
>janet
>
>Time bears away all things, even the mind....
> Virgil
Rowan Hawthorne
Rowan Hawthorne
Go ask that in alt.religion.christian. I once had a similar conversation
there about Mahatma Ghandi, the conclusion by all but a few (this is online
conversation so we are speaking of Christian viewpoint from around the
world) was that regardless of his "works" he was going to hell.
Rowan Hawthorne
================================================
You can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some
of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
Tony Veca wrote in message <6iap59$ohf$1...@gte1.gte.net>...
Eduard Na Rosaich
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998, elliot wrote:
> I would agree with you. Unfortunatly, I have never met a christian who
> doesn't contradict the Bible in many ways. And Christianity is most
> definitly *not* a Black&White religion. In Exodus 20 Yahweh states
> "Thou shalt not kill" and the next chapter says "Go into Cannan(?) and
> kill everyone in it"
> No one is perfect. As the Bible states many laws, 10 commandments,
> Duteronomy, turn the other cheek, 'it is mine to avenge, i will repay'
> etc. no one always follows them.
And here someone has come upon the point I was trying to make, but I
guess I made it badly (Cos I'm crap like that). Although the bible is
full of contradictions, even within the same testament, the followers are
still seeing things in black and white. That is where the major weakness
of Christianity lies. Different groups assign precedence to different
sides of the contradiction, and thus they have division (Catholics and
Protestants for example). They seem to miss the fact that the
contradiction may well exist to allow each to decide for themselves
personally, not for them to argue, fight and kill over who is right when
they may well all be right.
In conclusion-
The Bible - Grey areas.
Christians - Black and White.
> I'm sure you don't follow all of the tenets of your religion all of the
> time.
> Some thoughts
> e
I don't think my faith has any tenets. Apart from "An it harm none, do
what ye will" which is impossible to keep 100% (Cos by doing something to
help someone you almost always get in someone else's way). However, I
don't feel Wicca is about following orders. If we don't try to be
perfect, we'll never fail - That's what I say.
Love and blessings,
Dr Zip.
==============* Dr Zip, the crap witch of the West (Midlands) *===============
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/5244/
telnet://talker.com:5002
==============================================================================
"Americans travel south of the border to buy cheaply from a backward country."
"Canadians do the same."
Felix The Cat
It is not the practice of modern Christianity to murder
witches. Unless it's a third world or remote country. And even
those cases are rare. However, every religion has it's
fanatical fringe. Together we can stamp out all traces of the
intolerance of non-violent beliefs. We can also stamp out
violent beliefs too. All religions can work together to do
this. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity can help.
Felix The Cat
zit...@hotmail.com
In article <6ic76u$hlr$1...@gte1.gte.net>#1/1,
"Tony Veca" <tv...@gte.net> wrote:
> Talesin wrote in message <354913C6...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>...
>
> [...deletia...]
>
> > Tony your cover is blown, dude. why don't you just put your shirt on
> >backward, pick up that ten pound Bible, and preach to us? At least it would
> be
> >honest.
>
> Talesin, nothing in the world is going to change the fact that your
> religious bigotry is wrong. Say what you want about me. But you know as well
> as I do, there is nothing you can do to change that particular truth.
>
Hey Tony -
Don't feel bad. So far, just about everyone who's disagreed with him about
topics like this one has been accused of being a closet Christian. Read the
DejaNews archives of his little discussion with Doug O'Neal in
soc.religion.paganism, in which he accuses Mr. O'Neal of being a Christian.
Apparently they left something out of the commonly-known definition of
Paganism - not only are Pagans members of earth-based nature religions (etc.
etc.), they also must agree with some guy who goes by Talesin on Usenet.
Otherwise they're Christians. No matter what they worship. If you don't agree
with some guy named Talesin - who has been on Usenet for under a year using
that particular pseudonym for under a year, and for whom no one can verify
any background, training or experience (since, as with all Usenet posters, he
is pretty much anonymous), and who seems to exist solely to insist that his
opinions are the only "right" ones to hold as a Pagan - if you don't agree
with Talesin, you're a Christian.
I wonder how those Buddhists who don't agree with Talsesin feel about being
called closet Christians.....
(snicker)
Zither
"Software development is 15% ingenuity, 10% science, and 75% getting the
ingenuity to work with the science".
-Anonymous
Michael Smith
Apparently, on Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:13:59 -0500, Talesin (Paga...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom) wrote:
: Tony your cover is blown, dude. why don't you just put your shirt on
: backward, pick up that ten pound Bible, and preach to us? At least it would be
: honest.
Talesin, I'm not a fan of Christianity either, but this kind of bickering
is positively Blackbanish.
--
Blessed Be,
Michael Smith
For reliable information on paganism, magick and witchcraft, start
with The Witches' Voice: http://www.witchvox.com/
TPAO is GONE. Don't let the same thing happen to the Witches' Voice!
http://www.witchvox.com/twv/webnotes3.html and
http://www.witchvox.com/white/wsponsor.html for details.
Who Cybersits the Cybersitter?
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/5341/freedom.html
janet
In article <354a074f...@news.supernews.com>, ShieldWolf>I am fully aware that you are a Christian.
Wipes brow... I have enough trouble, without seeming to sail under false
colours... :)
> However I wasn't aware,
>until now, that you are one of the "not me's". You personally might
>not believe this way, and perhaps you might know "dozens" more.
>However, I know thousands. How is this possible, you ask?
>
>Three words, Janet. Southern Baptist Convention
Grin... yes, I know.
My point, though, is that they are hardly ALL christians!!
>
>I was brought up in the church, attended seminary, and was ordained.
>I have studied theology, eschatology,
Grinnn..... when living abroad, a number of us defined realised
escatology as a good hamburger! :)
>apologetics and more. I am
>fully aware of the tenets of faith of the Southern Baptist Convention.
>Also, the Northern Baptist Convention, the Methodist Church, Jehovah's
>Witnesses, Mormonism, Judaism, etc.. These are par for the course in
>seminary. And of course Catholocism. I have done my research and put
>my time in. I have studied Ancient History and poured over a many of
>ancient text. I stand firm in my convictions.
>
But they are NOT all christians!! Not as in ALL christians...
>Southern Baptists are worldwide. The organization stands against us.
>Northern Baptists are world wide. The organization stands against us.
>Methodists are world wide. The organization stands against us.
>Jehovah's Witnesses are world wide. The organization stands against
>us.
>Mormons are world wide. The organization stands against us.
>Catholics are world wide. The organization stands against us.
Now the last one, I dispute.
We, qua church, stand against quite a few things.
We, qua church, have done some horrible things in the past.
And we, qua church, now have church documents that insist that the state
guarantee freedom of religion.
>
>And on and on and on. You have but to ask to find out. Why don't you
>contact them and find out for yourself?
Um, cause I *are* one?
Cause I too have "done my time"...?
>
>There are literally millions belonging to these organizations to your
>"not me" and "dozens".
>
>And as far as Catholocism goes, *you* and "dozens" might not agree
>with your own organization, but it teaches differently. Or do you not
>remember your chatechisms?
Grin...... I remember the new one, yes.
And I saw the proofs for it, as well...
And I remember the social teaching of the church.
>
>Christianity has a long and bloody history. It continues to this day.
Agreed.
Christians are, sigh, people.
We get it wrong, we do horrible things.
But, forgive me, so do pagans, and so have pagans.
I don't live ALL that far from Colchester...?
>
>All I want is for them to leave us the hell alone. What is your
>agenda?
I want people, ALL people, to be able to live together in peace, and
work for justice.
Trite, I know, but what can I say? ;)
>
>Yours in service to our Lord and Lady,
>
>ShieldWolf
--
janet
In article <35493e6b...@news.speed1.net>, James Wheat
<jamw...@speed1.net> writes
Mother of mercy, no!!! Grin...
I use the Jerusalem Bible, yes, with what gets called "the apocrapha",
which the catholic church accepts, and many other denominations, do not.
I use that one, because people who DID and DO know the original
languages, have told me that is one of the best translations! I didn't,
and don't, have those languages...
(Grin... to get into the Biblicum, you have to come with Greek and
Hebrew, not to mentiong Italian and one other modern language, and for
each level you progress, you have to add an ancient and a modern
language. I stand in awe....)
janet
In article <354915AD...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>, Talesin
<Paga...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom> writes
>
> Wroth?
Um, yes, wroth. Why not? It may have been a typo, but there is a good
literate useage: to wax wroth...
> Well, I'll say one thing for Janet, she is articulate and communicates
>well.
Good heavens!! I stand (oh, ok, I sit) amazed and dazed. Thank you!!
;)
>And Tony, as misguided as he is, at least has principles and makes an effort to
>defend them. You, on the other hand, are just a stupid hemorrhoid who is not
>even
>worth the shit it would take to bury you. Don't you dare address me again you
>son
>of a VD infested whore.
Um, as a feminist, can I take issue with the use of "whore" as an
insult?
janet
In article <6ibrf0$m01$1...@excalibur.flash.net>, bil
<Hatguy@bil's_flash.net> writes
>
>> So there you have it. The word does not even remotely mean
>>"poisoner" it means Witch. More specifically, female Witch. So xianity
>>is sexist (what a shock) as well as religiously intolerant.
>
>
>Hmmm... I think I'll add "Thou shalt smite sexist Christian ninnies with
>large church pews until they doth stop being ninnies" to my Holy Book of Me.
Grin.... I tend to use withering logic and scorn first. I find that at
times, this alleviates the necessity to deface beautiful old buildings
by taking out pews which are nailed down.
However, in a last-resort situation... :)
>I advice you all to do similarly just in case some xian fool decides that
>selective biblical enforcement is requiered.
>
>
Nah..... just ask them, if women can't be teachers, and all the rest,
who taught Jesus how to speak, eat, act in company, and the like?
Or what would have happened if women really HAD kept silent? The
apostles would never have known about the resurrection, right?
grin......
Shez
>courtesy and respect that our Constitutional rights *demand*.
a hard time, with the same respect that your laws demand then your
talking out of your rear end, dont demand respect, respect has to be
earned, and in this case, you will not get respect from anyone if you
dont show some respect in return.
>this day happens (and it cannot by virtue of their own beliefs), we
>remain steadfastly *against* Christianity as a *whole*, period.
the people who follow that path are as entiled to do so as we are to
follow the pagan path.
What do you want a pogam, kill the christians, put them in concentration
camps, make them slaves, take the vote away from them, dont allow their
children to be educated, push them into gettos. starve and beat them.
Gee... now that would be new, wouldnt it.
but I seem to remember something like this happening before, many many
times,
I am a pagan, I dont have a problem with others walking other religiouse
paths unless they interfere with my own free choice my path.
than and only then would I deal with them, not the whole of christianity
just the few trying to make my life difficult,
I dont understand how anyone can say I hate christians, you might as
well say, I hate humans, because in the end that is what we all are,
deal with the trouble makers, either christian or pagan, dont blame a
whole religion or a whole race of people for a few bad eggs.
>not talking about this "new-age mamby, pamby, Christ(ian) Venusian
>Brotherhood" crap either.
--
NOTICE: This e-mail address is being spoofed on USENET. Obvious trolls and
needlessly incendiary remarks should be ignored. All authentic
messages from this address will bear this disclaimer, although spoofed messages
may as well.
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Wheat
Very good points, Janet. I especially like the last one..... :)
James Wheat
On Fri, 1 May 1998 16:48:31 +0100, janet <ja...@allestree.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
janet
In article <3549DEB8...@goodnet.com>, Felix The Cat
<jont...@goodnet.com> writes
[]
> Together we can stamp out all traces of the
>intolerance of non-violent beliefs. We can also stamp out
>violent beliefs too. All religions can work together to do
>this. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity can help.
Yes.
janet
In article <31FD5EE4B54D9A56.C4B8AC36A9020E07.27E6DB16AAE6B2E3@library-
proxy.airnews.net>, Rowan Hawthorne <ro...@ezaccess.net> writes
>janet wrote in message ...
>
>>Saying "they" all beleive something is just not going to work.
>
>
>Christianity is based on the Bible, is it not. Do not all Christians believe
>that. Their Laws come from it and their belifs are derived from it.
>
Depends on the denominations, though, to what EXTENT....
And as I say, there are very few christians who follow all of the OT
dictats. VERY, very few..
And some, like the catholic church, reject the idea of sola scriptura
completely...
>>Sorry to disappoint, and all, but the idea of a spiritual battle between
>>good and evil, the idea that all who are not "saved", by which I assume
>>you mean baptised, and the idea of the Revelation are NOT taught by the
>>largest christian group.
>
>Which would be Catholicism. It most certainly does. As a matter of fact
>Catholicism's beleif in salvation by works even further condemns the average
>man to Hell.
Ok, I'm just a humble theologian: where does the church say this?
I'm not talking about what is popularly believed to be the case, but
about what the church teaches! I know, I know, they should be the same
thing, and some of us work to make it that way, but there is a longggg
way to go!!
This *isn't* the place for a long screed on christian doctrine, but the
"most people go to hell" bit is Calvin... (not the kid with the tiger,
though I *like* the kid with the tiger a whole lot better!!) :)
>
>>Can I just suggest that treating EVERYONE that way might be a good idea?
>>Even christians?
>
>Agreed. But if I have some fundie in my face telling me I'm on my way to
>hell, you'd better believe I'm gonna have a comeback.
Grin... you and me both!!
Believe me, at least on average entry into ngs, there are far more
coming into the catholic ngs telling us we are all the whore of babylon,
(symbiotic life form??) and so on...
Which is NOT the same as public harassment, economic insecurity and all
the rest.
However, living here, there are fairly constant reminders that catholics
*did* once face that kind of problem, and not all that long ago.
Which only goes to prove that, no matter what faith they are, people can
be rotten to each other.
>
>*******
>>> Until
>>>this day happens (and it cannot by virtue of their own beliefs), we
>>>remain steadfastly *against* Christianity as a *whole*, period. I am
>>>not talking about this "new-age mamby, pamby, Christ(ian) Venusian
>>>Brotherhood" crap either.
>*******
>
>
>
>>Forgive me, but I think it is cold hard fact about specific
>>denominations, in a particular part of the country.
>
>Well between the two of us we just gave you a cross section of appx. 50
>denominations spanning from Canada to Florida. I'd call that a pretty large
>"part" of the country.
Yes, but some of those do NOT believe the things you say they do!
Rowan Hawthorne
The denominations, or the people. If you mean the denominations (leaders,
policy makers, etc.) then you're calling me a liar cause I've been to these
churches many times, have read their statements of belief, and have attended
studies and services until I thought I'd die. If you mean the people you're
absolutely right, even Wiccans as individuals don't have the EXACT same
beliefs, nonetheless, the fundamentals are the same.
Blessings of your god and my gods to you,
Rowan Hawthorne
================================================
You can please some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some
of the time; but you can't please all of the people all of the time.
>Yes, but some of those do NOT believe the things you say they do!
Shez
In article <31FD5EE4B54D9A56.C4B8AC36A9020E07.27E6DB16AAE6B2E3@library-
proxy.airnews.net>, Rowan Hawthorne <ro...@ezaccess.net> writes
>
>that. Their Laws come from it and their belifs are derived from it.
Christianity may be based on the bible but 90% of the christians I know,
have not picked up a bible since religiouse lessons at school,
Britain especialy is a very secular country, its not dogged particully
by fundimentalism,
Christians like Janet I get along with just fine, they are accepting and
broad minded people who live their religion as much as we live ours, and
accept that though we may be of different paths, all paths in the end
lead to deity.
These days christianity in this country is not a way of life or a
religion for a great many people, its a label, a convinient one to put
on forms.
ask them if they truly beleive in god, and jesus christ, and they will
hemm and haw.... mostly because they have never bothered to think about
it, it realy means little or nothing to them, no more than saying I am a
yorkshire man, or a norfolk woman. its just a tag.
Janet realy beleives in her path and her god, but she is very willing to
accept that each of us must choose our own paths, what more can you ask
of a human being.
I know a lot of pagans who are far less accepting, and far more
fundimental.
Shez
In article <354913C6...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>, Talesin
<Paga...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom> writes
>
>
>Tony Veca wrote:
>>
>> I don't think there is a Christian in the world today, other than hard core
>> fanatics, who really want to see the Dahli Lama in hell, he is too good a
>> person. Those of us who have been fortunate enought to see and hear the
>> Dahli Lama speak during his tour of the US understand what what I am talking
>> about. The man's aura radiates wisdom and goodness so strongly that you can
>> physically feel it.
>
>> and the rise of of the more tolerant sects.
>
>backward, pick up that ten pound Bible, and preach to us? At least it would be
>honest.
>
>Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
>
As I said in an earlier post some Christians are more tolerant and
accepting of other paths, than some pagans, and far less fundimentalist,
your a bigot and intolerant of anyone who dousnt agree with you Talesin.
learn to judge people not their race, religion or gender.
thank you for proving my point, I knew you would.
janet
In article <6icvei$sdc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, zit...@hotmail.com writes
>Hey Tony -
>Don't feel bad. So far, just about everyone who's disagreed with him about
>topics like this one has been accused of being a closet Christian.
Now, now, now, that's not quite true: I was accused of pretending to be
a witch... :) (never did figure that one out...)
janet
In article <354a15eb...@news.speed1.net>, James Wheat
<jamw...@speed1.net> writes
>Very good points, Janet. I especially like the last one..... :)
>
>James Wheat
Grin... yes, well, having been told on other ngs that I should shut up,
no matter what my qualifications are, because being a woman I couldn't
possibly teach... ahem... HELLO?
As long as my employers don't buy that, I'm not too bothered! :)
Rowan Hawthorne
janet wrote in message ...
>And as I say, there are very few christians who follow all of the OT
>dictats. VERY, very few..
Actually that would be "there are no christians who follow all of the OT
dictates. ". It's impossible.
ShieldWolf
Greetings Shez and Blessed Be!
Thank you for your response. I am really pleased with the responses I
have received from this thread. I have heard too many others
complaining of negativity and it is nice to see that disproven.
I want to make it abundantly clear that I don't think violence will
solve any problem regarding how I and many others feel about
Christianity. Exposure will.
Yours in service to our Lord and Lady,
ShieldWolf of Spirit Mountain Coven
nc...@gte.net
ji...@nowhere.net
On Thu, 30 Apr 1998 19:22:05 -0500, Talesin
<Paga...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom> wrote:
> Well, I'll say one thing for Janet, she is articulate and communicates well.
>And Tony, as misguided as he is, at least has principles and makes an effort to
>defend them. You, on the other hand, are just a stupid hemorrhoid who is not even
>worth the shit it would take to bury you. Don't you dare address me again you son
>of a VD infested whore.
> Paul, what a fitting name for one of your sort.
>
>--
>
>Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
>
>Morgan guide me
>Badbh protect me
>Macha bring me home.
Look, the dumbass makes an ass out of himself once again!! How
typical of one so stupid as one like this. GET A LIFE DUMBSHIT!
Jinx
ShieldWolf
Greetings Janet and Blessed Be!
>Or what would have happened if women really HAD kept silent? The
>apostles would never have known about the resurrection, right?
>
>grin......
I will *definitely* have to remember that ! ROTFLMAO
ShieldWolf
Talesin
Felix The Cat wrote:
> It is not the practice of modern Christianity to murder
> witches. Unless it's a third world or remote country. And even
> those cases are rare. However, every religion has it's
> fanatical fringe. Together we can stamp out all traces of the
> intolerance of non-violent beliefs. We can also stamp out
> violent beliefs too. All religions can work together to do
> this. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity can help.
Since the xians are the agressors do you not thinkit is up to them
to take the first step toward peace?
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
Morgan guide me
Badbh protect me
Macha bring me home.
***remove the REMOVETHIS to reply by e-mail***
Talesin
Tony Veca wrote:
> Talesin wrote in message <354913C6...@DeathsDoor.REMOVETHIScom>...
>
> [...deletia...]
>
> > Tony your cover is blown, dude. why don't you just put your shirt on
> >backward, pick up that ten pound Bible, and preach to us? At least it would
> be
> >honest.
>
> Talesin, nothing in the world is going to change the fact that your
> religious bigotry is wrong. Say what you want about me. But you know as well
> as I do, there is nothing you can do to change that particular truth.
>
> Tony Veca
> tv...@gte.net
You wouldn't know the truth if it fell out of the sky, sat on your face, and
wiggled.
Talesin
Let us pause for a sight clarification here. There are two types of
xians- what I call "social" and "religious."
Social xians are people who call themselves xians simply because
they don't know what else to be. This is especially true here in the
Good Ol' US of A. You will hear people who have never darkened the door
of a church, read a Bible, or who are downright criminals say they are
xians because they feel like society obligates them to be. I think these
are the ones Shez is so fond of defending
When I speak out against xians, I am talking about the religious
ones. The ones that are actually practicing their religion. These are
the ones that would for ce their beliefs on our children through the
public educational system and who would stop us from earning a living
just because we wear a pentacle instead of a cross. This is the type of
xianity that needs to be stopped.
As far as social xians go, they are pretty innocuous and can, for
the most part, be ignored.
Right, then, carry on!