What God thinks of witchcraft!
fre...@mailstorm.net
> laugh all you like, Timmy------ it's TRUE. your lot invaded this
> alt.christnet.public group --- just the same as you did the Baptist
> one last year -- and totally ruined it.
> Ifv the only way your romanist religion can get a point across is to
> steal another faith's newsgroup, then thature doesn't say much in
> favor for the romanist cult.
With best of intentions and peace at heart:
Dear Alt.Christnet:
Even though most leading authors and alternative spiritual leaders preach
about how wicca is not an evangelical religion, it is _very_ important for
pagans, wiccans, shamans, celtics, etc. to crosspost on newsgroups of other
faiths, so long as we are all civil about it.
I know I personally learn a lot from reading here, both along the lines of
the old caveat "know thine enemy" (and yes, many christians are our enemies
because they direct so much hatred, anger and fear our way and want our
religions stamped out of existence) and from the viewpoints of christians on
current events.
The reason it is so important we write here and state our own viewpoints is
so people of other faiths get to know us and realize we are not evil, we are
not dense or brainwashed and we are not out to steal their children and
roast them over a slow fire, among other insane things.
Most of us are parents, have good jobs, own businesses, teach, support
scouting (even if we are opposed to its ban on homosexuals), house sit for
friends on vacation, visit our grandparents on holidays, etc. etc. etc.
This goes back to Basic Sociology 101:
Stereotyping is erroneous "shortcut" thinking that happens when people (for
whatever reason - raised that way, don't know any better, just too busy or
too afraid) use assumptions and generalities about another group of people
to make decisions about those people rather than invest energy, time and
thought to investigate those people and get to know them one-on-one.
Most people who stereotype start having cracks in that thinking once they
are brought face to face with someone from the target group whom they can
get to know one-on-one.
So by making posts that are friendly, loving, well-intended, NOT hateful,
spiteful, angry, slanderous, we can offer those of other religions examples
that defies the stereotypes that are out there.
Life is prayer in action.
My prayer (my spellwork) is that just one christian makes the connection
that lets them see us not as enemies but as facets of the same jewel: the
human race. Another prayer (spell) is that those with blinders on lift them
and see.
BTW
Many christians routinely invade wiccan and pagan newsgroups for just the
same gamut of reasons - some to "convert" us or shame or frighten us (back)
to god, others to make the same gestures of peaceful insight.
If we can agree to disagree, there is much we will find in common.
I do however, have my own biases, which I would happy to discuss in a forum
that will not cause a flame war. So if anyone out there is interested in my
reasons why I am not christian, or about my belief that christianity is a
harmful religion, feel free to email me at my post address. I welcome open
discussion on ways to make peaceful inroads.
"Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter."
-Jedi master Yoda
---
Also
TSB Doulos posted on 1/3/02:
> "Timothy Casey" <wor...@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message
> news:3c33c...@news.iprimus.com.au...
>> The scriptures are anything but clear concerning the meaning of the
>> original words for what is now called, "witchcraft". Possible translations
>> range anywhere from fraud, poisoning, or technology to more modern concepts
>> ascribing the "miracles" of "personas non gratis" to a partner or "evil
>> twin" of God (no doubt invented to keep undesirables out of the religious
>> clique and scare the flock out of their own opinions). In recent
>> centuries, "witchcraft" and its lack of definition has been used as a "crime"
>> to custom fit any inconvenient individual.
>
>> Arthur Miller wrote a very enlightening play on the subject called "The
>> Crucible". It is recommended reading for any who dabble in the dark art of
>> condemnation.
> Actually The Crucible is really about the communist paranoia in the US in
> the 40s and 50s.
_Actually_ The Crucible is a play, based on the historical facts of the
Salem witch trials, which uses them as a metaphor for McCarthyism. A really
good website which knocks about the differences between fact and fiction can
be found at:
http://www.ogram.org/17thc/crucible.shtml
Funny how much the two mass persecutions of people had in common that the
same phrase, "witch hunt," would be used to describe them both.
Historians have pointed out that the "red scare" of the 1950s had as much
basis in reality as the witch hunt in Salem, Mass. and the hunts of medieval
times. In every case, they degraded into shining examples of humanity at its
worst: mass hysteria, violence, murder.
I would really urge all folks out there to take a basic sociology course or
two, or three (I myself was a soc. minor in college).
If we all understood the basics of why people make the actions and decisions
they do with regards to others, (fear is a _huge_ force: fear of not being
accepted by others, fear of not being found attractive, fear of death, fear
of that which is not known...) we might get along better and avoid these
crazy trends.
(Like police profiling or citizens revenge-attacking muslim americans across
the nation for the actions of fewer than 25 people and the intentions of
about 1,000 people world wide. OR Like 20 suicide bombers deciding to murder
thousands of innocent people to prove a religious point.)
"The paws of fear upon your chest, only love can soothe that beast."
‹ Indigo Girls
A blessing on your hearth and home.
John Jensen
> <---> posted on 1/2/02 9:30 p.m.:
>
>> laugh all you like, Timmy------ it's TRUE. your lot invaded
>> this alt.christnet.public group --- just the same as you did
>> the Baptist one last year -- and totally ruined it.
>
>> Ifv the only way your romanist religion can get a point across
>> is to steal another faith's newsgroup, then thature doesn't
>> say much in favor for the romanist cult.
=|;-)
> With best of intentions and peace at heart:
>
> Dear Alt.Christnet:
>
> Even though most leading authors and alternative spiritual
> leaders preach about how wicca is not an evangelical religion,
> it is _very_ important for pagans, wiccans, shamans, celtics,
> etc. to crosspost on newsgroups of other faiths, so long as we
> are all civil about it.
>
> I know I personally learn a lot from reading here, both along
> the lines of the old caveat "know thine enemy" (and yes, many
> christians are our enemies because they direct so much hatred,
> anger and fear our way and want our religions stamped out of
> existence) and from the viewpoints of christians on current
> events.
I was browsing here (I usuallu post on alt.religion.gnostic), as
I do occassionally, as we get a lot of posters from
alt.christnet. I sympathize. As a Gnostic and a history buff, I
know too well how "Christians" murdered my predecessors and
burned their books. Then they did the same to Jews. Then they
invented the "Holy Inquisition" and did it to Wiccans and
friends of Jews and other pagans.
> The reason it is so important we write here and state our own
> viewpoints is so people of other faiths get to know us and
> realize we are not evil, we are not dense or brainwashed and we
> are not out to steal their children and roast them over a slow
> fire, among other insane things.
It is high time that fundie Bible-thumping religions are exposed
as evil. Even today, they preach bigorty and hatred. It
occasionally shows through the veneer of holier-than-thou on
usenet groups like this. Fundie religion teaches deception from
the bottom up. God lied to Adam and admitted it, but it can't be
a lie, because "God doesn't lie". Christians learn to regard
deception in the cause of the church as honesty and acceptable.
They learn by the examples of the OT, how David commited murder,
extortion, adultery and was vile in his own eyes, but God found
no fault with him, so this must be virtue.
> Most of us are parents, have good jobs, own businesses, teach,
> support scouting (even if we are opposed to its ban on
> homosexuals), house sit for friends on vacation, visit our
> grandparents on holidays, etc. etc. etc.
>
> This goes back to Basic Sociology 101:
> Stereotyping is erroneous "shortcut" thinking that happens when
> people (for whatever reason - raised that way, don't know any
> better, just too busy or too afraid) use assumptions and
> generalities about another group of people to make decisions
> about those people rather than invest energy, time and thought
> to investigate those people and get to know them one-on-one.
If I stereotype Christians, it is not from hearing fables about
them at home. It is from visiting numerous churches and reading
their history. There are many good Christians who endeavor to
live by Christ's teachings, but most seem to think that they are
already forgiven, by giving thanks for his murder, so no virtue
is needed.
> Most people who stereotype start having cracks in that thinking
> once they are brought face to face with someone from the target
> group whom they can get to know one-on-one.
>
> So by making posts that are friendly, loving, well-intended,
> NOT hateful, spiteful, angry, slanderous, we can offer those of
> other religions examples that defies the stereotypes that are
> out there.
>
> Life is prayer in action.
> My prayer (my spellwork) is that just one christian makes the
> connection that lets them see us not as enemies but as facets
> of the same jewel: the human race. Another prayer (spell) is
> that those with blinders on lift them and see.
>
> BTW
> Many christians routinely invade wiccan and pagan newsgroups
> for just the same gamut of reasons - some to "convert" us or
> shame or frighten us (back) to god, others to make the same
> gestures of peaceful insight.
>
> If we can agree to disagree, there is much we will find in
> common.
Absolutely!
Actually, there was a Communist infiltration going on, but it
was not in all the cultural places that McCarthy looked.
McCarthy provided an excellent cover for infiltration into our
very government. Moreover, he conditioned people to accept
revoval of Constitutional Rights.
> I would really urge all folks out there to take a basic
> sociology course or two, or three (I myself was a soc. minor in
> college).
>
> If we all understood the basics of why people make the actions
> and decisions they do with regards to others, (fear is a _huge_
> force: fear of not being accepted by others, fear of not being
> found attractive, fear of death, fear of that which is not
> known...) we might get along better and avoid these crazy
> trends.
>
> (Like police profiling or citizens revenge-attacking muslim
> americans across the nation for the actions of fewer than 25
> people and the intentions of about 1,000 people world wide. OR
> Like 20 suicide bombers deciding to murder thousands of
> innocent people to prove a religious point.)
>
> "The paws of fear upon your chest, only love can soothe that
> beast." ã Indigo Girls
>
> A blessing on your hearth and home.
Likewise.
--
- John Jensen
http://www.the-gnosis-site.com
Gwenhyffar Milgi
>wrote:
>>Why would you oppose the ban on homosexuals? It's not proper for
>>homosexual 'men' to be guiding the lives of young boys in ANY way.
You know, I've always wondered about the reasoning behind this.
If it is "improper" (ahem) for homosexual men to guide the lives of
young boys, then for goodness sake why is it deemed "proper" for
heterosexual men to guide the lives of young girls???
Jani
"Too Goofy" <goofy...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:q2sb3us4cetcer73u...@4ax.com...
> >Why would you oppose the ban on homosexuals? It's not proper for
> >homosexual 'men' to be guiding the lives of young boys in ANY way.
>
> <shrug> "Proper," in this case, is a value-based judgement, based in
> Christian culture. As we are non-Christian, you can of course imagine
> that we have different views on the topic.
>
> My son is almost five, and will be going to school soon. Were he to
> have a homosexual teacher would not disturb me, in and of itself. If a
> teacher is professional (heterosexual OR homosexual), then the
> teacher's lifestyle choices will not assert any undue influence.
This is, perhaps, the heart of the matter. The lifestyle and personal sexual
orientation of the teacher is irrelevant, except insasmuch as teachers *are*
human beings, with all the religious and cultural baggage that goes along
with that. If their personal views are allowed to intrude to the extent that
they become disproportionately influential, then that is unprofessional and
a cause for concern. However, I see nothing untoward in teachers discussing
their own beliefs and ideas with their students, if only from the point of
view of reducing the demonisation of whatever the minority group might
happen to be.
Jani
Nick Gordon
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 06:23:50 GMT, "fre...@mailstorm.net"
><fre...@mailstorm.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>>The reason it is so important we write here and state our own viewpoints is
>>so people of other faiths get to know us and realize we are not evil, we are
>>not dense or brainwashed and we are not out to steal their children and
>>roast them over a slow fire, among other insane things.
>>
>Hi--- the problem is, sir--- a lot of arguments ensue as a direct
>result of posting one religion's beliefs in another faith's group.
>It all starts out so innocently, granted--- the next thing we know,
>another of the 'other belief' comes in- and then another, and so
>on---- next, it's the same old thing.........
>"You're lying!" ---- "No I'm not--- YOU're the liar!" --------- "My
>faith is Christian, yours is not!" ----- "Mine is more Christian than
>yours is..." and on the fight continues until everyone is sick and
>tired of everything...........
>Certainly you're welcome to post here- no one 'owns' the group per se.
>There are another few witches in here at the present time. one of them
>claiming to be a Christian Witch....... there is no such thing!
>So, be forewarned- there is already an argument going on here with one
>of them.
>
>>Most of us are parents, have good jobs, own businesses, teach, support
>>scouting (even if we are opposed to its ban on homosexuals), house sit for
>>friends on vacation, visit our grandparents on holidays, etc. etc. etc.
>>
>Why would you oppose the ban on homosexuals? It's not proper for
>homosexual 'men' to be guiding the lives of young boys in ANY way.
>But then, that argument has also been aired numerous times
>before..........
>
>>This goes back to Basic Sociology 101:
>>Stereotyping is erroneous "shortcut" thinking that happens when people (for
>>whatever reason - raised that way, don't know any better, just too busy or
>>too afraid) use assumptions and generalities about another group of people
>>to make decisions about those people rather than invest energy, time and
>>thought to investigate those people and get to know them one-on-one.
>>
>There is one in here who stereotypes- it calls itself 'nick'. It
>believes lies, then posts them claiming they're 'truth'. Every day, in
>fact. 'nick' is actually a stalker, and has been trying to libel and
>defame me for over four years now. It is the epitome of stereotypists.
>
>>Most people who stereotype start having cracks in that thinking once they
>>are brought face to face with someone from the target group whom they can
>>get to know one-on-one.
>true.....
>>So by making posts that are friendly, loving, well-intended, NOT hateful,
>>spiteful, angry, slanderous, we can offer those of other religions examples
>>that defies the stereotypes that are out there.
>>
>true--- but you'd be surprised at some of the creeps that are posting
>here. one individual even claims to be Jesus, and he's leading others
>astray by his lies.
>He posts under the name of mic...@thelastchurch.org
>He twists words and meanings, then tries to claim himself holy and
>righteous.
>
>>Life is prayer in action.
>>My prayer (my spellwork) is that just one christian makes the connection
>>that lets them see us not as enemies but as facets of the same jewel: the
>>human race. Another prayer (spell) is that those with blinders on lift them
>>and see.
>>
>A prayer is NOT a spell.
>Spells are for witches and sorcerers...... PRAYERS are for the
>Christian.
>Do not confuse prayer with spell casting under any circumstances,
>please.
>
>>BTW
>>Many christians routinely invade wiccan and pagan newsgroups for just the
>>same gamut of reasons - some to "convert" us or shame or frighten us (back)
>>to god, others to make the same gestures of peaceful insight.
>>
>I can do nothing more than apologize on their behalf--- I, however,
>have not invaded your group at any time. Your group is in the header
>of this reply, solely for the reason that my reply is directed to you,
>and your post came from there.
>
>>If we can agree to disagree, there is much we will find in common.
>>
>A lot of us agree to disagree---- some one friendly terms- some not
>friendly at all......
>
>>I do however, have my own biases, which I would happy to discuss in a forum
>>that will not cause a flame war. So if anyone out there is interested in my
>>reasons why I am not christian, or about my belief that christianity is a
>>harmful religion, feel free to email me at my post address. I welcome open
>>discussion on ways to make peaceful inroads.
>>
>I have enough arguers to contend with right here. I'm really not
>interested in arguing, and if it started by email too, what would be
>the point?
>Like I said -- you're welcome to post.
>
>_____________________________________________________
>SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!
>_____________________________________________________
>
>
More lies from Merle Elaine Matthews, now posting as Doc.
This woman's performance can be checked on google.
She uses the following aliases among others:
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Aliases used by Merle Elaine Matthews
M.E. Matthews
Say Si SI <nos...@getstuffed.on.ca>
CC,
Cud Chewer,
Ima Skater,
MEM,
T.C.Romath,
Golden Blades,
R...@Rihannsu.net (Romath)
Sys.Admin / ASPIB (M.E. Matthews),
us...@vianet.on.ca (not saying)
spam...@getlost.on
Just Plain Elaine,
ASPIB,
SPAMinator,
The Alien!.
Dr George Watson
ŠŽromath AT bigfoot.com
ŠŽDr.Watson AT TheOffice.net
Romath.
figure...@golden.blades.net
figure...@spammer.slammer
Dr.Watson AT TheOffice DOT net
rom...@usa.net
romr...@vianet.on.ca
rom...@hotmail.com
rom...@bigfoot.com
flying...@skaters.net
3-t...@golden.blades.net
moh...@spirals.net
rom...@nospam4me.com
--Romath-- (no-spa...@no-spam-or-else.invalid)
figure...@ice.net
roma...@vianet.ch.ca
rom...@my-dejanews.com
rom...@muskoks.com
thefigure...@crazyforit.ice.net
tcro...@rihannsu.net
persn...@technomutts.net
Elaine <inve...@tor.net.invalid>
romath.sez.sp...@mail.invalid.xx
inve...@aspib.net
ro...@vianet.on.ca
nos...@noway.on.ca
invest...@romath.net (spam trap)
Dr. G. Watson -- ŠCopyrighted 2000... All Rights Reserved Ž
<docwat@son>
doc.w...@romath.net (valid)
G.Watson AT Pmail.net
<sixpack...@cotse.com>
<->
Doc
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Nick
BBH#6
KeLL
n...@freeserve.co.uk (Nick Gordon) wrote:
[snip]
Oh, my gods. Moonie has competition in the sock dept...or has there been
a sale?
--
KellyL, AFTRA/Actor/Director
"I think if there is a God it's very important
that he has a sense of humour - otherwise you
are in for a very miserable afterlife." Rory Bremner
Gwenhyffar Milgi
wrote:
>Simple. There's not as much danger of something sexually going wrong
>with a hetero.
>Sure, it CAN happen, and has..... but there are more homosexual cases
>of young boys being sexually abused than one can shake a stick at.
You must be joking. There is are many, many, many more cases of
heterosexual child abuse than there are of homosexual child abuse.
And most cases of child abuse are in the family.
What does that say about those "normal heterosexuals" then???
Das Uber Bitch
"Jani" <ja...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:lonZ7.5231$7w.32...@news-text.cableinet.net...
Mark Bassett
"Das Uber Bitch" <castir...@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:3c3725fa$1...@newsa.ev1.net...
> True homophobes think gayness is contagious, like measles....... 9_9
Ain't that stupid!
It's contageous like drinking.
Talesin- Der Hexenfuhrer
hate and intolerance.
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft
"If we are here to help others, exactly what are others here for?"
- George Carlin
Nick Gordon
wrote:
>On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 18:57:08 GMT, gwenh...@yahoo.co.uk (Gwenhyffar
>Milgi) wrote:
>
>Simple. There's not as much danger of something sexually going wrong
>with a hetero.
>Sure, it CAN happen, and has..... but there are more homosexual cases
>of young boys being sexually abused than one can shake a stick at.
>
>As for the 'improper' -- yes, I really feel that a homosexual guiding
>young boys IS improper, in that those young boys could be influenced
>into the same 'lifestyle'.
>Thank you.
>_____________________________________________________
>SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!
>_____________________________________________________
>
>
Careful Madam, your Homophobia is beginning to show again.
Nick
BBH#6
Nick Gordon
wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 04:04:51 GMT, KeLL <f_...@eyewun.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Oh, my gods. Moonie has competition in the sock dept...or has there been
>>a sale?
>
>If you wish to believe the idiocy posted by the phony balony posting
>under the name of 'nick gordon' go ahead. I really couldn't care less.
>It has been spreading lies and false accusations about me and my
>professional life for over four years now----- believe whatever you
>will; it matters zilch to me.
>
>Doc
>_____________________________________________________
>SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!
>_____________________________________________________
>
>
Are you going to deny using those aliases?
I can back them up with copies of your postings if need be.
Nick
BBH#6
Brenda G. Tataryn
> What Witches think of God!
>
> From: "Talesin- Der Hexenfuhrer" <the_wi...@yahoo.XcomX>
> Reply to: [1] "Talesin- Der Hexenfuhrer"
> Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 20:28:22 GMT
> Organization: Arkham Asylum
> Newsgroups:
> [2] alt.christnet,
> [3] alt.christnet.public,
> [4] alt.christnet.evangelical,
> [5] alt.pagan,
> [6] alt.religion.wicca
> Followup to: [7] newsgroup(s)
> References:
> [8] <B85AB427.79AD%fre...@mailstorm.net>
Actually Tales I love God..and am a witch..but everyone is different.
I figure that the majority of Wiccans have within their pantheon a Lord to
go with the Lady. Non diefic Witches..if there really is such a thing may
not believe in a anthropomorphized concept of God....but you can't get
past the energy..whatever name you but to it...the Force...etc.
Brenda
Fireball
"<--->" <doc...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:koef3uctaqivqscno...@4ax.com...
> On 5 Jan 2002 17:36:12 -0800, wt...@victoria.tc.ca (Brenda G. Tataryn)
> wrote:
>
> >>
> >> What Witches think of God!-----
>
> Brenda -----
> You are still in my prayers.
>
> May God open your eyes.
>
Would he use the cain or wooden spikes? And I thought I might have missed
all the fun.... lol!
Hail Odin!
Jay
Fireball
> Certainly you're welcome to post here- no one 'owns' the group per se.
> There are another few witches in here at the present time. one of them
> claiming to be a Christian Witch....... there is no such thing!
> So, be forewarned- there is already an argument going on here with one
> of them.
Would you please go into specifics here? I, personally, know a Christian
Witch. Instead of calling other Gods, she calls the Christian God and
various Saints in the Christian religion. Who are you to say she, or the
other Christian Witch in your group, that they are wrong? Isn't that what
your god has reserved for himself? It's people like you that helped me make
my decision to leave Christianity in search of something more friendly.
> >Most of us are parents, have good jobs, own businesses, teach, support
> >scouting (even if we are opposed to its ban on homosexuals), house sit
for
> >friends on vacation, visit our grandparents on holidays, etc. etc. etc.
> >
> Why would you oppose the ban on homosexuals? It's not proper for
> homosexual 'men' to be guiding the lives of young boys in ANY way.
> But then, that argument has also been aired numerous times
> before..........
You are as mislead as anyone I've ever known. You are also as bigoted and
hateful as anyother bible-thumper I've ever met. I am not homosexual, but
it's not my, our your, place to say if it's right or not.
> >This goes back to Basic Sociology 101:
> >Stereotyping is erroneous "shortcut" thinking that happens when people
(for
> >whatever reason - raised that way, don't know any better, just too busy
or
> >too afraid) use assumptions and generalities about another group of
people
> >to make decisions about those people rather than invest energy, time and
> >thought to investigate those people and get to know them one-on-one.
> >
> There is one in here who stereotypes- it calls itself 'nick'. It
> believes lies, then posts them claiming they're 'truth'. Every day, in
> fact. 'nick' is actually a stalker, and has been trying to libel and
> defame me for over four years now. It is the epitome of stereotypists.
Actually, if you listened to yourself, I don't think it's a stereotype he's
after. You seem like a typical jerk to me, no matter what your religion.
> >Most people who stereotype start having cracks in that thinking once they
> >are brought face to face with someone from the target group whom they can
> >get to know one-on-one.
> true.....
> >So by making posts that are friendly, loving, well-intended, NOT hateful,
> >spiteful, angry, slanderous, we can offer those of other religions
examples
> >that defies the stereotypes that are out there.
> >
> true--- but you'd be surprised at some of the creeps that are posting
> here. one individual even claims to be Jesus, and he's leading others
> astray by his lies.
> He posts under the name of mic...@thelastchurch.org
> He twists words and meanings, then tries to claim himself holy and
> righteous.
Ok, do you have proof of these acusations or are we supposed to take it
blindly? Besides, why does it bother you so much? Everyone is entitled to
their opinion, even you, right? One mans lie is another mans Truth. That's
human nature, so live with it.
> >Life is prayer in action.
> >My prayer (my spellwork) is that just one christian makes the connection
> >that lets them see us not as enemies but as facets of the same jewel: the
> >human race. Another prayer (spell) is that those with blinders on lift
them
> >and see.
> >
> A prayer is NOT a spell.
> Spells are for witches and sorcerers...... PRAYERS are for the
> Christian.
> Do not confuse prayer with spell casting under any circumstances,
> please.
I beg to differ on this subject. Prayers and Spells, both usually, invoke
diety during a meditative state. Energy is sent out in both instances, it's
just Christians tend to be less specific in intent. Besides, Christians did
NOT invent prayer, they just adopted it like every other religion on the
face of this small hunk of rock we call Earth.
> >BTW
> >Many christians routinely invade wiccan and pagan newsgroups for just the
> >same gamut of reasons - some to "convert" us or shame or frighten us
(back)
> >to god, others to make the same gestures of peaceful insight.
> >
> I can do nothing more than apologize on their behalf--- I, however,
> have not invaded your group at any time. Your group is in the header
> of this reply, solely for the reason that my reply is directed to you,
> and your post came from there.
Ok, fair enough. But next time, can ya leave the holier-than-thou shroud at
the door?
> >If we can agree to disagree, there is much we will find in common.
> >
> A lot of us agree to disagree---- some one friendly terms- some not
> friendly at all......
I'd be glad to agree to disagree, but some people just can't quit kicking a
dead horse.
> >I do however, have my own biases, which I would happy to discuss in a
forum
> >that will not cause a flame war. So if anyone out there is interested in
my
> >reasons why I am not christian, or about my belief that christianity is a
> >harmful religion, feel free to email me at my post address. I welcome
open
> >discussion on ways to make peaceful inroads.
> >
> I have enough arguers to contend with right here. I'm really not
> interested in arguing, and if it started by email too, what would be
> the point?
> Like I said -- you're welcome to post.
>
Thanks for the permission, but I don't need it. :-p
Jay
Kye
wrote:
>HE SAYS witchcraft is an abomination.... Christians know what HE
>thinks of it------
>Personally, I don't care WHAT witches 'think of GOD'......
Brenda wrote:
>>Actually Tales I love God..and am a witch..but everyone is different.
>I repeat=- and STAND BEHIND IT................. there is no such thing
>as a 'Christian witch'
You use words yet you fail to realise that they mean different things
to different people. You seem to make assertions as if you had sole
possession of the true meaning. Words are meant as a bridge, not a
hammer.
Is it your own doubt that causes you to close the bridge to others'
views of The One?
Kye
Das Uber Bitch
"Mark Bassett" <mbasset@not_optonline.net> wrote in message
news:b9IZ7.16957$Tt3.3...@news02.optonline.net...
Ain't you stupid! Try being a tad less illiterate before trying to make a
point besides the one on your grotesque head, hm? Ta, genius.
Gwenhyffar Milgi
wrote:
>There is no such thing as a Christian 'witch'.. since witchcraft and
>Christianity are totally incompatible.
Gee, I'm sure that my christian witch friends will be glad to hear
that you don't think they exist!
Why not leave the judgement as to their validity up to their (and
obviously your) god, isn't that what the holy word says? Judge not,
lest ye be judged?
Mark Bassett
Good, calibrating comeback.
Nick Gordon
I second this post.
Nick
BBH#6
Nick Gordon
wrote:
>On 5 Jan 2002 17:36:12 -0800, wt...@victoria.tc.ca (Brenda G. Tataryn)
>wrote:
>
>>>
>>> What Witches think of God!
>>
>>
>HE SAYS witchcraft is an abomination.... Christians know what HE
>thinks of it------
>>
>Personally, I don't care WHAT witches 'think of GOD'......
>
>>Actually Tales I love God..and am a witch..but everyone is different.
>
>I repeat=- and STAND BEHIND IT................. there is no such thing
>as a 'Christian witch'
>
>_____________________________________________________
>SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!
>_____________________________________________________
>
>
You have no right to judge anyone.
By so doing you are losing opportunities to witness for Christ.
Your hidebound bigotry is an abomination in itself.
Nick
BBH#6
John Jensen
> On 5 Jan 2002 17:36:12 -0800, wt...@victoria.tc.ca (Brenda G.
> Tataryn) wrote:
>
>>>
>>> What Witches think of God!
>>
>>
> HE SAYS witchcraft is an abomination.... Christians know what
> HE thinks of it------
>>
> Personally, I don't care WHAT witches 'think of GOD'......
>
>>Actually Tales I love God..and am a witch..but everyone is
>>different.
>
> I repeat=- and STAND BEHIND IT................. there is no
> such thing as a 'Christian witch'
Very strange, I have had many "Christians" respond to mention
that I am a healer: "Thats of the Devil!"
Quoting Jesus on the matter makes no difference. As I have
noticed here, hardly anyone pays much attention to Him, just
Paul's notions about Him.
Miriam Benson
You wouldn't want that, now would you ?
"Talesin- Der Hexenfuhrer" <the_wi...@yahoo.XcomX> wrote in message
news:GlJZ7.199736$RP1.38...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Das Uber Bitch
news:KW9_7.9658$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> In article <koef3uctaqivqscno...@4ax.com>,
> "<--->" <doc...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 5 Jan 2002 17:36:12 -0800, wt...@victoria.tc.ca (Brenda G. Tataryn)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >>
> >
> > Brenda -----
> > You are still in my prayers.
>
> arw did: Talesin. Here's the original message-id:
> <GlJZ7.199736$RP1.38...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>
>
>
> >
> > May God open your eyes.
>
fot and bwenduh are cut from the same fundie cloth. I would love to throw
them in a pit together and see who gets devoured first........ >:)
>
> >
> > Doc
> > _____________________________________________________
> > SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!
> > _____________________________________________________
>
>
> B"H
> --
> Rabbi Cani Havanuthurwun, POEE, ELF
> Chief Rabbi of the Chef Sephardee MacNCheese Cabal
> -----BEGIN DISCORDIAN CODE BLOCK-----
> Version 1.D/Daya Li
> Comment:
> D(PA)O/Tpcx/t C++@ s--:--!a P++(SEX)3F+R*$tv/f$ b++
> OM(5)DC+e+++h+r++z+K
> ------END DISCORDIAN CODE BLOCK------
Das Uber Bitch
"Miriam Benson" <shul...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:629_7.9512$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Kye
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 04:59:22 GMT, Daya Li <day...@bgfoot.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <koef3uctaqivqscno...@4ax.com>,
>> "<--->" <doc...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5 Jan 2002 17:36:12 -0800, wt...@victoria.tc.ca (Brenda G. Tataryn)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>
>>> >> What Witches think of God!-----
>>>
>>> Brenda -----
>>> You are still in my prayers.
>>
>>Brenda didn't write the original post. The resident religious Bigot of
>>arw did: Talesin. Here's the original message-id:
>><GlJZ7.199736$RP1.38...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> May God open your eyes.
>>
>>May you apologize to Brenda for your error.
>>
>I should apologize for saying that I continue to keep Brenda in my
>prayers?
>She DOES insist that witchcraft and Christianity are 'compatible' when
>it isn't.... and has chosen to believe michael@'s fabrications instead
>of Christian truths.... but back to your request:
>
>Very well-- I apologize, Brenda-- but I fully intend to keep you in my
>prayers anyway.
>I pray that your eyes will be opened to GOD'S TRUTH.
>
>Doc
You seem to keep misunderstanding what others write and you misquote
them. How can you hope to spread any kind of message if you don't know
how to communicate? You may indeed have something to tell others but
first you have to come out of your sound-proof booth. Don't you
realise how unapproachable, even comical, you make yourself look?
--
Kye
Brenda G. Tataryn
> Re: What God thinks of witchcraft!
>
> From: Too Goofy <goofy...@nospam.net>
> Reply to: [1] Too Goofy
> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:55:12 -0500
> References:
> [6] <B85AB427.79AD%fre...@mailstorm.net>
> [7] <snmb3us2oljqoskal...@4ax.com>
> [8] <q2sb3us4cetcer73u...@4ax.com>
> [9] <3oec3ugfmlepc4ddb...@4ax.com>
> [10] <bafc3u8hel3869c40...@4ax.com>
> [11] <12hj3u8ukvi03ct26...@4ax.com>
> [12] <pdmj3u0ip0eh1b8fv...@4ax.com>
>
>On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 12:25:01 -0500, Too Goofy <goofy...@nospam.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>Oh, and as a "followup" - I didn't mean to nag in my earlier
>"reminder," but so far I have found the discussion fascinating. I
>didn't want technical problems to get in the way.
****what I find interesting is that even though Witches and Christians
have to suffer through reading misunderstandings and hatred directed
towards witches, we witches get to talk about our beautiful faith in
responding. So people like Doc (whom I don't read her posts anymore by the
way!)have actually helped in us showing the beauty of our faith(s)...so
thanks Doc. Her lies and misunderstandings are nothing new to many witches
and other pagans. We have had to live with this forever but what is nice
is that perhaps some other Fundies may have their eyes openned to the
truth of witches. Even if one person finally hears truth..it is a most
blessed thing.
European Witch traditions practise a faith not unlike those of early
Native americans and like them our culture of faith had been put down and
threatened with extinction...thank Jesus and his ways and the God through
all for the many ways to enlighten.
God does indeed work in mysterious ways.
Brenda
>
>
>J. Eiler
>
>I'm hiding at hotmail to avoid spam. Please change "nospam.net"
>to "hotmail.com" to send me e-mail.
Gwenhyffar Milgi
wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 17:21:12 GMT, gwenh...@yahoo.co.uk (Gwenhyffar
>Milgi) wrote:
>
>I'm not judging anyone. What I said was that there is no such a thing
>as a 'Christian witch', because the two are totally incompatible.
>And I stand behind that statement sir.
Sir? Ma'am will do nicely, thank you.
You are judging _their validity_, by saying that they do not exist.
>The Bible says those who practice witchcraft are abominable, and will
>not see Heaven.
And which version of the bible would that be?
And may I ask, do you still sacrifice oxen regularly, as required by
the bible?
Richard
Milgi) wrote:
Being new to this newsgroup I apologise for butting in to this
conversation but I couldn't resist replying!
>>>>There is no such thing as a Christian 'witch'.. since witchcraft and
>>>>Christianity are totally incompatible.
I am very perplexed at the term "Christian Witch". To take the term in
it's literal context there is no such thing as a Christian Witch as
Christian mean a follower of Jesus Christ the Son of God and Witch is
one who uses the spirits, spells and potions for their own ends.
Being a Christian means yielding to the authority of God who created
everything in this universe. Being a witch means wielding power
through the spirits, spells, etc which denies the existence of a God.
God created this universe and He alone has the authority. The Bible
does actually state that Witchcraft/Sorcery, whatever you want to call
it, is a sin. I quote form Deuteronomy Ch18 Vs10-12:
"Let no-one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in
the fire, who practises divination or sorcery, interprets omens,
engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or
spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is
detestable to the LORD"
So anyone who calls them self a Christian Witch is gravely mistaken!
>
>>The Bible says those who practice witchcraft are abominable, and will
>>not see Heaven.
>
>And which version of the bible would that be?
>
Basically any translation of the Bible will say this. I lifted the
previous quote from the NIV, or New International Version.
>And may I ask, do you still sacrifice oxen regularly, as required by
>the bible?
The Bible no longer requires us to make sacrifices any more. Yes there
was a time when sacrifices were in order to cleanse us form our sin so
that we could come into the presence of God. But we no longer have to
do this as God Himself, in the form of Jesus Christ, paid the ultimate
sacrifice on the cross so that we may live.
If I may be so bold, if you are going to use the Bible as an argument
then may I suggest that you read it first.
God bless you,
Richard
Kye
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 18:26:16 +0000, Kye <HGEGVO...@spammotel.com>
>wrote:
>
>Don't you
>>realise how unapproachable, even comical, you make yourself look?
>
>
>
>that's nice.................
Meaning you would like me to say more of the same?
I would like to communicate, really, but you are not making it easy.
Kye
--
Kye
Brenda G. Tataryn
> Re: What God thinks of witchcraft!
>
> Reply to: [1] broa...@fish.co.uk
> Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 22:46:22 GMT
> References:
> [6] <B85AB427.79AD%fre...@mailstorm.net>
> [7] <snmb3us2oljqoskal...@4ax.com>
> [9] <n7gg3ucthhhl5q90f...@4ax.com>
> [10] <3c38873e.3362372@news>
> [11] <t8gh3u0mouh18v4jk...@4ax.com>
> [12] <3c3a08d2.1439424@news>
>
>On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:46:30 GMT, gwenh...@yahoo.co.uk (Gwenhyffar
>Milgi) wrote:
>
>
>Being new to this newsgroup I apologise for butting in to this
>conversation but I couldn't resist replying!
>
>
>>>>>There is no such thing as a Christian 'witch'.. since witchcraft and
>>>>>Christianity are totally incompatible.
>
>I am very perplexed at the term "Christian Witch". To take the term in
>it's literal context there is no such thing as a Christian Witch as
>Christian mean a follower of Jesus Christ the Son of God and Witch is
>one who uses the spirits, spells and potions for their own ends.
>
****Witches who consider using a Christian Pantheon for their deities
would perhaps use Jesus and the Lord and Mary or Sophia as the Lady and
apply their stories to the Wiccan construct. Non Wiccan Witches might just
see Jesus as a great adept and teacher of enlightenment. Christians and
Witches like myself use both faiths/practises to align myself to God.
Witches use the energies inherent in everything to align themselves with
what is ....which is God. If a Christian healer uses the God power within
to heal another..then many Witches use this as well. Witches use energies
to heal and help themselves and others.
A witch...like myself ...can very well follow Jesus the Christ.
>Being a Christian means yielding to the authority of God who created
>everything in this universe. Being a witch means wielding power
>through the spirits, spells, etc which denies the existence of a God.
>
***** if God created everything...then spirits are included in that.
Everything is made of God. Being a Christian means following in the path
of Jesus or following his ways and teachings...some of which are in the
Bible in pure form and some which sadly are written in error through
misunderstanding...I Believe.
>God created this universe and He alone has the authority. The Bible
>does actually state that Witchcraft/Sorcery, whatever you want to call
>it, is a sin. I quote form Deuteronomy Ch18 Vs10-12:
>
***** and yet not all Christians believe that the Bible is error free. I
personally believe that you ask God to guide you to truth and then follow
that guidance. God has taught me that only some things in the Bible are
truth.
Brenda
***snippage
>God bless you,
>
>Richard
Nick Gordon
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 22:46:22 GMT, broa...@fish.co.uk (Richard) wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 20:46:30 GMT, gwenh...@yahoo.co.uk (Gwenhyffar
>>Milgi) wrote:
>>
>>
>>Being new to this newsgroup I apologise for butting in to this
>>conversation but I couldn't resist replying!
>>
>>
>>>>>>There is no such thing as a Christian 'witch'.. since witchcraft and
>>>>>>Christianity are totally incompatible.
>>
>>I am very perplexed at the term "Christian Witch". To take the term in
>>it's literal context there is no such thing as a Christian Witch as
>>Christian mean a follower of Jesus Christ the Son of God and Witch is
>>one who uses the spirits, spells and potions for their own ends.
>>
>>Being a Christian means yielding to the authority of God who created
>>everything in this universe. Being a witch means wielding power
>>through the spirits, spells, etc which denies the existence of a God.
>>
>>God created this universe and He alone has the authority. The Bible
>>does actually state that Witchcraft/Sorcery, whatever you want to call
>>it, is a sin. I quote form Deuteronomy Ch18 Vs10-12:
>>
>>"Let no-one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in
>>the fire, who practises divination or sorcery, interprets omens,
>>engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or
>>spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is
>>detestable to the LORD"
>>
>>So anyone who calls them self a Christian Witch is gravely mistaken!
>>
>>>
>Thank you Richard..... Christians, I know- are in agreement with what
>you and I are saying. that Christianity and 'witchcraft' are totally
>incompatible.
>
>Doc :o)
>_____________________________________________________
>SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!
>_____________________________________________________
>
>
You are such a foolish person Romath. By making such an assertion, you
are throwing away the possibility of a fine discussion with some
people who have shown themselves to be sensitive and respectful.
let me remind you, whether you like it or not, they are the neighbours
who Christ exhorted you to love.
Nick
BBH#6
Nick Gordon
wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Jan 2002 18:26:16 +0000, Kye <HGEGVO...@spammotel.com>
>wrote:
>
>Don't you
>>realise how unapproachable, even comical, you make yourself look?
>
>
>
>that's nice.................
>_____________________________________________________
>SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!
>_____________________________________________________
>
>
Not only nice, it is true.
Nick
BBH#6
Talesin- Der Hexenfuhrer
Das Uber Bitch" <castir...@ev1.net> wrote in article
>fot and bwenduh are cut from the same fundie cloth. I would love to throw
>them in a pit together and see who gets devoured first........ >:)
And what "cloth" are you cut from? Goodwill rejects?
--
Talesin- The Bad Boy of Witchcraft (tm)
http://home.kc.rr.com/pendragonsloft
Das Uber Bitch
is well aware of that already....
BTW, it's most amusing, you waddling around back there, crying and
screaming. Keep going, unter sexen, we needed fresh joke material.
--
" This message was brought to you by Jani,
She's better than fot in every way. "
"Talesin- Der Hexenfuhrer" <the_wi...@yahoo.XcomX> wrote in message
news:tvC_7.196141$8w3.42...@typhoon.kc.rr.com...
Gwenhyffar Milgi
>Being a Christian means yielding to the authority of God who created
>everything in this universe. Being a witch means wielding power
>through the spirits, spells, etc which denies the existence of a God.
Nope, please dust up on Witchcraft. Witchcraft isn't what the bible
says it is. Ask any witch. Plenty of witches do not do spells etc.
They're still witches.
>>>The Bible says those who practice witchcraft are abominable, and will
>>>not see Heaven.
>>
>>And which version of the bible would that be?
>>
>
>Basically any translation of the Bible will say this. I lifted the
>previous quote from the NIV, or New International Version.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, the translated versions. I see. The interpretation of
the interpretation.
>>And may I ask, do you still sacrifice oxen regularly, as required by
>>the bible?
>
>The Bible no longer requires us to make sacrifices any more. Yes there
>was a time when sacrifices were in order to cleanse us form our sin so
>that we could come into the presence of God. But we no longer have to
>do this as God Himself, in the form of Jesus Christ, paid the ultimate
>sacrifice on the cross so that we may live.
Oh, so if it suits you, you don't follow the old testament, and if it
doesn't suit you, you do follow the old testament.
Amazing selectiveness.
>If I may be so bold, if you are going to use the Bible as an argument
>then may I suggest that you read it first.
Been there, done that, have the baptism certificate to prove it.
Mark Bassett
news:3c3b25f6.1624548@news...
> Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, the translated versions. I see. The interpretation of
> the interpretation.
ROTFL!
You happen to have a non-translated ANYTHING?
Richard
>As a brief side-point: being a witch does not necessarily deny the
>existence of a God - or multiple Gods. I happen to be a Wiccan who
>also practices Witchcraft, but I very firmly AFFIRM my faith in the
>existence of Deity.
>
I agree that witchcraft does not deny the existence of a god, but it
does deny the existence of *The* God, the creator of everything in
this universe. If a witch professes to be a Christian then he/she
cannot be a witch as it is forbidden by God. Or they cannot be a
Christian for the same reason.
Richard
>You are such a foolish person Romath. By making such an assertion, you
>are throwing away the possibility of a fine discussion with some
>people who have shown themselves to be sensitive and respectful.
>let me remind you, whether you like it or not, they are the neighbours
>who Christ exhorted you to love.
>Nick
>BBH#6
By making such an assertion how is he throwing away the possibility of
a fine discussion?
Yes christ did exhort us to love our neighbours, but He didn't say
that we had to agree with them!
Richard
>Nope, please dust up on Witchcraft. Witchcraft isn't what the bible
>says it is. Ask any witch. Plenty of witches do not do spells etc.
>They're still witches.
>
Okay I admit that my witch-lore is a little lacking. So please
enlighten me as to what it means to be a witch? (Sorry if you've done
this in a previous post - please point me to it - I'm a newcomer to
this conversation. )
>
>Aaaaaaaaaaaaah, the translated versions. I see. The interpretation of
>the interpretation.
>
I don't quite understand what you mean by this. If you're insinuating
that modern-day translations of the Bible are mere para-phrasings of
already existing translations then you are mistaken. Modern
translations, such as the NIV I quoted from, are done from the
original manuscripts. And even if they weren't then there would have
to be a massive world-wide conspiracy of Biblical translators for them
all to say the same thing.
>Oh, so if it suits you, you don't follow the old testament, and if it
>doesn't suit you, you do follow the old testament.
>
>Amazing selectiveness.
>
The whole point about Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was so that we
don't have to follow the Old Testament law any more. To use a huge
sweeping generalisation: The Old Testament is there a) as a history
book, and b) to show the many prophesies foretelling the coming of a
Messiah - Jesus Christ.
>
>>If I may be so bold, if you are going to use the Bible as an argument
>>then may I suggest that you read it first.
>
>Been there, done that, have the baptism certificate to prove it.
>
If I can use your argument back at you: for a person who has "been
there, done that" you show an amazing selectiveness yourself when it
comes to Biblical knowledge.
Richard
>Richard, you're right, in that this was one of the popular European
>superstition about Witchcraft. It is, however, extra-biblical.
I don't understand what you mean by extra-biblical, could you please
explain?
>
>However, Gwenhyffar, Bible-based Christianity is going to be just as
>opposed to Richard's definition of witchcraft as it is to yours, or
>mine.
>
No it isn't! As a biblical based Christian myself, and as some-one who
reads the bible every day, I can safely say that Christainity will not
be opposed to my definition of witchcraft.
Richard
>****Witches who consider using a Christian Pantheon for their deities
>would perhaps use Jesus and the Lord and Mary or Sophia as the Lady and
>apply their stories to the Wiccan construct. Non Wiccan Witches might just
>see Jesus as a great adept and teacher of enlightenment. Christians and
>Witches like myself use both faiths/practises to align myself to God.
>Witches use the energies inherent in everything to align themselves with
>what is ....which is God. If a Christian healer uses the God power within
>to heal another..then many Witches use this as well. Witches use energies
>to heal and help themselves and others.
>A witch...like myself ...can very well follow Jesus the Christ.
>
Being a Christian means following Christ and His teachings. One of His
teachings is that there is only one true God so there cannot be a
Christian Pantheon, which as I understand it means a multitude of Gods
And we (Christains) do not use "the God power within us", it is God
that works through us when we yield to His authority.
>***** and yet not all Christians believe that the Bible is error free. I
>personally believe that you ask God to guide you to truth and then follow
>that guidance. God has taught me that only some things in the Bible are
>truth.
>
I'm curious to know which bits you think are true and which are false?
Gwenhyffar Milgi
>>
>>Nope, please dust up on Witchcraft. Witchcraft isn't what the bible
>>says it is. Ask any witch. Plenty of witches do not do spells etc.
>>They're still witches.
>>
>
>Okay I admit that my witch-lore is a little lacking. So please
>enlighten me as to what it means to be a witch? (Sorry if you've done
>this in a previous post - please point me to it - I'm a newcomer to
>this conversation. )
What it means to be a witch. In short, the full thing would probably
run too long. Generally speaking, a witch is someone who respects all
living things (and many non-living things). Someone who takes
responsibility. Someone who aligns him or herself with nature and the
natural forces. Someone who believes that he or she can make a
difference by acknowledging that they are an element of all that
exists.
Many witches direct their efforts to live and work in a respectful way
by what is termed witchcraft. Witchcraft extends from herbal healing,
to reiki, to prayer and to magic.
The main tenet that most witches subscribe to is: "If it does no harm,
then do what you want". Most witches also believe that what you put
out in the world in any shape or form, is returned to you. In some
beliefs, it is even returned threefold.
The most defining feature I would put forward myself is the very deep
feeling that all is one. We are all part of everything, everything is
connected.
>I don't quite understand what you mean by this. If you're insinuating
>that modern-day translations of the Bible are mere para-phrasings of
>already existing translations then you are mistaken. Modern
>translations, such as the NIV I quoted from, are done from the
>original manuscripts. And even if they weren't then there would have
>to be a massive world-wide conspiracy of Biblical translators for them
>all to say the same thing.
The problem is, when the bible was put together, so much of the
original writing was left out, that most of it is totally out of
context. Only the parts of the original manuscripts that fit _what was
already translated_ are used nowadays. Those parts that tell the rest
of the story are simply disregarded.
>>Oh, so if it suits you, you don't follow the old testament, and if it
>>doesn't suit you, you do follow the old testament.
>>
>>Amazing selectiveness.
>>
>
>The whole point about Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was so that we
>don't have to follow the Old Testament law any more. To use a huge
>sweeping generalisation: The Old Testament is there a) as a history
>book, and b) to show the many prophesies foretelling the coming of a
>Messiah - Jesus Christ.
So, if Jesus' sacrifice on the cross means that you don't have to
follow the old testament law anymore, why is Deuteronomy still used to
persecute witches????
>If I can use your argument back at you: for a person who has "been
>there, done that" you show an amazing selectiveness yourself when it
>comes to Biblical knowledge.
Well, I only continue what was started. But I've read the whole thing,
many times. The most intriguing part of the bible is still
Revelations, which I reread regularly, but I even read through all of
the "begats".
It's a good book. And many witches regard Jesus as a great teacher and
a man to be admired and whose example should be followed. It's just
some of his followers that seem so totally out of touch with his
teachings.
Gwenhyffar Milgi
Many witches acknowledge the existence of THE god. It's just that they
don't think that Christians have a monopoly on the god.
Mark Bassett
It seems that you have just noted one group in particular who are clearly
out of touch with Jesus' teachings, in spite of claims to credit Him
somehow.
Nick Gordon
wrote:
>Please, Richard- pay NO attention to the fool posting under the name
>'nick gordon.'
>This idiot has been claiming for over four years now to be a
>'Methodist minister'- ---- has claimed to be 73 years of age for the
>past 3 years now, has falsely accused and stalked me for over 4 years
>now, and it posts to a number of groups, but never on the group for
>methodists!!!!
>It is a liar from the word GO, and by 'nick's ' actions, a false
>Christina in word and deed.
>Take care Rich--
>
>doc :o)
>_____________________________________________________
>SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!
>_____________________________________________________
>
>
Well here is a first - whatever else you have called me - you have
never called me a false Christina before!! Perhaps I should flutter my
eyelashes. I do not know whether to be flattered or offended!
As for claims regarding my age -that is yet another of your lies,
Madam.
Final note. I post on many other groups but YOU will never know what
they are.
Nick
BBH#6
Fireball
"<--->" <doc...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
news:n7gg3ucthhhl5q90f...@4ax.com...
> Too bad you left Christianity. Sorry to hear that. but don't blame me
> for it. You made the decision yourself.
I don't have to blame anyone. I'm just stating facts. What I do is all me,
no one else do I blame for my good and bad deeds.
> There is no such thing as a Christian 'witch'.. since witchcraft and
> Christianity are totally incompatible.
So you say. :-) They may or may not be compatable, but why not let *them*
figure it out for theirselves? Besides, I happen to know one Witch who is a
devout Christian. So, maybe they aren't as incompatable as you may think.
Hehehehe... You know, according to your own doctrin, Jesus performed
"miracles" invoking his God in very much the same way we work spells.... So
now ya'll have a double standard, doncha think? Go figure....
> Ask some other Christians in here and see what they say if you don't
> believe me!
Naw, I don't have to ask anyone else. If they want to add something to this
conversation, they are free to do so.
> Have a nice day......
I did.... :-)
Jay
Gwenhyffar Milgi
wrote:
>The problem is - you're both right. Depending on the point of view.
>Richard, you're right, in that this was one of the popular European
>superstition about Witchcraft. It is, however, extra-biblical.
>
>spells.
>
>However, the main problem here is ambiguity. You, Richard, and you,
>Gwenhyffar, are using the same word for two different meanings.
What is Witchcraft? Who are these Witches anyway?
A practitioner of a nature-based belief system or religion. Not all
Witches follow the same belief system. Some practice what is called
the "old religion" which has its roots in pagan pre-monotheistic folk
ways and beliefs and usually follows the seasonal cycles. These belief
systems or "traditions" of Witches are often based upon the particular
culture from whence they originated. Many Witches believe in a
polytheistic deity structure (usually based upon the local gods and
goddesses of the area of origin), but some simply practice magick
(sometimes spelled with a 'k' to differentiate it from stage magic).
Witches may practice alone as 'solitaries" or in covens. There are
also family groups or traditions which trace their practices and
beliefs within the same close group throughout several generations.
Traditional Wicca:
A modern form of Witchcraft is called "Wicca." Traditional Wicca is
based on the teachings of Gerald Gardner, is coven based and each
coven can trace its lineage (line of teaching passed on by initiated
Traditional priests and priestesses) back to Gardner himself. There
are offshoots of Gardnerian Traditional Wicca such as Alexandrian
Wicca, Georgian Wicca and many others. Traditional Wiccans are
considered a 'mystery' religion, require initiation by the coven and
have a "degree system" or different levels of rank based upon coven
training and the readiness of the initiate to accept the duties and
responsibilities of that degree. They have a core of inner
knowledge-often called the "Book of Shadows"-which is known only to
initiated Wiccans. Most Traditional Wiccans believe in the balance of
male-female divinity. Traditional Wiccans are seldom solitary except
for those 'Elders'-usually former priests and priestesses-who may have
retired from active coven involvement.
Other Forms of Wicca:
A newer form of Wicca has developed since the 1970's which is looser
in structure and practice than the Traditional Wicca. These
practitioners may follow a mixture of various or "eclectic' pagan
and/or non-pagan beliefs. Some have formed 'traditions' or covens of
their own, with or without a degree system, and have written a "book
of shadows" outlining their own belief system and coven structure.
Many are solitary practitioners who practice their beliefs and
formulate their rituals in their own way.
Pagans:
Since the terms Witch and Wiccan are often mistakenly interchanged,
many simply call themselves "pagans" or Neo-pagans" when talking with
others who may not be familiar with the complexity of the different
belief systems. But just as not all Christians are Lutheran or
Catholic, so not all pagans are Witches or Wiccan. Neo-paganism is a
term used most often to describe people who follow an earth-based
belief system or religion. Druids and the Norse tradition of Asatru
(who tend to prefer the term 'heathen") are considered to be pagan
belief systems, but their adherents are neither Witches nor Wiccans.
Neo-paganism should also not be confused with the "New Age" movement
as pagans are almost exclusively involved in distinctive nature
religions or earth-based practices while New Age spirituality draws
from many sources and esoteric spiritual techniques.
Q: Are you a good Witch or a bad Witch?
A: When you ask if someone is a "good" Witch or a "bad" Witch, it is
the same as asking someone if they are a "good" Presbyterian or a
"bad" Presbyterian. Wiccans adhere to the Rede, "An it harm none, do
as ye will." Witches, Druids and other pagan belief systems and
religions have their own ethical standards. There are good and bad
people in every society and in every religion. When a person breaks
the laws of society or the tenets of their religion, they are called
to account for their actions. To judge a person as either "good" or
"bad" based upon nothing more than their religious preference alone
has a label, too. It is called bigotry.
Q: Do you worship Satan?
A: Satan is a part of the Christian and Muslim religions. Since pagans
are neither Christian nor Muslim, Satan is not part of our deity
structure at all.
We believe that each and every human being is completely responsible
for his or her own actions. To us, evil is a choice, albeit a bad one,
that a human might make, not an embodied entity to blame our actions
upon.
If an individual chooses to do evil, most pagans believe they will be
punished via the laws of karma or as a result of "cause and effect.".
In other words, "What goes around usually comes around."
Many Witches and Wiccans believe in some form of reincarnation, that
the results or karma of past deeds can follow a person from one life
to the next. This may also help to explain why terrible things
sometimes happen to wonderful people or why some people seem to have
been born with certain skills and knowledge. It may also explain why
some people seem to lead a 'charmed" life.
Some pagans believe in an after-life spent in another plain of
existence. Known as Summerland, Avalon, Valhalla or simply the "Other
Side', they believe that they will be reunited here once again with
friends and family.
Q: So why do you use that "Satanic" symbol?
A: The pentagram, or five pointed star, is not Satanic. Pythagoras
used it as a symbol of health and his followers wore them in order to
recognize one another. In Medieval times, some Christian knights used
the pentagram as their symbol. To modern Wiccans the pentagram means
many things; The five points correspond to the elements Air, Earth,
Fire and Water with the top point corresponding to "Spirit". The
pentagram in a circle may also represent a human with their legs and
arms outstretched, surrounded by universal wisdom or the "Goddess" -
humankind at one with the environment. Many Witches and other pagan
practitioners do not wear the pentacle at all, but have other symbols
of special meaning to them.
Satanists turn the symbol upside-down, which puts the elements of Fire
and Earth at the top (Fire symbolizes willpower and passion and Earth,
prosperity and earthly goods) and Spirit, spirituality, at the bottom.
Satanists also turn the cross upside-down. This, in itself, does not
make the cross or pentagram a Satanic symbol. In some Wiccan
traditions, the reversed pentagram is a symbol of "second degree"
status - one who has been elevated from "initiate". To members of
these traditions, the reversed pentagram is considered highly positive
and has no connection to Satanism. A symbol is simply an image or mark
in itself. It is the mind and the beliefs of the beholder which
attribute to it a particular meaning.
Q: Do you do blood sacrifice?
A: Goddess NO! The nature of sacrifice is to give up something of
one's own in order to gain something more important. Wiccans believe
in the sanctity of all life. Most pagans believe that animals are part
of the same natural cycle of life as humans are. Witches have long
been associated with animal companions known as "familiars." Check out
the TWV "Cats of Witchcraft" page. Do these animals look abused to
you?
Q: Do Witches and Wiccans cast spells?
A: Yes. Well, some do anyway. However, the term "spell" is widely
misunderstood.
Spells, are somewhat like prayers and are used to create needed change
in one's own life or the life of a loved one. But while prayers are a
petition to an external Deity to create the change, most Witches and
Wiccans believe that Deity is present in everything, including
ourselves. Spells, then, are the channeling of our own divine selves,
our own energies, to create the change.
Spells such as those which use love magic to gain the attention of a
specific individual, or curses, are considered "manipulative". Most
Wiccans believe that anything manipulative-that goes against the free
will of another-is considered wrong. Many other pagan paths have
similar codes of conduct based upon the tenets of their tradition or
belief and almost all believe that the responsibility for their
actions will lie with them.
Q: Are Witchcraft or Wicca cults?
A: A cult by definition is a group of people who blindly follow one
leader. As Witches, Wiccans and pagans tend to be free-thinkers, there
is no one person that we consider to be THE leader. Thus we cannot be
called a cult.
Q: Do you have ritual orgies?
A: These rumors come from our lack of taboos regarding sex. We have no
rules which prohibit homosexuality, nudity or pre-marital sex. Sex as
the generative force in nature is seen by most pagans as something
utterly sacred. We feel that the physical act of love is to be
approached with great respect and responsibility.
Q: Why do all Witches/Wiccans wear black?
A: We all don't. Many Witches/Wiccans actually seem to favor green
and/or purple. Black, however, is in many cultures a symbol of clergy.
Priests, Ministers and Rabbis all favor black as the main color of
their ritual garb.
Scientifically speaking, color is energy. The colors you see are the
ones which are reflected and not the ones absorbed. Therefore, what
appears to be white, which is the culmination of all colors in the
light spectrum, is actually reflecting all colors and absorbing none.
What appears to be black, is absorbing all colors and reflecting none.
This is evident in the fact that when one is wearing white, one feels
cooler - as the fabric is sending the heat energy outward, and when
one wears black - the heat energy is absorbed in the cloth that one is
wearing, making one feel warmer. Many Witches feel that wearing black
attracts and holds more natural energy.
Q: Aren't all Witches Women?
A: No. Neither are Wiccans or those in other pagan paths. Witches can
be either men or women. The term "Warlock" is never used to describe a
male Witch as it is considered to be a religious slur. "Warlock" is an
old Scottish word meaning "traitor" or "oath-breaker". Men and Women
alike can be Witches, Wiccans or pagans.
Q: Why would anyone want to be a pagan, a Witch or Wiccan?
A: People are generally drawn to Wicca and other pagan paths for
several reasons. Many women feel left out of more mainstream religions
because of the lack of feminine divinity. For them, the Wiccan concept
of the Goddess as Mother of all Living fills an empty space in their
spiritual search. As a nature based religion, Witchcraft also appeals
to those who feel a strong need to "get back to the Earth" and places
a major importance on protecting the environment, which we are a part
of, not apart from. People drawn to the mystical find pagan belief
systems much more accommodating as we do not see anything unnatural
about psychic ability or the use of magic to create needed changes in
one's life. It gives us the freedom to make our own decisions about
what is best for us.
Q: How do you convert new Witches/Wiccans/pagans?
A: We don't. We feel that the attempted conversion of others is a form
of religious bigotry. i.e. If one tries to convert another to his/her
religion, s/he assumes that the other person's beliefs are not as
valid as his/her own. We feel that all paths are equally valid as long
as they do not infringe upon the basic civil rights or free will of
another. According to our beliefs, it is up to the individual to
choose his or her own path. We do not try to manipulate others into
our way of thinking, we only try to educate others about our religion
so that they may better understand us. We do, however try to help
guide those who have already expressed an interest in the pagan belief
systems or religions.
Q: So what do Witches/Wiccans/pagans DO?
A: Pretty much what everybody does. We come from all walks of life. We
raise families, go to work, throw steaks (or vegetables) on the
"barbie" and hang out with our friends. We practice our religions and
belief systems, celebrate our holidays with festivals and continue to
study and explore our past while contemplating our futures.
Many covens and groups meet once a month to worship together under the
moon. Pagans tend to hold ceremonies or "circles" out of doors as we
feel that being with nature brings us closer to the divinity who
creates it.
Some pagan beliefs may seem strange to those who have not heard much
about them before. Pagans, on the other hand, are usually very well
versed in the beliefs of other religions. They find the various
religious systems interesting and often encourage their own children
to learn about these other religions. Pagans believe in free will and
free choice and that an educated choice is always better than blind
obedience to any religion or dogma. We are not "against" other
religions. We have simply made our choice to be pagan and we expect
others to respect that choice as we respect theirs.
All that we ask is that we are allowed to practice our religion
without prejudice or interference as is our right guaranteed here in
the United States under the Constitution and as outlined within the
constitutions of many other countries. The freedom to practice
religion -or no religion-as you choose-whether it be Christian,
Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or Pagan-is the freedom to follow your spirit
and your heart. This precious freedom must be defended, protected and
treasured by all or it will no longer be guaranteed for anyone.
These updated basics F.A.Q.'s of Witchcraft were adapted
from the original version (1996) as composed by...
Paula Murphy, Ainsley Friedberg
J.Kyle Sweeney & Lisa Tonner
Fireball
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 22:22:21 -0600, "Fireball" <fire...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
> > invoking his God in very much the same way we work spells
>
> There is NO such thing as a Christian witch.
> Call it a so-called 'double standard' if you like, but that doesn't
> make a witch a Christian just because they claim to be so.
I'm sorry, but what was your point? You make no sense here. The point, which
you must have completely missed, that I was trying to make was what makes
what your Jesus any different than any other Witch? If he were alive today,
by your standards, he would not be fit to be apart of his own religion. So
what's the deal?
> If they were TRULY Christian- they would abandon witchcraft.
Why would they abandon it? Because you say so? Because your doctrin says so?
They must have reconciled their workings with the Christian God, because
that's the way they practice Magick. They've cutout the middleman and go
straight to the top, as it should be. What's wrong with that?
Jay
Fireball
"Miriam Benson" <shul...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:629_7.9512$Vz3.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Don't fuck them, they'll only multiply. Besides, they might even enjoy it.
> You wouldn't want that, now would you ?
We could breed it out of them like the Romans did in their quest for x-tian
rule.... hehehehe.....
Jay
Gwenhyffar Milgi
wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 19:25:47 GMT, gwenh...@yahoo.co.uk (Gwenhyffar
>Milgi) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Jan 2002 13:51:43 -0500, Too Goofy <goofy...@nospam.net>
>>wrote:
>>>The problem is - you're both right. Depending on the point of view.
>>>
>>>Richard, you're right, in that this was one of the popular European
>>>superstition about Witchcraft. It is, however, extra-biblical.
>>>
>>>Gwenhyffar, you're right in that there are witches who don't cast
>>>spells.
>>>
>>>However, the main problem here is ambiguity. You, Richard, and you,
>>>Gwenhyffar, are using the same word for two different meanings.
>
>Hi, Gwenhyffar,
>
>The problem with the article that you posted is that it's historicaly
>incorrect - and grossly so. I would suggest Ronald Hutton's "The
>Triumph of the Moon" for a much more accurate history.
Oh, there are much, much better things out there. Problem is, for
posting to a newsgroup this is the most concise. And as for any text
on religions, there are bound to be historically inaccurate. The bible
comes to mind. And don't forget, there are many witches who believe
that the piece I posted _is_ historically correct.
For a good overview of contemporary Witchcraft, the best thing out
there is still Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler, but that is
waaaay to long to post in a newsgroup <GGG>.
Sagacious Euphemism
wrote:
>On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 20:48:20 -0600, "<--->" <doc...@eudoramail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>HE SAYS witchcraft is an abomination.... Christians know what HE
>>thinks of it------
>
>>Personally, I don't care WHAT witches 'think of GOD'......
>
>Brenda wrote:
>>>Actually Tales I love God..and am a witch..but everyone is different.
>
>>I repeat=- and STAND BEHIND IT................. there is no such thing
>>as a 'Christian witch'
>
>You use words yet you fail to realise that they mean different things
>to different people.
If two people have different and contradictory definitions of a word,
one of them is wrong. Period, end of story. We cannot evade the fact
that the law of non-contradiction is hardwired into the human psyche
without abandoning reason itself and rendering language unable to
convey meaning of any kind.
>You seem to make assertions as if you had sole
>possession of the true meaning.
You make a mistake: since one definition of the word is right and the
other wrong, he is within his rights to claim that his definition is
correct. That is not claiming "sole possession of the true meaning"
but an invitation to share the true meaning. You can either accept
his definition or defend the other, but you cannot have both.
>Words are meant as a bridge, not a
>hammer.
When you remove all the standard definitions from words, they cease to
be a bridge and become a wall.
>Is it your own doubt that causes you to close the bridge to others'
>views of The One?
Is it the weakness of your noetic structure that causes you to adandon
the linguistic basis for rational conversation?
Mark Hammond
> Fuck you and all of the little xian whores you do your dirty workings of
> hate and intolerance.
Stop identifying what you are with what you DO. Christians don't
hate you, but they do hate and mourn what you have been seduced to
believe.
Intolerant? Absolutely. There is no good in tolerating sin and
accepting evil. Should we tolerate people who wish to sell drugs?
Sex? False teachings?
Yes, true Christians are intolerant. And they should be proud to be
intolerant. But God has always been there, waiting for you, and Jesus
will be there to help you to rise up from your ignorance and your own
hate when you're ready for it.
mh
Edward V. Garcia
Mark Hammond <mhamm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2fcf014f.02011...@posting.google.com...
slamming airliners into buildings. Don't come to my house and proselytize. I
don't go to your church and hold circle. Get the fuck gone. You'll change no
minds here, and you're wasting your time. And mine.
begone begone begone
Kate
news:<GlJZ7.199736$RP1.38...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>...
> > Fuck you and all of the little xian whores you do your dirty workings of
> > hate and intolerance.
>
>
> Stop identifying what you are with what you DO. Christians don't
> hate you, but they do hate and mourn what you have been seduced to
> believe.
*Oh, I beg to differ. It's the rare Christian that will sit down and
sincerely Talk to a pagan rather than turn their back and run because we're
Evul!! *pfft* Seduced? Churches seduce.
>
> Intolerant? Absolutely. There is no good in tolerating sin and
> accepting evil.
*Um-hm.........ignoring evil {is there such a thing?} is Much better, isn't
it? Then it doesn't exist! Simple. Hypocrite.
Should we tolerate people who wish to sell drugs?
*Not in my opinion, unless it's a pharmacist.
> Sex?
*Gods..........sex is 'evil' too???????? I'm burning in hel for eternity!
*whahahaha*
False teachings?
*And just why should ~I~ tolerate you and what I consider to be ~your~ false
teachings? hm?
>
> Yes, true Christians are intolerant. And they should be proud to be
> intolerant.
*So happy that you're happy in your intolerance, fool.
But God has always been there, waiting for you, and Jesus
> will be there to help you to rise up from your ignorance and your own
> hate when you're ready for it.
*Jesus preached love for all. Get out.
>
> mh
Kye
johny...@earthlink.don'tspamonme.net (Sagacious Euphemism) wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 13:01:22 +0000, Kye <HGEGVO...@spammotel.com>
>wrote:
>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 20:48:20 -0600, "<--->" <doc...@eudoramail.com>
>>wrote:
>>>HE SAYS witchcraft is an abomination.... Christians know what HE
>>>thinks of it------
>>>Personally, I don't care WHAT witches 'think of GOD'......
>>
>>Brenda wrote:
>>>>Actually Tales I love God..and am a witch..but everyone is different.
>>
>>>I repeat=- and STAND BEHIND IT................. there is no such thing
>>>as a 'Christian witch'
>>
>>You use words yet you fail to realise that they mean different things
>>to different people.
>
>If two people have different and contradictory definitions of a word,
>one of them is wrong.
That is, your definitions are correct -- those of others are wrong.
Two people look at a car: one calls it a means of transport, the other
calls it a status symbol. Which definition is wrong?
>Period, end of story.
>We cannot evade the fact that the law of non-contradiction
>is hardwired into the human psyche
>without abandoning reason itself and rendering language unable to
>convey meaning of any kind.
>>You seem to make assertions as if you had sole
>>possession of the true meaning.
>
>You make a mistake: since one definition of the word is right and the
>other wrong, he is within his rights to claim that his definition is
>correct.
I challenge the very basis of your limited logic. Your understanding
seems to rely on the illusion that the meanings of words are fixed.
The real world and God can be called by any names you can think of and
more -- the words do not change the reality. What one person calls God
may be the same thing that another calls Allah etc.
> That is not claiming "sole possession of the true meaning"
>but an invitation to share the true meaning. You can either accept
>his definition or defend the other, but you cannot have both.
>
>>Words are meant as a bridge, not a
>>hammer.
>
>When you remove all the standard definitions from words, they cease to
>be a bridge and become a wall.
I do not want to remove standard definitions but show that there are
many standard definitions. You seem to want to deny standard
definitions that disagree with your paradigm.
>>Is it your own doubt that causes you to close the bridge to others'
>>views of The One?
>
>Is it the weakness of your noetic structure that causes you to adandon
>the linguistic basis for rational conversation?
_I_ want to communicate, you, however...
cosmic_clown
"Edward V. Garcia" wrote:
> Mark Hammond <mhamm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2fcf014f.02011...@posting.google.com...
> > "Talesin- Der Hexenfuhrer" <the_wi...@yahoo.XcomX> wrote in message
> news:<GlJZ7.199736$RP1.38...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>...
> > > Fuck you and all of the little xian whores you do your dirty workings of
> > > hate and intolerance.
> >
> >
> > Stop identifying what you are with what you DO. Christians don't
> > hate you, but they do hate and mourn what you have been seduced to
> > believe.
> >
> > Intolerant? Absolutely. There is no good in tolerating sin and
> > accepting evil. Should we tolerate people who wish to sell drugs?
> > Sex? False teachings?
> >
> > Yes, true Christians are intolerant. And they should be proud to be
> > intolerant. But God has always been there, waiting for you, and Jesus
> > will be there to help you to rise up from your ignorance and your own
> > hate when you're ready for it.
> >
> >Bite me thrice. dickhead. People like you are what leads to assholes
> slamming airliners into buildings.
Excuse me but the airliners slammed into buildings to justify a war for oil.
Not that junior above isn't a religious bigot. As for the xians..sounds to me
like this one is sporting the antichrists agenda..
BirdTribe
> Don't come to my house and proselytize. I
> don't go to your church and hold circle. Get the fuck gone. You'll change no
> minds here, and you're wasting your time. And mine.
> begone begone begone
--
"Pop a punk for peace"
abc
> "Mark Hammond" <mhamm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2fcf014f.02011...@posting.google.com...
> > "Talesin- Der Hexenfuhrer" <the_wi...@yahoo.XcomX> wrote in message
> news:<GlJZ7.199736$RP1.38...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>...
> > > Fuck you and all of the little xian whores you do your dirty workings of
> > > hate and intolerance.
> >
> >
> > Stop identifying what you are with what you DO. Christians don't
> > hate you, but they do hate and mourn what you have been seduced to
> > believe.
>
> *Oh, I beg to differ. It's the rare Christian that will sit down and
> sincerely Talk to a pagan rather than turn their back and run because we're
> > Intolerant? Absolutely. There is no good in tolerating sin and
> > accepting evil.
>
> *Um-hm.........ignoring evil {is there such a thing?} is Much better, isn't
> it? Then it doesn't exist! Simple. Hypocrite.
> Should we tolerate people who wish to sell drugs?
>
> *Not in my opinion, unless it's a pharmacist.
>
> > Sex?
>
> *Gods..........sex is 'evil' too???????? I'm burning in hel for eternity!
>
> False teachings?
>
> *And just why should ~I~ tolerate you and what I consider to be ~your~ false
> teachings? hm?
> > Yes, true Christians are intolerant. And they should be proud to be
> > intolerant.
>
> *So happy that you're happy in your intolerance, fool.
>
> But God has always been there, waiting for you, and Jesus
> > will be there to help you to rise up from your ignorance and your own
> > hate when you're ready for it.
> *Jesus preached love for all. Get out.
> >
P.S. sorry if I offended anyone with the language, but I mean c'mon,
witches? What is a witch? a goth kid who dropped out of high school?
> > mh
Brenda G. Tataryn
> Re: What Witches think of God!
>
> Reply to: [1] abc
> Date: 15 Jan 2002 16:23:42 -0800
> References:
> [8] <B85AB427.79AD%fre...@mailstorm.net>
> [9] <GlJZ7.199736$RP1.38...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>
> [10] <2fcf014f.02011...@posting.google.com>
> [11] <a20o94$fud$0...@208.164.103.41>
>
>"Kate" <tyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message [12] news:<a20o94$fud$0...@208.164.10>> [13] news:2fcf014f.02011...@posting.google.com...
>> > "Talesin- Der Hexenfuhrer" <the_wi...@yahoo.XcomX> wrote in message
***snip
>t you are a retard, I mean c'mon a witch? If you're a so-called witch then tur
>n me into a frog or something.
>> >
***therein lies the problem. Not knowing what witches do. Perhaps you
should read up or talk to some and find out.
snip
>> But God has always been there, waiting for you, and Jesus
>> > will be there to help you to rise up from your ignorance and your own
>> > hate when you're ready for it.
>> Yep, make that if you're ever even ready, hopefully you'll get your shit toge
>ther in time....a witch? lol, man that's sad.
**** what is so sad about a healer? what is so sad about walking on water,
turning water into wine, feeding multitudes on a few fish ?
snip
>> *Jesus preached love for all. Get out.
>> >
>
>P.S. sorry if I offended anyone with the language, but I mean c'mon,
>witches? What is a witch? a goth kid who dropped out of high school?
>> > mh
**** a witch is a practitioner of witchcraft. If you really want to know
and not just swallow what you are told..then talk to one.
better yet:
http://www.religioustolerance.org
for Wicca
and http://www.witchvox.com for Witchcraft, Wicca and many other pagan
paths.
Yes, Brenda trotted out her urls again.! :)
Get enlightened today!
Kate
"abc" <captmi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1320bbbe.02011...@posting.google.com...
> "Kate" <tyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<a20o94$fud$0...@208.164.103.41>...
> > "Mark Hammond" <mhamm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2fcf014f.02011...@posting.google.com...
> > > "Talesin- Der Hexenfuhrer" <the_wi...@yahoo.XcomX> wrote in message
> > news:<GlJZ7.199736$RP1.38...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>...
> > > > Fuck you and all of the little xian whores you do your dirty
workings of
> > > > hate and intolerance.
> > >
> > >
> > > Stop identifying what you are with what you DO. Christians don't
> > > hate you, but they do hate and mourn what you have been seduced to
> > > believe.
> >
> > *Oh, I beg to differ. It's the rare Christian that will sit down and
> > sincerely Talk to a pagan rather than turn their back and run because
we're
> > Evul!! *pfft* Seduced? Churches seduce.
Yep, Palie, time to throw my two cents in, sure churches seduce, but true
Christians don't need a church anyway, just a book. I'll sincerely talk to
you mr. pagan, I'm sincerely telling you that you are a retard, I mean c'mon
a witch? If you're a so-called witch then turn me into a frog or something.
*Mr. Kate, to you. And Pagan is my game, but witch suits me fine. Seriously,
my take on this is, either you can be a frog or you can be a prince. Depends
on who you let drag you down and control you. Your answer is weak, stop
reading those fairy tales.
> > >
> > > Intolerant? Absolutely. There is no good in tolerating sin and
> > > accepting evil.
> >
> > *Um-hm.........ignoring evil {is there such a thing?} is Much better,
isn't
> > it? Then it doesn't exist! Simple. Hypocrite.
> > Um-hm.... no one sad ignore, stoner. It's there, I'm fighting my old
was as best as I can, we just don't like it.
*This in incomprehensible to me. Say again?
> > Should we tolerate people who wish to sell drugs?
> >
> > *Not in my opinion, unless it's a pharmacist.
> >
> > > Sex?
> >
> > *Gods..........sex is 'evil' too???????? I'm burning in hel for
eternity!
> > *whahahaha*
Burning in Hel? who's he? You may want to get that looked at when you two
are finished.
*Another hypocritical, intolerant, smart ass. You might want to take that
course in reading comprehension again { or for the first time?}
> >
> > False teachings?
> >
> > *And just why should ~I~ tolerate you and what I consider to be ~your~
false
> > teachings? hm?
> > > Dude, then don't tolerate, go away, I'm sure people will find away to
get along without you.
*Dude? Whatever..........I'm not the one who came here to preach. We could
do without your assinine mewlings too.
> > > Yes, true Christians are intolerant. And they should be proud to be
> > > intolerant.
> >
> > *So happy that you're happy in your intolerance, fool.
> >
> > But God has always been there, waiting for you, and Jesus
> > > will be there to help you to rise up from your ignorance and your own
> > > hate when you're ready for it.
> > Yep, make that if you're ever even ready, hopefully you'll get your shit
together in time....a witch? lol, man that's sad.
*This is one of your 'brothers' you answered.
> > *Jesus preached love for all. Get out.
> > >
>
> P.S. sorry if I offended anyone with the language, but I mean c'mon,
> witches? What is a witch? a goth kid who dropped out of high school?
*sigh* How many papers do I have to correct today? And you have
what...............a sixth grade diploma? Your language doesn't offend me,
your ignorance does. You aren't sad, you're a sheep. Put that drink or
whatever down and get to know thyself.
Kate~
> > > mh
Nick Gordon
wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 22:22:21 -0600, "Fireball" <fire...@nospam.com>
>wrote:
>
>> invoking his God in very much the same way we work spells
>
>I rest my case.
>There is NO such thing as a Christian witch.
>Call it a so-called 'double standard' if you like, but that doesn't
>make a witch a Christian just because they claim to be so.
>
>If they were TRULY Christian- they would abandon witchcraft.
>
>_____________________________________________________
>SMILE ! Only a DENTIST should look down in the mouth!
>_____________________________________________________
>
>
It is not up to you to make such judgements Madam.
Nick
BBH#6
Sagacious Euphemism
wrote:
>On Sat, 12 Jan 2002 17:30:41 GMT,
>johny...@earthlink.don'tspamonme.net (Sagacious Euphemism) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 06 Jan 2002 13:01:22 +0000, Kye <HGEGVO...@spammotel.com>
>>wrote:
>>>On Sat, 05 Jan 2002 20:48:20 -0600, "<--->" <doc...@eudoramail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>>HE SAYS witchcraft is an abomination.... Christians know what HE
>>>>thinks of it------
>>>>Personally, I don't care WHAT witches 'think of GOD'......
>>>
>>>Brenda wrote:
>>>>>Actually Tales I love God..and am a witch..but everyone is different.
>>>
>>>>I repeat=- and STAND BEHIND IT................. there is no such thing
>>>>as a 'Christian witch'
>>>
>>>You use words yet you fail to realise that they mean different things
>>>to different people.
>>
>>If two people have different and contradictory definitions of a word,
>>one of them is wrong.
>
>That is, your definitions are correct -- those of others are wrong.
>
>Two people look at a car: one calls it a means of transport, the other
>calls it a status symbol. Which definition is wrong?
Neither, they don't contradict each other.
If one calls it a transportation device and the other calls it a food
processor, then one of them is wrong.
>>Period, end of story.
>>We cannot evade the fact that the law of non-contradiction
>>is hardwired into the human psyche
>>without abandoning reason itself and rendering language unable to
>>convey meaning of any kind.
>
>>>You seem to make assertions as if you had sole
>>>possession of the true meaning.
>>
>>You make a mistake: since one definition of the word is right and the
>>other wrong, he is within his rights to claim that his definition is
>>correct.
>
>I challenge the very basis of your limited logic. Your understanding
>seems to rely on the illusion that the meanings of words are fixed.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that using words to conceal contradictory
meanings is linguistic abuse, and fundamentally dishonest.
>The real world and God can be called by any names you can think of and
>more -- the words do not change the reality. What one person calls God
>may be the same thing that another calls Allah etc.
But any reasonable comparison of what I call God and what a Muslim
calls Allah shows that the two things are radically different in their
basic natures, thereby disposing of a favorite example.
>> That is not claiming "sole possession of the true meaning"
>>but an invitation to share the true meaning. You can either accept
>>his definition or defend the other, but you cannot have both.
>
>>
>>>Words are meant as a bridge, not a
>>>hammer.
>>
>>When you remove all the standard definitions from words, they cease to
>>be a bridge and become a wall.
>
>I do not want to remove standard definitions but show that there are
>many standard definitions. You seem to want to deny standard
>definitions that disagree with your paradigm.
No, I disagree with changes of definitions in the attempt to show that
two fundamentally different things are the same thing.
>>>Is it your own doubt that causes you to close the bridge to others'
>>>views of The One?
>>
>>Is it the weakness of your noetic structure that causes you to adandon
>>the linguistic basis for rational conversation?
>
>_I_ want to communicate, you, however...
...am actually able to communicate, because you can find out what I
mean by looking in a standard dictionary. My vocabulary has not
become a feeble device for avoiding real communication.
Kye
johny...@earthlink.don'tspamonme.net (Sagacious Euphemism) wrote:
>On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:23:16 +0000, Kye <HGEGVO...@spammotel.com>
>wrote:
>>Two people look at a car: one calls it a means of transport, the other
>>calls it a status symbol. Which definition is wrong?
>
>Neither, they don't contradict each other.
Precisely, as it is with God and Allah, and other words used to talk
about the supreme being. Admitedly, some will have misunderstood the
thing that the words point to and try to enforce a narrow and dogmatic
interpretation of the item based on their vocabulary. But they fail to
realise that the thing itself is not limited by the definition, it
exists independantly of the words. Therefore it can be described and
communicated by any words _as long as two or more people can come to
an agreement on what those words mean_. It is this willingness to come
to an agreement which constitutes communication.
Rather than dogmatically saying that we have the only correct
definitions is to imprison ourselves inside a sound-proof container.
Where we will rot.
>If one calls it a transportation device and the other calls it a food
>processor, then one of them is wrong.
<snip>
>>I challenge the very basis of your limited logic. Your understanding
>>seems to rely on the illusion that the meanings of words are fixed.
>
>No, I'm not. I'm saying that using words to conceal contradictory
>meanings is linguistic abuse, and fundamentally dishonest.
I an not trying to conceal, the opposite, to share and communicate my
understanding to someone who, I believe, understands the same thing in
different words. And to try to show that different words can point to
the same, absolute, supreme being.
>>The real world and God can be called by any names you can think of and
>>more -- the words do not change the reality. What one person calls God
>>may be the same thing that another calls Allah etc.
>
>But any reasonable comparison of what I call God and what a Muslim
>calls Allah shows that the two things are radically different in their
>basic natures, thereby disposing of a favorite example.
Have you talked and mixed with muslims, or wiccans, or buddhists, etc?
I have found that what one understands as God is, after coming to an
agreement on what each person means, is the same thing. That is what I
would call a reasonable comparison and the basic nature is the same,
exactly, absolutely.
The path to or treatment of or worship of this supreme being may
differ and some paths/methods may, indeed, be harmful in some way but
dogmatic innertia will not change that. It may even encourage or, as
in the original poster, inflame. Like two children disagreeing: 'tis',
'tisn't', 'tis' ... the argument polarises.
<snip>
>>>When you remove all the standard definitions from words, they cease to
>>>be a bridge and become a wall.
>>
>>I do not want to remove standard definitions but show that there are
>>many standard definitions. You seem to want to deny standard
>>definitions that disagree with your paradigm.
>
>No, I disagree with changes of definitions in the attempt to show that
>two fundamentally different things are the same thing.
If you were 'listening' you would know that I am not advocating a
change in definition just a willingness to appreciate how others
understand the words that we sometimes take for granted.
>>_I_ want to communicate, you, however...
>
>...am actually able to communicate, because you can find out what I
>mean by looking in a standard dictionary. My vocabulary has not
>become a feeble device for avoiding real communication.
Your vocabulary seems to be dependant on one dictionary. What if you
want to talk to someone who uses a different dictionary?
Sagacious Euphemism
wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Jan 2002 06:29:55 GMT,
>johny...@earthlink.don'tspamonme.net (Sagacious Euphemism) wrote:
>>On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:23:16 +0000, Kye <HGEGVO...@spammotel.com>
>>wrote:
><some snipping to focus the discussion>
>>>Two people look at a car: one calls it a means of transport, the other
>>>calls it a status symbol. Which definition is wrong?
>>
>>Neither, they don't contradict each other.
>
>Precisely, as it is with God and Allah, and other words used to talk
>about the supreme being. Admitedly, some will have misunderstood the
>thing that the words point to and try to enforce a narrow and dogmatic
>interpretation of the item based on their vocabulary. But they fail to
>realise that the thing itself is not limited by the definition, it
>exists independantly of the words. Therefore it can be described and
>communicated by any words _as long as two or more people can come to
>an agreement on what those words mean_. It is this willingness to come
>to an agreement which constitutes communication.
And it is when that agreement is undermined that we start to
"communicate" nonsense. If the thing exists independent of the words,
then when we use words to describe two contradictory "aspects" of the
thing, we are no longer communicating.
<snip>
>>>I challenge the very basis of your limited logic. Your understanding
>>>seems to rely on the illusion that the meanings of words are fixed.
>>
>>No, I'm not. I'm saying that using words to conceal contradictory
>>meanings is linguistic abuse, and fundamentally dishonest.
>
>I an not trying to conceal, the opposite, to share and communicate my
>understanding to someone who, I believe, understands the same thing in
>different words. And to try to show that different words can point to
>the same, absolute, supreme being.
If what that person understands is very much not the same thing in
different words, but a radically different thing altogether, you are
on the path to absurdity, not to communication
>>>The real world and God can be called by any names you can think of and
>>>more -- the words do not change the reality. What one person calls God
>>>may be the same thing that another calls Allah etc.
>>
>>But any reasonable comparison of what I call God and what a Muslim
>>calls Allah shows that the two things are radically different in their
>>basic natures, thereby disposing of a favorite example.
>
>Have you talked and mixed with muslims, or wiccans, or buddhists, etc?
Yes.
>I have found that what one understands as God is, after coming to an
>agreement on what each person means, is the same thing. That is what I
>would call a reasonable comparison and the basic nature is the same,
>exactly, absolutely.
Coming to that conclusion is evidence of an abysmal ignorance of the
actual theological beliefs of these respective religions. Of course,
such a conclusion is not unlikely if you depend on, say, average
Muslims for an expression of their beliefs. Asking them what Islam
teaches is comparable to asking the average Episcopalian or Catholic
(or my fellow Baptists) what Christianity teaches: they have no clue.
You have to research what the founders of each religion taught (and
how they put it into practice) to know what the religion is really
about. Anything less is not a reasonable comparison, but an
expression of unwillingness to discover the truth.
God cannot simultaneously be the personal being of Christianity and
the non-person of Hinduism/Buddhism. God cannot simultaneously be the
hateful enemy of all non-believers (as in Islam) and have an abiding
love for them whether they believein and accept Him or not (as in
Christianity). These religions have fundamentally irreconcilable
differences in their theologies, which will not disappear in the face
of your attempts to deny this reality.
>The path to or treatment of or worship of this supreme being may
>differ and some paths/methods may, indeed, be harmful in some way but
>dogmatic innertia will not change that. It may even encourage or, as
>in the original poster, inflame. Like two children disagreeing: 'tis',
>'tisn't', 'tis' ... the argument polarises.
What you call "dogmatic inertia" may also be resistance to
incompatible concepts being violently forced into the system. What
matters ultimately is not whether or not a given path or method is
beneficial, but whether it is based on truth.
><snip>
>>>>When you remove all the standard definitions from words, they cease to
>>>>be a bridge and become a wall.
>>>
>>>I do not want to remove standard definitions but show that there are
>>>many standard definitions. You seem to want to deny standard
>>>definitions that disagree with your paradigm.
>>
>>No, I disagree with changes of definitions in the attempt to show that
>>two fundamentally different things are the same thing.
>
>If you were 'listening' you would know that I am not advocating a
>change in definition just a willingness to appreciate how others
>understand the words that we sometimes take for granted.
If you were paying attention, you would understand that because the
words are not the things, you cannot make two different things into
the same thing by pouring on words.
>>>_I_ want to communicate, you, however...
>>
>>...am actually able to communicate, because you can find out what I
>>mean by looking in a standard dictionary. My vocabulary has not
>>become a feeble device for avoiding real communication.
>
>Your vocabulary seems to be dependant on one dictionary. What if you
>want to talk to someone who uses a different dictionary?
If their dictionary is compatible with reality (and hopefully with
Funk & Wagnall and/or Webster), we won't have a problem. The problem
is when people misuse the words to communicate absurdities.
See my other post today in this thread on the re-definition of
"tolerance" to see another example of what I'm taking about.
Sagacious Euphemism
wrote:
Actually, you shouldn't fall into their trap. Observe that they are
using the modern, false defintion of "tolerant", which means "does not
criticize anyone's belief (except those of the intolerant)".
Real, classical tolerance begins with the claim that "I am right and
you are wrong". It also implies the assumption that this is a matter
worth disputing. Real tolerance is a decision to avoid dehumanizing
the persons you disagree with, to avoid preventing them from sharing
and defending their viewpoint, and to focus your attacks exclusively
on the ideas rather than on the people. This notion is implicit in
the Christian worldview, in which people are inherently worthwhile and
dignified because they are loved by their Creator (regardless of
whether or not they accept Him). Hence, when Christians focus their
attacks on the persons they are attempting to evangelize (evangelism
by the sword has occured too often in our history), they have acted
contrary to the tenets of their faith.
Modern tolerance OTOH, is based on an egalitarianism of ideas rather
than of people, so it says that attacking a person's ideas is just as
morally evil as attacking the person (nevermind that typical users of
the tactic would avoid moral categories for most other behaviors). So
this modern version of tolerance is not tolerance at all, but a
requirement of blindness to reality. It is in fact a prime example of
the totalitarianism inherent in those who call themselves "liberal",
for they are requiring that everyone should think like them, or else
be dehumanized through their labels of "intolerant", "bigot",
"fascist", etc. I foresee a day when the forces of this "tolerance"
have enough political power in America that any Christians, Orthodox
Jews, and even secular intellectuals, who fail to keep quiet about
them are rounded up and sent to "reeducation camps". Until then we
will continue to see this intolerance in its milder form, where a
person who wishes to avoid having his beliefs held up to scrutiny can
scream "intolerance" and have people of like mind rally around and
drive off the Christian "oppressor".
Don't fall into the trap. Christians are generally quite tolerant,
just not by the faulty definitions the critics are employing.
Kate
"Sagacious Euphemism" <johny...@earthlink.don'tspamonme.net> wrote in
message news:3c4a4611...@news.earthlink.net...
*Good point* K~
>
Mark Hammond
>
> *Oh, I beg to differ. It's the rare Christian that will sit down and
> sincerely Talk to a pagan rather than turn their back and run because we're
> Evul!! *pfft* Seduced? Churches seduce.
You don't need to drown yourself in something that is just plain WRONG
to know it is wrong. Churches don't seduce, they just tell you the
truth about Christ. If you don't want to listen, that's going to be
your cross to bear in the end.
> > Intolerant? Absolutely. There is no good in tolerating sin and
> > accepting evil.
>
> *Um-hm.........ignoring evil {is there such a thing?} is Much better, isn't
> it? Then it doesn't exist! Simple. Hypocrite.
Wonderful. Cultural relativism triumphs at last among the masses.
Everything's the same, so everything's fine, so there is no good or
evil, is that it?
An excellent excuse to justify practicing things specifically
forbidden in the Bible. Makes you feel better now, I'm sure, but I
think you'll be regretting it in the end.
> But God has always been there, waiting for you, and Jesus
> > will be there to help you to rise up from your ignorance and your own
> > hate when you're ready for it.
>
> *Jesus preached love for all. Get out.
Jesus did indeed. But "love" isn't the same thing as "approve".
Funny how you seem so intent on driving out my opinions.
mh
Draccus
would all follow it better.news:2fcf014f.02012...@posting.google.com...
> "Kate" <tyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<a20o94$fud$0...@208.164.103.41>...
> > news:<GlJZ7.199736$RP1.38...@typhoon.kc.rr.com>...
> >
> > *Oh, I beg to differ. It's the rare Christian that will sit down and
> > sincerely Talk to a pagan rather than turn their back and run because
we're
> > Evul!! *pfft* Seduced? Churches seduce.
>
> You don't need to drown yourself in something that is just plain WRONG
> to know it is wrong. Churches don't seduce, they just tell you the
> truth about Christ. If you don't want to listen, that's going to be
> your cross to bear in the end.
>
Truth is a subjective matter my fine Sir. You have claims of Truth, but to
say that is absolute because the Bible says it is would be like a Witch
saying their Truth is absolutely valid because the Book of Shadows says it
is. Both are written by people with all that implies including prejudice and
bias.
> > > Intolerant? Absolutely. There is no good in tolerating sin and
> > > accepting evil.
> >
> > *Um-hm.........ignoring evil {is there such a thing?} is Much better,
isn't
> > it? Then it doesn't exist! Simple. Hypocrite.
>
> Wonderful. Cultural relativism triumphs at last among the masses.
> Everything's the same, so everything's fine, so there is no good or
> evil, is that it?
You are a bit simplistic, evil exists, but it is the actions of people not
some mythological being. Man is capable of great acts of inhumanity to man
all on their own they need no inspiration, though Many have used your Holy
Text to do just that. Mr. Phelps as an example.
> An excellent excuse to justify practicing things specifically
> forbidden in the Bible. Makes you feel better now, I'm sure, but I
> think you'll be regretting it in the end.
Again, Bible Man written, Man Biased.
> > But God has always been there, waiting for you, and Jesus
> > > will be there to help you to rise up from your ignorance and your own
> > > hate when you're ready for it.
> >
> > *Jesus preached love for all. Get out.
>
> Jesus did indeed. But "love" isn't the same thing as "approve".
> Funny how you seem so intent on driving out my opinions.
>
> mh
You should stay, but remember that opinion is not the same as fact or Truth.
Mark Hammond
>
> You should stay, but remember that opinion is not the same as fact or Truth.
Opinion is absolutely not the same thing as fact or truth. But that
statement is not the same thing as saying there IS no fact or truth,
which seems to be what you are arguing.
mh
N`osal Woodbender
Greetings Mark
> > *Oh, I beg to differ. It's the rare Christian that will sit down and
> > sincerely Talk to a pagan rather than turn their back and run because we're
> > Evul!! *pfft* Seduced? Churches seduce.
>
> You don't need to drown yourself in something that is just plain WRONG
> to know it is wrong. Churches don't seduce, they just tell you the
> truth about Christ. If you don't want to listen, that's going to be
> your cross to bear in the end.
They do not want to tell you the truth about Christ. What they want is your money,
and they use the easiest to understand tactic to get it. They try to scare you.
The bible was complied by man, for man. And it has been used to control, and generate
riches for the church since it was created. Your words, and I quote demonstrate
perfectly what I am talking about, "If you don't want to listen, that's going to be
your cross to bear in the end."
In other words, you are trying to use fear to take a commanding position. This is
what the churches of the bible do. Use fear. Fear and hatred has always been easier to
teach then love and respect.
>
>
> > > Intolerant? Absolutely. There is no good in tolerating sin and
> > > accepting evil.
> >
> > *Um-hm.........ignoring evil {is there such a thing?} is Much better, isn't
> > it? Then it doesn't exist! Simple. Hypocrite.
>
> Wonderful. Cultural relativism triumphs at last among the masses.
> Everything's the same, so everything's fine, so there is no good or
> evil, is that it?
Good and evil are all relative. If you are on the winning side of a war, then you
are good. If you are on the loosing side of a war, you are evil. And everything is not
the same, it is wrong to impose your will on someone. If they are causing you no harm,
you are attacking an innocent. Control in a case like this is the same as rape. I do
not think that Christ preached rape, at least not in all the times I read his
teachings. Though, I do not pick and choose what lines from what books I want to
either. You can justify anything from the Bible if you do that. And it is done every
day.
>
>
> An excellent excuse to justify practicing things specifically
> forbidden in the Bible. Makes you feel better now, I'm sure, but I
> think you'll be regretting it in the end.
Again, using the fear factor to try to take control. How typical. And forbidden in
which particular book of the bible, and what other lines are you leaving out. Wasn't
Jesus the fulfillment of the Law?
>
>
> > But God has always been there, waiting for you, and Jesus
> > > will be there to help you to rise up from your ignorance and your own
> > > hate when you're ready for it.
> >
> > *Jesus preached love for all. Get out.
>
> Jesus did indeed. But "love" isn't the same thing as "approve".
> Funny how you seem so intent on driving out my opinions.
So now you are at a level where you are capable of judging Christ's teachings.
That is interesting, are you also of virgin birth? And your opinions do not seem to
come from the bible, but from the opinions of others who cannot accept anything
outside of the narrow scope of what has been ingrained in their minds by a controlling
and hateful church.
It is arguments like these, and the control, and the hatred that made me not a
Christian. You need to read the new testament, and forget the old testament if you are
a true Christian. If you do not, you are a Jewish Christian, torn between the teaching
of the son, and the father. As far as my feelings on my God, we get along fine, and I
talk with him a lot. He does not teach me to hate, but to accept difference. For that
is the way of the universe. He and the Goddess also teach me to respect the earth, not
take control of her, and to work with the cycles of the earth.
You need to read some more actual history of the Catholic church, the church that
generated your precious New Testament. And study the Gods that were in vogue at the
time, and see how they adapted them to their own needs. It has always been a matter of
control and money. Not saving souls. Destroying a countries culture, just because they
have not found Jesus is rape, utterly foul. Read some books with the Truth about your
religion, then come back and reason. I do not fear your, "I
think you'll be regretting it in the end." Because I Know the truth about church
history. And if you can justify the deaths of millions in the name of Jesus, I don't
know what I can tell you, except you do not know what sin is.
Ya'at'eeh, Greg
http://home.attbi.com/~nosalwoodbender/
Betty
> "abc" <captmi...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Christians don't need a church anyway, just a book. I'll sincerely talk to
> you mr. pagan, I'm sincerely telling you that you are a retard, I mean c'mon
> a witch? If you're a so-called witch then turn me into a frog or something.
what came first. the prince or the frog?
remove this to mail me Gwenhyffar Milgi
wrote:
>Why would you oppose the ban on homosexuals? It's not proper for
>homosexual 'men' to be guiding the lives of young boys in ANY way.
The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 326
admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean God doesn't love
heterosexuals. He just thinks they need more supervision.
Nick Gordon
If you do a search around Usenet, you will find that the poster, Merle
Elaine Matthews, now posting as Doc, is one of the most vicious
Homophobic posters to be found.
Nick
BBH#6