Witches return to German forests.
martus
12 May 2005 08:02
Witches have returned to the German forests, dancing naked in groups
under the full moon and calling to their gods.
The covens vary in size and in how seriously they take their calling,
but the numbers are rising, particularly amongst the young.
Their religious ideas are described as "pagan" rather than Satanist,
and many of the older practitioners have a history in the environmental
movement, where they learnt a passionate love of nature.
In some cases this has led on to a belief in the natural powers of the
forests. The women are convinced they can work magic.
"The witches' scene is experiencing a powerful revival," says Lutheran
theologian Hansjoerg Hemminger. He says the covens range from "girlie
witches" to the so-called "Wicca" covens. Wicca is an old Anglo-Saxon
term for a group of witches.
Christian theologians are inclined to see the latter as a manifestation
of a new heathen movement. The women tend to be members of associations
like the Pagan Federation or the Stone Circle.
Maddalina, a 44-year-old witch, is high priestess of a witches' coven
in Berlin, who became interested in Wicca about 15 years ago.
The former doctor's assistant, who declines to provide her real name,
says she began looking around for women with similar interests.
"Today you are just a mouse-click away from making contact," she says,
and she estimates that the number of witches has quadrupled in her time
as a witch.
Conceding she is uncertain, she guesses there are several hundred
Wiccans in Germany.
Maddalina is scornful of the teenagers interested in the witch cults.
She gets e-mails daily from 13- and 14-year-olds, almost all of which
she rebuffs.
Her own coven numbers just eight and the youngest trainee witch is 25
years old.
Most of the teenagers interested in witchcraft gain their information
from the media, the internet or from books. Television series on
witchcraft are currently popular in Germany.
These sources offer love potions aimed at curing shyness, or magical
formulas spoken in the light of the moon to help with schoolwork.
Hemminger insists that these methods are never solutions to real
problems.
But Maddalina is true to her beliefs. "We are heathens and believe in
the power of magic," she says.
She and her coven go into the woods around Berlin several times a year
to stand naked in a circle and call to Baldur, the god of light.
Their requests are of a banal sort; wishes for a better job, a new flat
with a balcony, for good health.
By contrast with the teenage witches, the Wicca covens tend to be older
women with a background in the women's movement.
Most commentators do not believe the groups have any links to Satanism
and black magic. But Hemminger sounds a note of warning.
"Some of these circles operate in complete secrecy. We really don't
know what they are up to," he says.
In general he regards the Wicca covens as a means to overcome personal
crises that only cause concern once the cult begins to take over a
person's life.
Maddalina insists her coven's activities are harmless. "We are not
hurting anyone," she says.
And the Berlin forest authorities are taking a similar view, allowing
the witches to dance under the moon. - Sapa-DPA
______________________________________________________________________
They are not harmless because they are destroying themselves and those
that are influenced by them. Difference between satanist and witches
are most witches are clueless where their power comes from and most
don't care if they did know. Demons and fallen angels do their bidding
in the hope of corrupting them theough their sinful natures so that
they will end up in hell with them. Demons are nasty spiritual beings
but more deceptive are the fallen angels who pretend to be gods but are
only sugar coating the path to hell.
WITCHES AND THEIR LIKE
Cackle now, cry later in despair for their is no salvation in Hell.
THOSE WHO PRACTISE WITCHCRAFT ANGER GOD
2 Chronicles 33:5-7 (NRSV)
5 He built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the
house of the Lord . 6 He made his son pass through fire in the valley
of the son of Hinnom, practiced soothsaying and augury and sorcery, and
dealt with mediums and with wizards. He did much evil in the sight of
the Lord , provoking him to anger.
WILL NOT INHERIT THE KINGDOM OF GOD
Galatians 5:19
19Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, 20Idolatry, witchcraft,
hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
21Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revelling, and such like: of the
which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that
they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.
The King James Version, (Cambridge: Cambridge) 1769.
GET THEIR POWER FROM THE DEMONS
Acts 16:16
16 One day as we were going down to the place of prayer, we met a
demon-possessed slave girl. She was a fortune-teller who earned a lot
of money for her masters. 17 She followed along behind us shouting,
These
men are servants of the Most High God, and they have come to tell you
how
to be saved.18 This went on day after day until Paul got so
exasperated that
he turned and spoke to the demon within her. I command you in the name
of
Jesus Christ to come out of her, he said. And instantly it left her.19
Her masters
hopes of wealth were now shattered, so they grabbed Paul and Silas and
dragged them before the authorities at the marketplace
ARE THE DEVIL'S PERVERTING CHILDREN
Acts 13:6
8 But Elymas the sorcerer (for that is what his name means) opposed
them and tried to turn the proconsul from the faith. 9 Then Saul, who
was also called Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked straight at
Elymas and said, 10 ;You are a child of the devil and an enemy
of everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and
trickery. Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the Lord?
GOD OR THE DEVIL: NO MIDDLE GROUND, YOUR CHOICE!!
1 Corinthians 10:
20But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they
sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should
have fellowship with devils. 21Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord,
and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's
table, and of the table of devils. 22Do we provoke the Lord to
jealousy? are we stronger than he?
ULTIMATE FATE OF THOSE THAT PRACTICE
WITCHCRAFT/OCCULT-
LAKE OF FIRE
Revelation 21
8 But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the
sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all
liars-their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulphur. This is
the second death."
Matthew 25
41Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me,
ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his
angels:
End times:
http://mart1963.tripod.com/index.htm
Robibnikoff
"martus" <martt...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141788735....@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> Witches return to German forests
>
> 12 May 2005 08:02
>
> Witches have returned to the German forests, dancing naked in groups
> under the full moon and calling to their gods.
Good for them :)
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
JohnN
Malcolm
"Midjis" <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
>
> A witch's power comes from the witch. You prefer to imagine it comes
> from Satan because you believe in Satan. That is fine - you are entitled
> to your belief. But your belief is all it is, and you have no right to
> inflict it on others.
>
Aha. Here we have it.
The devil is "true for you", but don't try to claim that he is true for
anyone else.
This is the way that people drift into devil worship. The power "comes from
you but if you prefer you can visualise it as coming from the goddess, and
that will be true for you".
--
Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $6.90 paper, available www.lulu.com
Bonnie Bitch
deity Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab
parties, opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of
"Malcolm" <regn...@btinternet.com>
>
>
>
>"Midjis" <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
>>
>> A witch's power comes from the witch. You prefer to imagine it comes
>> from Satan because you believe in Satan. That is fine - you are entitled
>> to your belief. But your belief is all it is, and you have no right to
>> inflict it on others.
>>
>Aha. Here we have it.
>The devil is "true for you", but don't try to claim that he is true for
>anyone else.
Straight up true. You don't get to shove your bag of religious BS down
others' throats.
See, this is the way that you people drift into your death-cult devil
worship. The power "comes from the dead savior on a stick, but if you
prefer you can visualize it as coming from his invisible sperm donor
in the sky, and that will be true for everyone else because we demand
so."
bam
"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
news:7lnu02lo1305kom0s...@4ax.com...
You're a real gentleman there, Bonnie.
BAM
bam
"Midjis" <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
> There is no
> need for a Devil, and if you look closely, you can see the stitching
> where he was inserted into Christian doctrine to cover a few patchy
> holes.
Like in the beginning of the third chapter of the first book of the Bible? I
guess we should have gotten him in there a lot sooner. Damn!
BAM
martus
occult murky up the truth of God and God's Word in the bible. Any
wonder that there are so many people in the churches praising the soul
destroying books such as Harry Potter.
If you read their sites they will tell you of their encounter with
demons, children of the fallen angels. These fallen angels also appear
to them as gods and goddesses and rot them so bad as possible so that
they will end up in hell with them.
Do you think that your lives will be smother in hell when the satanic
kingdom has more control over your lives without the restraints place
by God on the devil in the here and now?
True, it is your choice, make a bad one and you will know what hell is
really like, you joke powerful beings who can not even stop yourselves
from dying and especially from being thrown into hell if you continue
buddying up with demons and fallen angels.
Any advantages you gain from this partnership now will stick in your
throats for all eternity.
_________________________________________________________________
Luke 16:19-31 (NIV)
The Rich Man and Lazarus
19 "There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and
lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named
Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the
rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to
Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell,a
where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with
Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have
pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and
cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25 "But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you
received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now
he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this,
between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want
to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to
us.'
27 "He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my
father's house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so
that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29 "Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them
listen to them.'
30 "'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the
dead goes to them, they will repent.'
31 "He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the
Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the
dead.'"
[1]
a Greek Hades
[1] The Holy Bible : New International Version. 1996, c1984. Zondervan:
Grand Rapids
The Watch Dog
If you're talking about the serpent who tempts Eve, Genesis clearly
calls him "the most cunning animal" - an animal, not a human, not an
angel, not a devil - and goes on to use the story to explain why snakes
don't have any legs (it is the punishment on all snakes to "crawl on
their bellies" for the crime of this one snake) - a "how come?" story
utterly unrelated to concepts of angels and devils.
Thousands of years after it was written, people decided to fit it into
their then-current theology by making the snake Lucifer. But there's no
support for this in the story itself. Either the story is highly
metaphorical - in which case it, and the Bible, are not meant to be
taken literally - or the serpent is an animal.
Bonnie Bitch
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net>
Awww, poor widdle diddums can dish it out, but he can't take it. LOL
bam
"The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1141894903....@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Gee. Watch Dog has spoken; the case is closed.
Or the serpent is an animal??? Using what - telepathy??
BAM
bam
"Midjis" <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Xns978185C2E824a...@213.123.26.234...
> explained the point perfectly. The Serpent featured in Genesis is not -
> or was not, at least - Satan. Satan does not appear until Job, when he
> is the obedient (if nasty) servant of God. This in itself implies that
> God is responsible for both the good and the evil that can befall
> humanity.
>
> Only towards New Testament times, when a God was required who was purely
> good, and all-loving and benevolent, and incapable of evil, was Satan
> raised to the position of 'Adversary'.
>
> In any case, the point remains that I do not believe in the Christian
> God, in Satan - the Job version or the NT version - or any mystical
> talking serpent or the Garden of Eden. It is a courtesy to those who do
> believe that I do not attempt to force them to change their views(*) -
> but tolerating a belief does not imply sharing it.
Hmmm. you've covered al the bases. You've taught me all about the god and
devil who you claim doesn't exist. And you are ..........who??? And your
credentials please?
Oh - and one other thing - what about the Cherubims who were appointed to
guard the gat of the Garden after Adam and Eve were thrown out? What were
they? Bullfrogs?
BAM
bam
"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
Repent oh homo.
BAM
The Watch Dog
bam wrote:
>
> Oh - and one other thing - what about the Cherubims who were appointed to
> guard the gat of the Garden after Adam and Eve were thrown out? What were
> they? Bullfrogs?
Nobody said that there are no angels present in Genesis. Only that is
says that the serpent is an animal. It doesn't say that the cherubim
are bullfrogs, so I wouldn't come to that conclusion.
The Watch Dog
Sarcasm is not refutaion, although it can be a lot of fun.
> Or the serpent is an animal??? Using what - telepathy??
>
Please ask the original creators of the Genesis story (which probably
goes back many centuries as oral history before it was written down).
They lived in a culture where tales of talking animals were
commonplace, but telepathy hadn't been imagined.
Genesis says that the serpent was an animal. The fact that it could
speak - though counterfactual to anything we currently know about the
natural world - doesn't indicate that it wasn't an animal, in the
context of the story.
bam
> bam wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. you've covered al the bases. You've taught me all about the god
>> and devil who you claim doesn't exist. And you are ..........who???
>> And your credentials please?
>
> mistake of imagining that I am trying to convince you of the truth of my
> position. It is no concern of mine what you choose to believe. That is
> the attitude that you mistake as my believing that 'everyone is right'.
> Everyone is not right - but everyone has the right to make the choice.
Agreed!
>
>
>> Oh - and one other thing - what about the Cherubims who were appointed
>> to guard the gat of the Garden after Adam and Eve were thrown out?
>> What were they? Bullfrogs?
>
> No. They were myths.
You've already overstepped your position. You mean you *believe* they were
myths.
BAM
bam
So there were angels, but no fallen angels?
BAM
bam
Blah blah blah.
BAM
Bonnie Bitch
Repent of what?
Remember, you 'catholic you -- being gay is not a sin, according to
your sick, fucked-up cult run by boy-raping priests and the bishops
who aid/abet those priests.
The Watch Dog
Not in the story. There are cherubim (angels, clearly not fallen), who
work for God, and there is the serpent, who, according to the story, is
an animal. No fallen angels are mentioned, and there are no characters
that fit the bill. They may have existed at the time of the story or
not; there's no way to tell, because they're just not in the story.
The existence of angels at a given time does not imply the existence of
fallen angels at the same time. For example, there were angels before
Lucifer's rebellion, but no fallen angels.
The whole concept of "fallen angels" is entirely foreign to the Old
Testament. The word "satan" ("ha-satan," translated as "adversary") is
used a few times to refer to angels who who work for God (as all angels
in the Old Testament do) putting an obstacle in the path of a
particular human being at a particular time, for God's purpose. There's
no indication that "satan" refers to a particular angel (it's more like
a job description), or that these angels "fell" from anywhere, or
operate independently of God's express wishes. Even in the story of
Job, where God and "satan" have an interesting (and entirely congenial)
chat and then set a wager, there's no mention of that character being a
fallen angel.
The image of the "fallen angel" comes from the New Testament, and has
been projected backwards to cover certain characters in the Old
Testament. But you can't find the concept of a fallen angel in the Old
Testament, and CERTAINLY not in Genesis, where the serpent's category
is expressly stated: it is an animal.
The Watch Dog
And sometimes sarcasm, in addition to not being a refutation, isn't
even fun.
Malcolm
> goes back many centuries as oral history before it was written down).
> They lived in a culture where tales of talking animals were
> commonplace, but telepathy hadn't been imagined.
>
The problem is that we don't know what the original author's attitude to the
story was. We don't know the final redactor's attitude either, except the he
obviously though it deserving of a place in a general religious history of
the Jewish people.
>
> Genesis says that the serpent was an animal. The fact that it could
> speak - though counterfactual to anything we currently know about the
> natural world - doesn't indicate that it wasn't an animal, in the
> context of the story.
>
be, as you say, that it was considered to be an animal. Or it may have been
a euphemism for the sexual organ. Or it may have been a magical formula -
the word "teth" in Hebrew, translated "serpent" is also the name of a
letter, and the letters of the Hebrew alphabet were held, and still are
believed by some people, to have special powers.
That's the problem with reading old books. Plenty of tantalising
information, but ultimately you have to admit that you just don't know.
The Watch Dog
Well, sure. People who don't think that the Bible is literally true can
have a lot of very interesting and edifying discussions about these
stories. But that's not who I was talking to....
I have met many people who say they believe the Bible is literally
true. But I've met few, if any, who actually do. Even most of the
Fundamentalists have passages that they cling to, and passages that
they explain away. The story of Genesis, which clearly says that the
serpent is "a cunning animal," and makes no reference to it being an
angel, a fallen angel, a devil, "satan" (a word in use at the time), or
Lucifer, is a passage they explain away - and then use the rest of
Genesis literally to "disprove" evolution and slam gays ("Adam and Eve,
not Adam and Steve")! It's difficult for me to understand how it is
that they don't see the contradiction (no matter how clearly it is
presented). But I try to understand anyway.
bam
"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
Your sins Bonnie - your sins.
BAM
bam
>
> bam wrote:
>> "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1141927724.3...@j52g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > bam wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Oh - and one other thing - what about the Cherubims who were appointed
>> >> to
>> >> guard the gat of the Garden after Adam and Eve were thrown out? What
>> >> were
>> >> they? Bullfrogs?
>> >
>> > Nobody said that there are no angels present in Genesis. Only that is
>> > says that the serpent is an animal. It doesn't say that the cherubim
>> > are bullfrogs, so I wouldn't come to that conclusion.
>>
>> So there were angels, but no fallen angels?
>>
>
> Not in the story. There are cherubim (angels, clearly not fallen), who
> work for God, and there is the serpent, who, according to the story, is
> an animal. No fallen angels are mentioned, and there are no characters
> that fit the bill. They may have existed at the time of the story or
> not; there's no way to tell, because they're just not in the story.
Well that's a concession of sorts.
> The existence of angels at a given time does not imply the existence of
> fallen angels at the same time. For example, there were angels before
> Lucifer's rebellion, but no fallen angels.
Correct. But this was long before the creation of man.
> The whole concept of "fallen angels" is entirely foreign to the Old
> Testament.
Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Satan, who didst rise in the
morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the nations?
Isa 14:13 And thou saidst in thy heart: I will ascend into heaven, I will
exalt my throne above the stars of God, I will sit in the mountain of the
covenant, in the sides of the north.
Isa 14:14 I will ascend above the height of the clouds, I will be like the
most High.
Isa 14:15 But yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, into the depth of the
pit.
Next?
BAM
Bonnie Bitch
Since, for the past 2000 YEARS, none of you christstains have been
able to define what "sin" allegedly is, you'll have to name those sins
of which you obliquely accuse moi.
In the meantime, bamela, let's discuss your bearing false witness on a
daily basis here on Usenet. LOL
The Watch Dog
Thank you for the perfect example of how later New Testament theology
is projected back onto the Old Testament, supported by mistranslations
and passages taken out of context. Here's a translation closer to the
Hebrew:
1For Jehovah will have compassion on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel,
and set them in their own land: and the sojourner shall join himself
with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. 2And the
peoples shall take them, and bring them to their place; and the house
of Israel shall possess them in the land of Jehovah for servants and
for handmaids: and they shall take them captive whose captives they
were; and they shall rule over their oppressors. 3And it shall come to
pass in the day that Jehovah shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and
from thy trouble, and from the hard service wherein thou wast made to
serve, 4that thou shalt take up this parable against the king of
Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city
ceased! 5Jehovah hath broken the staff of the wicked, the sceptre of
the rulers; 6that smote the peoples in wrath with a continual stroke,
that ruled the nations in anger, with a persecution that none
restrained. 7The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth
into singing. 8Yea, the fir-trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of
Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid low, no hewer is come up against
us. 9Sheol from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming;
it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth;
it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
10All they shall answer and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as
we? art thou become like unto us? 11Thy pomp is brought down to Sheol,
and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and worms
cover thee. 12How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the
morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the
nations! 13And thou saidst in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven, I
will exalt my throne above the stars of God; and I will sit upon the
mount of congregation, in the uttermost parts of the north; 14I will
ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will make myself like the
Most High. 15Yet thou shalt be brought down to Sheol, to the uttermost
parts of the pit.
Things to notice:
- It's written in the future tense. These are things that WILL happen,
not that HAVE happened.
- The words "satan" and "Lucifer" do not appear, although later
translations slipped them in. (It doesn't require much research to look
at a more direct translation from the Hebrew and see that this is
true.)
- The passage is specifically addressed to the "king of Babylon." At
the time, that was Nebuchadnezzar. He was oppressing the Hebrews.
The later prophets of the Old Testament, such as Isaiah, spent much of
their time talking about how Israel should get its act together, so God
will support them once more, and throw off the yokes of the (quite
mortal) kings who were oppressing them - in this case, Nebuchadnezzar,
king of Babylon, a specific historical personage. It's only later that,
to support the writings of the New Testament (and particularly
Revelations), the personage of satan/Lucifer was assigned to the king
of Babylon in Isaiah. Many Bibles from the 1600's (including the one
you were quoting from) include references to Satan or Lucifer here, but
they are NOT present in the original. That ought to tell you something,
although I am quite sure it won't.
Isaiah, taken in its entirety and properly translated, refutes your
completely out-of-context (and mistranslated) single verses.
Now, if you can find the word "satan" (a Hebrew word) in the original
Hebrew of your verses, that would tell us something different.
And none of this, of course, changes the fact that in Genesis, the
serpent is specifically called "a cunning animal" - not a cherub, not a
fallen angel, not satan (a word they had and could have used, if that's
what they meant), not Lucifer - and the story goes on to explain that
this is why snakes (not devils, not demons, but snakes) "crawl on their
bellies."
It's right there in the text. If you want to take it as meaning
something else - as a metaphor - just say so.
bam
"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
Man is created in God's image and likeness. You know what your sins are -
talk's cheap.
BAM
bam
> bam wrote:
>
>>> No. They were myths.
>>
>> You've already overstepped your position. You mean you *believe* they
>> were myths.
>
> you when you referred to them in the first place. I will abide by your
> standards:
>
> They were myths. That you believe differently is your business.
You've contradicted yourself. Pride's a bitch, ay?
BAM
bam
> bam wrote:
>
>> Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Satan, who didst rise in
>> the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound the
>> nations?
>
Nope - my typo. I don't want to go half way around the world to explain how
it happened though.
> The verse does not refer to the Devil, but to a king of Babylon brought
> low
> by his own pride. Assertions can be and are made contrary to this, but an
> examination of the verse in its full context clearly shows that the
> reference is not to Satan. Indeed, the Old Testament makes no reference
> whatsoever to the supposed fall of Satan and his angels.
It looks pretty obvious that it refers to Lucifer. If you've got something
to prove than prove it - don't just say "an examination of the verse in its
full context clearly shows that....".
Prove it.
BAM
bam
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're offering me your own translation, or an undocumented translation over
the Douay-Rheims?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BAM
JohnN
bam wrote:
> "Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
> > Remember, you 'catholic you -- being gay is not a sin, according to
> > your sick, fucked-up cult run by boy-raping priests and the bishops
> > who aid/abet those priests.
>
> Your sins Bonnie - your sins.
>
Bonnie, have you been eating meat on Fridays.
JohnN
The Watch Dog
bam wrote:
>
> It looks pretty obvious that it refers to Lucifer. If you've got something
> to prove than prove it - don't just say "an examination of the verse in its
> full context clearly shows that....".
>
> Prove it.
The original Hebrew for this verse does not contain the word "satan."
Look it up.
"It looks pretty obvious..." is no better than "an examination of the
verse in its full context clearly shows that...." It's "obvious"
because translations stick in words that aren't in the original. It's
"obvious" because that's what post-Old Testament theologians WANTED it
to say, and so they insistently taught it that way. But the verses
(which, in the original, use the word "man," but never the words
"angel" or "satan") are about the then-current king of Babylon
(specifically referenced in the verses).
The Watch Dog
bam wrote:
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You're offering me your own translation, or an undocumented translation over
> the Douay-Rheims?
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
And at this point sarcasm is replaced by mania.
It is not the least bit difficult to obtain a Bible which includes both
the Hebrew words and their direct translations. They exist in
abundance. If you look at them you will find that the Hebrew word
"satan" does not appear in Isaiah.
You can find two different kinds of articles on this subject. One kind
is, "This is why this verse MUST refer to Lucifer, thus proving that
the Old Testament perfectly paved the way for the New." The other kind
is, "Here is the original Hebrew; here is the first translation that
introduces the word satan; in this later translation we can see that
the word Lucifer is added." The first kind has its value as an
expression of the theological beliefs of the writer. The second kind is
based on research and historical facts.
Again, if you want to say, "These verses, in addition to being about
the king of Babylon, can also be seen as metaphors for Lucifer" or "are
a poetic reminder to us of Satan's fall," or some other non-literal
interpretation, more power to you! But if you want to insist that the
writer was actually talkng about Satan, the fallen angel, you will have
to deal with the fact that "satan" and "angel" don't appear in the
original, and "king of Babylon" does.
And Genesis says that the serpent was animal.
JohnN
of the Covenent.
JohnN
Malcolm
>
> Repent of what?
> Remember, you 'catholic you -- being gay is not a sin, according to
> your sick, fucked-up cult run by boy-raping priests and the bishops
> who aid/abet those priests.
>
engaged in any so-called "homosexual genital acts".
Bonnie Bitch
Then you should be very afraid, since your deity modeled me after
itself. LOL
>You know what your sins are -
Since, for the past 2000 YEARS, none of you christstains have been
able to define what "sin" allegedly is, you'll have to name those sins
of which you obliquely accuse moi.
In the meantime, bamela, let's discuss your bearing false witness on a
daily basis here on Usenet. LOL
Oh, and yermom's cheap.
Bonnie Bitch
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
<jnor...@hotmail.com>
Depends on what's in the fridge for me to make dinner with, why do you
ask? <g>
Bonnie Bitch
deity Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab
parties, opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of
"Malcolm" <regn...@btinternet.com>
>>
>> Repent of what?
>> Remember, you 'catholic you -- being gay is not a sin, according to
>> your sick, fucked-up cult run by boy-raping priests and the bishops
>> who aid/abet those priests.
>>
>Do you know of any men who identify themselves as homosexuals, but have not
>engaged in any so-called "homosexual genital acts".
Yup. I know several, just as I know several heterosexual men and women
who have never had sex, yet they still identify as heterosexuals, no
smarmy, sneering "so-called" about it.
It's called being a virgin.
Remember, Mallie -- the act does not define the orientation.
Malcolm
> Yup. I know several, just as I know several heterosexual men and
> women who have never had sex, yet they still identify as heterosexuals,
> no smarmy, sneering "so-called" about it.
> It's called being a virgin.
> Remember, Mallie -- the act does not define the orientation.
>
Bonnie Bitch
deity Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab
parties, opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of
"Malcolm" <regn...@btinternet.com>
>> Yup. I know several, just as I know several heterosexual men and
>> women who have never had sex, yet they still identify as heterosexuals,
>> no smarmy, sneering "so-called" about it.
>> It's called being a virgin.
>> Remember, Mallie -- the act does not define the orientation.
>>
>Why don't I believe you here?
Reality often offends ignorant christstains.
JohnN
As every Catholic schooled by nuns knows, eating meat on Fridays
was/is? the worstest sin ever. Tha's why the local Church of Christ
has apork BBQ sale this coming friday, March 31.
JohnN
bam
"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
More queer sophistry. It would be like saying, "Just because a guy commits
murder it doesn't make him a murderer. There are thousands of murderers
roaming the streets who haven't reached 'self-actualization' yet, never
killed anyone, but are murderers nonetheless."
Nonsense.
BAM
bam
"Midjis" <midwi...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
and since I want
> to avoid confusing you by implying that I believe they are "true for you",
> I state clearly that *they do not and did not exist*. You believe that
> they did. I believe you are wrong.
But you can't know that they do not and did not exist. You can only believe
that.
BAM
bam
> bam wrote:
>
>>>> Isa 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Satan, who didst rise
>>>> in the morning? how art thou fallen to the earth, that didst wound
>>>> the nations?
>>>
>>> An interesting misquote, which may or may not be due to dishonesty.
>>
>> Nope - my typo. I don't want to go half way around the world to
>> explain how it happened though.
>
> yourself. You "typo'd" a name that DID support your argument in place of
> one that did not. Rather too convenient to allow you to claim it was a
> mistake, I think.
(I knew he'd make me explain this)
OK. I looked up Lucifer in my ESword program. Isa 14:12 popped up. However,
this program has a quirk. The word you search, when copied, comes out in
white, rather than black type, and when you paste it, you can't see that
word - so you have to backspace over the word and re-type it. I re-typed
Satan, rather than Lucifer. Mental error.
You just couldn't take my word for it, could ya?
BAM
bam
>
> bam wrote:
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> You're offering me your own translation, or an undocumented translation
>> over
>> the Douay-Rheims?
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>
> And at this point sarcasm is replaced by mania.
>
> It is not the least bit difficult to obtain a Bible which includes both
> the Hebrew words and their direct translations. They exist in
> abundance. If you look at them you will find that the Hebrew word
> "satan" does not appear in Isaiah.
I don't read Hebrew - do you? And I don't accept any translations or
manuscripts that are not given the Church's imprimatur. Now if you want to
read a Jehovah's Witness translation - go ahead - but you can only argue
with them - not a Catholic.
BAM
bam
"JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1142015882.3...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Cherubims were little gold statutes taht sat on either end of the Ark
> of the Covenent.
>
> JohnN
You've never heard of the choirs of angels?
a.. Seraphim
b.. Cherubim
c.. Thrones
d.. Dominions
e.. Powers
f.. Virtues
g.. Principalities
h.. Archangels
i.. Angels
BAM
JohnN
do you?
JohnN
Bonnie Bitch
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net>
>
>"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
>news:jmu312l56m4rkrmoa...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:46:29 +0000 (UTC), the faaaaabulous supreme
>> deity Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab
>> parties, opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of
>> "Malcolm" <regn...@btinternet.com>
>>
>>>"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote
>>>>
>>>> Repent of what?
>>>> Remember, you 'catholic you -- being gay is not a sin, according to
>>>> your sick, fucked-up cult run by boy-raping priests and the bishops
>>>> who aid/abet those priests.
>>>>
>>>Do you know of any men who identify themselves as homosexuals, but have
>>>not
>>>engaged in any so-called "homosexual genital acts".
>>
>> Yup. I know several, just as I know several heterosexual men and women
>> who have never had sex, yet they still identify as heterosexuals, no
>> smarmy, sneering "so-called" about it.
>> It's called being a virgin.
>> Remember, Mallie -- the act does not define the orientation.
>
>More queer sophistry.
More christstain double-talk.
And no, it's a simple fact -- which unthinking dolts like you and
Mallie refuse to grasp.
Many homosexual men have had sex with women. That doesn't make them
straight anymore than it makes you straight.
>It would be like saying, "Just because a guy commits
>murder it doesn't make him a murderer. There are thousands of murderers
>roaming the streets who haven't reached 'self-actualization' yet, never
>killed anyone, but are murderers nonetheless."
Hold the phone there, Hoss -- not only did you just prove my point
(thank you), but aren't you one of the assloaves who pisses and moans
every time you're reminded that your cult defines the sinner by the
sin? Why yes, you are, making you a lying hypocritical christstain.
Now, you go that extra step and label as sinners anyone with the
propensity to sin as a sinner for the alleged sins they haven't even
committed yet!
I won't even bother with the difference between a consensual act and a
non-consensual (murder), nor will I remind you that equating a
person's capacity to love another person to murdering them is an
invalid comparison, at best. Those concepts would evade your limited
intellect just as you avoid sanity.
>Nonsense.
Sums up your big bag o' bullshit quite nicely, Bryan.
bam
"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
I don't have a clue what you're talking about. But go pat yourself on the
shoulder if you need the reinforcement.
BAM
bam
>
> You believe in the angels because you believe that the Bible is a history
> book.
>
> I do not believe that the Bible is historical fact, and therefore I do not
> believe there is any reason to assume these creatures ever existed.
>
> You have your beliefs, and I have mine. I believe yours are wrong, and
> you
> believe that mine are wrong.
So far so good - (where will the twist enter the equation?)
>What I do NOT believe is that the fact that
> we are both entitled to our beliefs means that we are both somehow
> simultaneously right.
Neither do I
>Your beliefs might be valid, but that does not make
> them right.
What makes them valid then?
>You ARE entitled to your beliefs, but I believe they are
> wrong. You believe mine are wrong, but you must decide whether you
> believe
> I am entitled to them. If you decide I am not, then we have a problem.
I don't have any disagreement that I'm aware of.
But you jumped the point. You said the angels do not exist. Angels are
invisible. They cannot be detected by the senses. I cannot say they do
exist, and you cannot say they don't exist, without both of us being
illogical, which is invalid. But if we both said we believed....then both
statements would hold up to logic.
BAM
bam
> bam wrote:
>
>> OK. I looked up Lucifer in my ESword program. Isa 14:12 popped up.
>> However, this program has a quirk. The word you search, when copied,
>> comes out in white, rather than black type, and when you paste it, you
>> can't see that word - so you have to backspace over the word and
>> re-type it. I re-typed Satan, rather than Lucifer. Mental error.
>>
>> You just couldn't take my word for it, could ya?
>
> intentionally dishonest so I must give you the benefit of the doubt.
As Lou Costello said in "Hold That Ghost", "I'm not that imaginitive."
BAM
bam
>I don't have a handy Bible reference describing this Choir of Angles,
> do you?
>
This is a Protestant response. Man, being totally corrupt, cannot be trusted
to relay information throughout the ages. Don't believe anything that's not
proven in scripture.
However, when it comes to the Bible, despite man's "total depravity", we
need not worry about corrupt translations or faulty interpretations. Why?
I'll never know.
I wonder what the Prods would have done in the first millenium, before
Bibles were easliy printed, distributed and before most people could read?
BAM
Bonnie Bitch
You never do.
"Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who
live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as
shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such
rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful
friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is
particularly apt to produce." -- Plato
Malcolm
>
>>>>> A witch's power comes from the witch. You prefer to imagine it
>>>>> comes from Satan because you believe in Satan. That is fine - you
>>>>> are entitled to your belief. But your belief is all it is, and you
>>>>> have no right to inflict it on others.
>
> that I was basically saying that everyone was entitled to be 'right'. I
> hope I have explained this well enough to show that that is not at all
> what I believe.
>
Exactly. And you have. You believe it is an objective truth that the devil
does not exist.
There is a basic disrespect there for Christians - effectively you are
saying that their beliefs don't matter, as long as they don't affect other
people. However the case is not as it first appears, that you don't beleive
in an objective reality.
Of course we don't have to believe that this characterisation of Wicca must
be taken at face value. If a group of teenagers who like heavy metal decide
to call themselves satanists, and abduct a local moggy to sacrifice, they
are not doing anything too serious. Their loyalty is to the group, and no
service that is fair may be done to the devil.
However if they get invoved in Wicca, they are told that the power is from
the witch, which merges into the witch worshipping herself. This is much
more dangerous, and then the way is open for the unsuccessful with to
visualise the power as coming from the goddess, and then we're on the
slippery slope.
Malcolm
"bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote
>
>> It is not the least bit difficult to obtain a Bible which includes both
>> the Hebrew words and their direct translations. They exist in
>> abundance. If you look at them you will find that the Hebrew word
>> "satan" does not appear in Isaiah.
>
> I don't read Hebrew - do you? And I don't accept any translations or
> manuscripts that are not given the Church's imprimatur. Now if you want to
> read a Jehovah's Witness translation - go ahead - but you can only argue
> with them - not a Catholic.
>
I can.
The word that is translated "Lucifer" or "Satan" is he-yod-lamedh-lamedh.
This is a word that you know.
It is "alleluia".
bam
"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
Plato? What do you mean? Plato's Retreat? The Plato I know never wrote that.
BAM
The Watch Dog
Malcolm wrote:
>
> However if they get invoved in Wicca, they are told that the power is from
> the witch, which merges into the witch worshipping herself.
To think that some power is an intrinsic part of oneself (regardless of
whether you think that the power ORIGINATED as a gift from supernatural
being, a circumstance of genetics, luck, whatever) is not the same as
WORSHIPPING yourself.
A mathematician might say that his mathematical talent is a part of
himself, and that he's not drawing on any outside force when he proves
a theorem. (He might also add:
- "And I thank God for this gift;" or
- "I inherited this talent from my grandfather, a famous
mathematician;" or
- "I have no idea why I'm good at it, I just am;" or
- "My wonderful teachrs are responsible for my ability in this area"
depending on his point of view. Or he might mix them together. But
still believe that, at the current time, the talent in within himself.)
But that doesn't mean he is worshipping himself.
A Wiccan who believes she has some power that some other people don't
have (whether she really has it or not; I'm skeptical about such
claims) may make similar claims, and still not be worshipping herself.
The whole line of argument that says, "If you don't worship God, then
you worship Satan," or, "If you don't recognize that all your gifts
come from God, then you're making yourself God" is just false. It's
based on a false assumption: that the concepts of "worship" or even
"God" are as central to EVERYONE'S lives as they are to fundamentalist
Christians (and certain other groups). Some people don't actually
worship anything, in the sense that many Christians worship Jesus; some
people don't feel a need to nominate anybody (Jesus, Satan, or
themselves) for the position of "all-powerful God from which all gifts
flow." It's just not the way they think about things.
JohnN
bam wrote:
> "JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142267950.4...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >I don't have a handy Bible reference describing this Choir of Angles,
> > do you?
> >
>
> This is a Protestant response. Man, being totally corrupt, cannot be trusted
> to relay information throughout the ages. Don't believe anything that's not
> proven in scripture.
So are all these angles in the Bible? How can I know the cherubs ae
angles?
> I wonder what the Prods would have done in the first millenium, before
> Bibles were easliy printed, distributed and before most people could read?
>
Perhaps they would not have gone on about angle, a subject they, and
you, know nothing about. Unless they were bullfrogs.
JohnN
JohnN
bam wrote:
> "JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1142267950.4...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> >I don't have a handy Bible reference describing this Choir of Angles,
> > do you?
> >
>
> This is a Protestant response. Man, being totally corrupt, cannot be trusted
> to relay information throughout the ages. Don't believe anything that's not
> proven in scripture.
So are all these angles in the Bible? How can I know the cherubs ae
angles?
> I wonder what the Prods would have done in the first millenium, before
> Bibles were easliy printed, distributed and before most people could read?
>
Perhaps they would not have gone on about angels, a subject you and
they know nothing about. Unless they were bullfrogs.
JohnN
Bonnie Bitch
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "bam"
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net>
>
>"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
>>>I don't have a clue
>>
>> You never do.
>>
>> "Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who
>> live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as
>> shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such
>> rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful
>> friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is
>> particularly apt to produce." -- Plato
>
>Plato?
Yup. Plato, Greek philosopher (c.427–c.347 BC).
And I know exactly where that quote came from.
Would you like to know, you "plato scholar' you?
Then all you have to do is the following three things:
1. Apologize sincerely for every time you've referred to any gay
person as queer, faggot, cocksucker, ass bandit, or any other
homophobic slur. (The apology will also include that such epithets put
you squarely out of communion with your beloved Catholic cult for
violating the CCC, paragraph 2358). Report of the confession of this
sin and your penance for such is optional, of course, but would go to
your credibility.
2. Go for one month without making any anti-gay and/or homophobic
slurs on Usenet, for any reason.
3. Ask politely for the source.
If you can meet these conditions, then I will happily and politely
tell you exactly where the above quote from Plato can be found.
If not, then you can stew in your own juices about it, and I shall
leave you in your game alone, to play with yourself.
>What do you mean?
It's not my meaning. It was Plato's, when he wrote:
"Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who
live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as
shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such
rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful
friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is
particularly apt to produce." -- Plato
>Plato's Retreat? The Plato I know never wrote that.
You never knew the Plato to whom I am referring. (re-read above)
Sorry that your affair with a contemporary Greek man named Plato hit
the skids, though.
The Watch Dog
bam wrote:
>
> Plato? What do you mean? Plato's Retreat? The Plato I know never wrote that.
The Plato you know seems to be roughly equivalent to the Bible you
know. Which is to say, you refuse to suspend judgement and do a little
research for yourself (no matter how easy it would be), instead relying
on received views from dogmatists and making fun of anybody who has a
different idea or interpretation from (or a more complete set of facts
than) yourself.
bam
OK Watchdog - if you're supporting beebee on that Plato quote - maybe you
can give me chapter and verse. ? Have fun.
BAM
bam
"Malcolm" <regn...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:dv7jet$a9g$4...@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
>
>
>
> "bam" <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote
>>
>>> It is not the least bit difficult to obtain a Bible which includes both
>>> the Hebrew words and their direct translations. They exist in
>>> abundance. If you look at them you will find that the Hebrew word
>>> "satan" does not appear in Isaiah.
>>
>> I don't read Hebrew - do you? And I don't accept any translations or
>> manuscripts that are not given the Church's imprimatur. Now if you want
>> to read a Jehovah's Witness translation - go ahead - but you can only
>> argue with them - not a Catholic.
>>
> I can.
> The word that is translated "Lucifer" or "Satan" is he-yod-lamedh-lamedh.
> This is a word that you know.
> It is "alleluia".
I have a better explanation that's supported by scripture. Satan is Satan,
Lucifer is Lucifer and alleluia is alleluia.
BAM
bam
>
> bam wrote:
>> "JohnN" <jnor...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142267950.4...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
>> >I don't have a handy Bible reference describing this Choir of Angles,
>> > do you?
>> >
>>
>> This is a Protestant response. Man, being totally corrupt, cannot be
>> trusted
>> to relay information throughout the ages. Don't believe anything that's
>> not
>> proven in scripture.
>
> So are all these angles in the Bible? How can I know the cherubs ae
> angles?
They're not angles, they're angels.
And the answer to your question is that you cannot know. Nor can you know
that the Bible is true.
>
>> I wonder what the Prods would have done in the first millenium, before
>> Bibles were easliy printed, distributed and before most people could
>> read?
>>
>
> Perhaps they would not have gone on about angle, a subject they, and
> you, know nothing about. Unless they were bullfrogs.
On the other hand, they didn't get all their information from books. Barnes
& Noble came a little later. Much was passed down orally.
BAM
The Watch Dog
Searching on ""Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians"" in
Google, the first hit I get is from an on-line quotation finder,
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/homosexuality-is-regarded-as-shameful-by/348596.html.
Looking around a little, I see it's from Plato's Symposium. They are
many different translations, of course. You can find the whole
Symposium here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html, and if
you search the page for "barbarians," you can find the passages
tranaslated somewhat differently. He talks at length about "love of the
masculine" and "love of youths" (which means male youths, but he
distinguishes that from "boys," who apparently were too young).
The homosexuality that Plato talks about here is rather specific,
dealing with the usual Greek practice of the love of an older,
established man for a younger man just entering society. This is not a
model I'd suggest for today, but please note that these young men were
as old as young women of marriageable age, so we're not talking about
underage children (by Greek standards).
Until just a few decades ago, it was customary for professors teaching
the classics to "omit the references to the vile practice of the
Greeks" (to paraphrase a movie I saw), that is, to skip over the gay
stuff. But it's all in there.
They didn't skip over the war stuff, of course, because war's okay.
But surely anybody who can use a computer can do a Google search
themselves.
You can also find books that have the Old Testament in Hebrew; and
under each line a word-for-word translation; and under that a more
comprehnsible English translation. Try a Bible store. Then tell us if
the word "satan" or "Lucifer" appears in Isaiah. I've looked something
up for you, as requested; could you please look that up for me?
Bonnie Bitch
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
Dog" <tir...@aol.com>
>
>bam wrote:
>> "The Watch Dog" <tir...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> news:1142399614....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > bam wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Plato? What do you mean? Plato's Retreat? The Plato I know never wrote
>> >> that.
>> >
>> > The Plato you know seems to be roughly equivalent to the Bible you
>> > know. Which is to say, you refuse to suspend judgement and do a little
>> > research for yourself (no matter how easy it would be), instead relying
>> > on received views from dogmatists and making fun of anybody who has a
>> > different idea or interpretation from (or a more complete set of facts
>> > than) yourself.
>>
>> OK Watchdog - if you're supporting beebee on that Plato quote - maybe you
>> can give me chapter and verse. ? Have fun.
>
>Searching on ""Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians"" in
>Google, the first hit I get is from an on-line quotation finder,
>http://en.thinkexist.com/quotation/homosexuality-is-regarded-as-shameful-by/348596.html.
>Looking around a little, I see it's from Plato's Symposium. They are
>many different translations, of course. You can find the whole
>Symposium here: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/symposium.html, and if
>you search the page for "barbarians," you can find the passages
>tranaslated somewhat differently. He talks at length about "love of the
>masculine" and "love of youths" (which means male youths, but he
>distinguishes that from "boys," who apparently were too young).
Yo, WD -- you weren't supposed to tell him. Now what ever shall I do
for my fun? <g>
>The homosexuality that Plato talks about here is rather specific,
>dealing with the usual Greek practice of the love of an older,
>established man for a younger man just entering society. This is not a
>model I'd suggest for today, but please note that these young men were
>as old as young women of marriageable age, so we're not talking about
>underage children (by Greek standards).
>Until just a few decades ago, it was customary for professors teaching
>the classics to "omit the references to the vile practice of the
>Greeks" (to paraphrase a movie I saw),
I saw that movie too, and I just have to say that even for a "Limey
flick," as my cousin calls them, this one was especially
sloooooooooow.
>that is, to skip over the gay
>stuff. But it's all in there.
>They didn't skip over the war stuff, of course, because war's okay.
>But surely anybody who can use a computer can do a Google search
>themselves.
bamela refuses to acknowledge anything that contradicts his a priori
assumptions.
>You can also find books that have the Old Testament in Hebrew; and
>under each line a word-for-word translation; and under that a more
>comprehnsible English translation. Try a Bible store. Then tell us if
>the word "satan" or "Lucifer" appears in Isaiah. I've looked something
>up for you, as requested; could you please look that up for me?
bamela won't. But thanks for the heads-up about the OT Hebrew with
translations. <g>
bam
Why would I want to look at Hebrew Old Testament? I am going to rely on the
rejecters of Christ to translate scripture accurately? You have got to be
kidding.
Secondly - you were not able to substantiate beebee's quote.
BAM
bam
"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
All I see is a lot of blabbering and no facts.
BAM
The Watch Dog
bam wrote:
>
> Why would I want to look at Hebrew Old Testament? I am going to rely on the
> rejecters of Christ to translate scripture accurately? You have got to be
> kidding.
>
Ummm... because they're the ones wo wrote it?
(I will refrain from adding "you anti-Semitic jackass!", because,
really, I don't know you. But to mistrust the writings and scholarship
of Jews simply because they do not share your relgion is extreme.)
The Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew. Even your spiritual
leaders will gladly tell you that. Much later, it was translated into
Greek, Latin, English, and so on - but we still have copies in the
original Hebrew. If you're not interested in what the original says,
and you're not interested in the various ways in which it was
translated over the years (when, by whom, under whose command, etc.),
then YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE BIBLE. You are settling instead for
a convenient fantasy of what it says, based on willful ignorance.
> Secondly - you were not able to substantiate beebee's quote.
>
Please tell me what would count as substantiation for you.
Although, really, you can walk into any decent library or bookstore and
get an unexpurgated translation of Plato's Symposium, and read it
yourself.
Willful ignorance is an insult to God, who gave you a brain. Your
religion does not require it.
Bonnie Bitch
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "bam"
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net>
Oh, but he did, lying christstain.
I guess reading is too much to ask from you, you 'Plato scholar,' you.
"Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who
live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as
shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such
rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful
friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is
particularly apt to produce." -- Plato, from "Symposium"
If you want to know where exactly in Symposium, Bryan, then you know
what you have to do -- if you're man enough.
Bonnie Bitch
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net>
Then you should stop re-reading your own posts while you shine your
shark.
bam
>
> bam wrote:
>>
>> Why would I want to look at Hebrew Old Testament? I am going to rely on
>> the
>> rejecters of Christ to translate scripture accurately? You have got to be
>> kidding.
>>
>
> Ummm... because they're the ones wo wrote it?
>
> (I will refrain from adding "you anti-Semitic jackass!", because,
> really, I don't know you. But to mistrust the writings and scholarship
> of Jews simply because they do not share your relgion is extreme.)
First of all anti-semitism is a racial thing. I have a theological problem
with the Jews, not a racial problem.
Secondly, my position is not extreme. I mistrust any translation not
approved by the Church. This isn't some novel idea of my own:
EXCERPT FROM THE INTRODUCTION TO THE DOUAY-RHEIMS ENGLISH TRANSLATION
"But here another question may be proposed: Why we translate the Latin text,
rather than the Hebrew or Greek, which Protestants prefer, as the fountain
tongues, wherein Holy Scriptures were first written? To this we answer, that
if indeed, those first pure editions were now extant, or if such as be
extant were more pure than the Latin, we would also prefer such fountains,
before the rivers, in whatsoever they should be found to disagree. But the
ancient and best learned Fathers and Doctors of the Church, do much
complain,
and testify to us, that both the Hebrew and Greek editions, are foully
corrupted by Jews and Heretics, since the Latin was truly translated out of
them, whiles they were more pure; and that the same Latin hath been far
better conserved from corruptions. So that the Old Vulgate Latin Edition
hath been preferred and used for most authentical above a thousand and three
hundred years..... "
From the English College in Douay, the Octave of All Saints, 1609
BAM
bam
"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
Bite me.
If you had the facts you'd present them.
BAM
The Watch Dog
bam wrote:
>
> First of all anti-semitism is a racial thing. I have a theological problem
And yet you're happy to quote a document that says:
> But the
> ancient and best learned Fathers and Doctors of the Church, do much
> complain,
> and testify to us, that both the Hebrew and Greek editions, are foully
> corrupted by Jews and Heretics
You really believe that the Jews are in the business of foully
corrupting their own holy texts just to make you look bad?
Do yourself a favor and talk to a CURRENT "Father and Doctor of the
Church." Say, whoever your current bishop is. Ask him if the current
belief of Church Biblical scholars is that that the Jews (like
"Heretics," of course) foully corrupted the Old Testament. This
attitude is simply a remnant of the long history of anti-Semtiism among
some members of the Church, which Pope John Paul II both acknowledged
and apologized for.
The Catholic Church will allow you to live in the 21st Century, if you
want. Find out what's been learned in the last 50 years.
By the way, was it the Jews or the heretics who foully corrupted Plato
on the subject of men loving men?
Bonnie Bitch
Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "bam"
<mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net>
>
>"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
>news:ha7h12pbc848pij3b...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:42:34 -0500, the faaaaabulous supreme deity
>> Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli, Ruler of the heavens and host of fab parties,
>> opened the heavens and shone his light upon the wisdom of "bam"
>> <mcca...@bellsouthblahblah.net>
>>
>>>you were not able to substantiate beebee's quote.
>>
>> Oh, but he did, lying christstain.
>> I guess reading is too much to ask from you, you 'Plato scholar,' you.
>>
>> "Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who
>> live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as
>> shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such
>> rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful
>> friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is
>> particularly apt to produce." -- Plato, from "Symposium"
>>
>> If you want to know where exactly in Symposium, Bryan, then you know
>> what you have to do -- if you're man enough.
>
>Bite me.
Not even if you go to your vet and get your shots first.
bam
>
> bam wrote:
>>
>> First of all anti-semitism is a racial thing. I have a theological
>> problem
>> with the Jews, not a racial problem....
>
> And yet you're happy to quote a document that says:
>
>> But the
>> ancient and best learned Fathers and Doctors of the Church, do much
>> complain,
>> and testify to us, that both the Hebrew and Greek editions, are foully
>> corrupted by Jews and Heretics
>
> You really believe that the Jews are in the business of foully
> corrupting their own holy texts just to make you look bad?
You betcha.
> Do yourself a favor and talk to a CURRENT "Father and Doctor of the
> Church." Say, whoever your current bishop is. Ask him if the current
> belief of Church Biblical scholars is that that the Jews (like
> "Heretics," of course) foully corrupted the Old Testament. This
> attitude is simply a remnant of the long history of anti-Semtiism among
> some members of the Church, which Pope John Paul II both acknowledged
> and apologized for.
There is no Anti-semitism in the Church - never was. Anti semitism is a
racial thing. When the Jews were kicked out of Spain they had the option of
converting and staying. That is not anti-Semitism. So get a new term. It
never existed.
> The Catholic Church will allow you to live in the 21st Century, if you
> want. Find out what's been learned in the last 50 years.
>
> By the way, was it the Jews or the heretics who foully corrupted Plato
> on the subject of men loving men?
I don't know - you provided the quote and it's false. When I give a quote, I
supply chapter and verse. Put this in your pipe and smoke it:
".....the crime of male with male, or female with female, is an outrage on
nature..."
Ah, my friends, how difficult it seems to ensure that the working of an
institution shall be as unquestionable as its theory! Presumably it is with
states as it is with human bodies - one cannot prescribe one definite
treatment for one subject which involves no physically injurious
consequences along with its beneficial effects. For example, these physical
exercises and common meals you speak of, though in many ways beneficial to a
city, provide dangerous openings for faction, as is shown by the cases of
the Milesians, Boeotians, and Thurians. And, in particular, this practice
is generally held to have corrupted the ancient and natural rule in the
matter of sexual indulgence common to mankind with animals at large, and the
blame for these corruptions may be charged, in the first instance, on your
two cities and such others as are most devoted to physical exercises.
Whether these matters are to be regarded as sport, or as earnest, we must
not forget that this pleasure is held to have been granted by nature to male
and female when conjoined for the work of procreation; the crime of male
with male, or female with female, is an outrage on nature and a capital
surrender to lust of pleasure. And you know it is our universal accusation
against the Cretans that they were the inventors of the tale of Ganymede;
they were convinced, we say, that their legislation came from Zeus, so they
went on to tell this story against him that they might, if you please, plead
his example for their indulgence in this pleasure too. With the tale we
have no further concern, but the pleasures and pains of communities and of
private lives are as good as the whole subject of a study of jurisprudence.
(Laws I 636a-d)
BAM
bam
"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
You live in a small circle, beebee.
BAM
The Watch Dog
bam wrote:
>
> There is no Anti-semitism in the Church - never was. Anti semitism is a
> racial thing. When the Jews were kicked out of Spain they had the option of
> converting and staying. That is not anti-Semitism. So get a new term. It
> never existed.
You'll have to argue with the writings of Pope John Paul II, then.
That's up to you.
Your seeming comfort with your religious organization saying "convert
or we will kick you out of your homes" (or, in other places, "convert
or we'll kill you") tells us all everything we need to know about you,
though.
Your defintion of anti-Semitism is non-standard. Judaism has ethnic,
cultural, and religious aspects. It's one thing to disagree
theologically with the religious aspects; but to accuse the Jews
(without proof) of "foully mistranslating" their own holy books, and
embracing a practice of forcing them to convert or lose their homes and
property (and in some cases their lives) - that's anti-Semitism.
Bonnie Bitch
You misspelled "wide and wondrous world, filled with friends, mirth,
laughter, and the volume where this exact quote came from:"
"Homosexuality is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who
live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as
shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such
rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful
friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is
particularly apt to produce." -- Plato
If you want to know where exactly in Symposium, Bryan, then you know
bam
>
> bam wrote:
>>
>> There is no Anti-semitism in the Church - never was. Anti semitism is a
>> racial thing. When the Jews were kicked out of Spain they had the option
>> of
>> converting and staying. That is not anti-Semitism. So get a new term. It
>> never existed.
>
> You'll have to argue with the writings of Pope John Paul II, then.
> That's up to you.
Read Nostra Aetate - Vatican II document.
> Your seeming comfort with your religious organization saying "convert
> or we will kick you out of your homes" (or, in other places, "convert
> or we'll kill you") tells us all everything we need to know about you,
> though.
You mean everything you want to know.
The Spanish didn't kick the Jews out for no good reason.
Why must the Catholics atone for their sins in the court of public opinion,
but not the Jews? Are you aware of Jewish involvement in the slave trade?
Are you aware of what their great rabbis said about Blacks in the Talmud?
Has this been categorically repudiated by modern day Jews? Have they
apologized to the black race for claiming in their sacred writings that the
black man will be a slave forever?
> Your defintion of anti-Semitism is non-standard.
There is no standard. the Jews refuse to define the term. It's a name they
use, but it's not in their dictionary.
Judaism has ethnic,
> cultural, and religious aspects. It's one thing to disagree
> theologically with the religious aspects; but to accuse the Jews
> (without proof) of "foully mistranslating" their own holy books, and
> embracing a practice of forcing them to convert or lose their homes and
> property (and in some cases their lives) - that's anti-Semitism.
So what you want to do is call anyone who disagrees with a Jew an anti
Semite. Then you'll have to define what an anti-semite is. But first you
must define a semite.
BAM
bam
"Bonnie Bitch" <bon...@fifismaxi.pad> wrote in message
I wonder where LC's been?
You wouldn't know......woudja??
BAM
The Watch Dog
bam wrote:
>
> Why must the Catholics atone for their sins in the court of public opinion,
> but not the Jews? Are you aware of Jewish involvement in the slave trade?
> Are you aware of what their great rabbis said about Blacks in the Talmud?
> Has this been categorically repudiated by modern day Jews? Have they
> apologized to the black race for claiming in their sacred writings that the
> black man will be a slave forever?
>
Did I ever say that the Jews were perfect, that they never did anything
wrong, or that they SHOULDN'T apologize for their for their errors?
You're making that uo.
No, what I said is that the idea that the Jews are "like heretics" and
"foully corrupted" their own holy books - presumably just to make
trouble for good Catholics - is an insulting, unsubstantiated
accusation (probably one that even the Church no longer supports), and
part of a long history of anti-Semitisim among certain people within
the Church (I was careful not the say the Church itself), a history
that even the Church recognizes today.
Then you went all defensive and martyr-like to compalin the only the
Church ever needs to apologize and never those Jews, who did so many
nasty things, and here's a litany of them.... which, among other
things, is a distraction from the question we were actually
considering.
("Yeah, yeah, our prophet Isaiah actually mentioned satan as falling
from the heavens, but these upstart Christians are making some sort of
use of that story that we don't like, so why don't we change it by
removing the word 'satan'? Yeah, that'll get 'em!"
When exactly, do you think this happened? When was the Old Testament
translated - "properly" - into Latin, and when after that did the Jews
make their changes? Do we have copies of the Old Testament from before
that time? If you're going to put forth the story you have, these are
the questions you need to answer. But you can't be bothered.)
But then, you seem to support the Inquisition. If you start with the
assumption that the Church can do no wrong - which not even the Pope
believes - you can come to all sort of awful conclusions.
>
> So what you want to do is call anyone who disagrees with a Jew an anti
> Semite. Then you'll have to define what an anti-semite is. But first you
> must define a semite.
I do NOT call anybody who disagrees with a Jew an anti-Semite. You're
making that up too. (At some point this shades over into "lying.")
I've disagreed with quite a few Jews in my day myself. I do call
anybody who thinks Jews are "like heretics" and "foully mistranslated"
their own holy books, and approves of how the Inquisition treated them,
an anti-Semite.
And despite the ORIGINS of the word, most English speakers understand
that "anti-Semite" means "someone who bears prjeudice or bigotry
against Jews." Etymology does not always determine definition. For
example, "atom" was chosen as a word because it meant "indivisible."
However, even though we can split them now, we still call them atoms.
Anti-Semitism, in a context such as this, means bigotry against Jews.
Accusing them of "foully mistranslating" the Old Testament, without
evidence, just to support your own intepretation of the Bible after
it's been trasnlated another two times (to Latin, then to English)
counts as anti-Semitism. As does your whole tone of, "You can't trust
them Jews, look at the horrible things they've done," without placing
any of your statements into historical or cultural context. (You think
Jews are the only ones who said anything bad about blacks in the Middle
ages?)
Bonnie Bitch
Check your rectum, taking care not to knick your head.
>You wouldn't know......woudja??
More so than you, of course.