WHY DO YOU HATE US?
The DataRat
"I was told countless times over and over again
that I am evil, by people who do not know me."
Don't have to know you personally to know that
you are a witch, witchcraft is evil, and -ergo- you
are evil.
"There shall not be found among you anyone
...who practices witchcraft..." ( Deuteronomy
18:10-11 NASB ).
You may not believe in the Bible -but, we do !
"I am not a follower of any devil, nor do I believe in
such a being."
The Reformed Rodent is a peace officer in Arizona.
Every day he arrests people who don't believe in
crime, yet who commit criminal acts. They are
criminals regardless of their belief.
Practicing witchcraft is rebellion against God
because it disobeys His commandment ( cited
above ). Doesn't much matter if you were inspired
to do so by a devil, or by your own sin nature. The
penalty is the same either way.
"I have committed no crime other than to believe
differently than you do."
Nice post-modern rationalization. But: You have
violated God's law.
"For this I am condemned in your eyes."
Yup.
Our feelings are of little account, though. Your
larger problem is that you are also condemned in
God's eyes. Most of what you call our
"condemnation" is actually a warning about THAT.
"Why is it that when it is discovered that a Witch
is raising his/her children in his/her own religion,
it is considered child endangerment by the U.S.
Government?"
You kidding ? Under the Clinton / Reno
administration ? ! !
You've been reading too much of your own
propaganda.
"Why is it that each year, tales reach me about how
some pagan was assaulted in the name of your Lord?"
Exactly THAT: "tales" !
Ofc. Rat has been a patrol officer in a metropolitan
area of two million people for over ten years. He
knows of no such case, and he has never heard of
one from a reliable source.
He is sure it has happened -sometime, somewhere.
It is so uncommon as to be rare, however.
The ~real~ crime problem is all the violent offenses
resulting from the change in morals ( i.e., rejection
of Biblical values ) engendered by the acceptance of
atheist / pagan/ New Age philosophy. Felony crimes
in the U.S. have increased over 500% since the
mid-1960s ...when YOUR beliefs came into vogue !
"Why is it that each time we try to tell you what we
believe, we are accused of lying because it disagrees
with what you want to think we believe?"
Your religion is based on lies, that's why.
We're NOT post-modernists. Our biggest goal ~isn't~
getting along with everyone. Truth is more important.
"Why is it that if one goes to a Christian church,
one is a Christian..."
Churches are filled with non-Christians. Many of them
are pagans. Church attendance does NOT make one
a Christian.
"Why is it that in spite of all the times we try to tell you
what we really are, you refuse to listen?"
Living in Post-Christian America, we know all too well
about paganism. We see the effects of it when we're
afraid to let our wives go to a convenience store after
dark.
No, witches aren't out lurking to assault people.
Instead- you promote a philosophy that has resulted
in rampant violent crime.
"Why do you constantly try to tell us we believe in
your Devil? We believe in nothing about your religion."
So you think.
"Do you hate us that much?"
We hate your paganism because God hates it.
You, personally, we try to warn because we love
you. But pagans can't distinguish between hate and
warning, or between love and acceptance.
The DataRat
JRM
OUR GOD REIGNS
Joseph
> "I was told countless times over and over again that I am evil, by
> people who do not know me."
>
> Don't have to know you personally to know that you are a witch,
> witchcraft is evil, and -ergo- you are evil.
>
> "There shall not be found among you anyone... who practices
> witchcraft..." ( Deuteronomy 18:10-11 NASB ).
>
> You may not believe in the Bible -but, we do !
Obviously you don't, for you do not live up to the following passages:
"There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and
destroy -- who are you to judge your neighbor?"
-- James 4:12:
And even more importantly, in this case:
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you
not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside."
-- 1 Cor.5:12-13
Since Harvest Dancer is clearly "outside the church", you have no right,
scripturally speaking, to judge.
The passage you quote is from Deuteronomy, and I'm curious how much of
that book's instructions you actually follow.
Do you eat pepperoni pizza or cheesburgers? How about shrimp cocktail? Are
you wearing your skullcap and prayer shawl right now? Do you ever cut your
beard? Does your wife go about with her head uncovered?
If your brother died childless, would you be refuse to fuck his widow,
your sister-in-law, until she became pregnant and then raise the child as
your own? No? Hey, Jehovah KILLED Onan for that one!
If the answer to any of the above is yes, you have violated the laws of
Deuteronomy. I would stock up on goats, because Jehovah is going to want a
sacrifice or two.
Of course, your own ministers are likely to tell you that all of that
stuff was intended to be instructions from God to the Israelites. That's
why it says specifically, "There shall not be found among you anyone
...who practices witchcraft..." The key words here are AMONG YOU. Harvest
Dancer is NOT one of your tribe. As if any of the laws of Deuteronomy
apply to anyone alive today, other than Hassidic Jews.
But in case you missed it, here it is again -- aimed SPECIFICALLY at
CHRISTIANS:
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you
not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside."
-- 1 Cor.5:12-13
So in other words: shut the fuck up, you whining bigoted pig. YOUR OWN GOD
COMMANDS IT!
Harvest Dancer, you may if you wish ignore this idiot and his bleating.
Consider the source. But I think you overstated your case -- in that you
tried to imply rampant violence against pagans by Xtians that really
doesn't happen much (they save that for the gays).
Better to point out that, in the cavalcade of henious crimes committed in
the name of various Gods, Christianity stands head and shoulders above all
others. Why, just this week is the 20th anniversary of the Jonestown
Massacre. And Jim Jones was a CHRISTIAN minister in the Disciples of
Christ denomination. 50 people dissapeared in Colorado last week after
their CHRISTIAN minister, Monte Miller predicted the end of the world last
October, which of course, didn't happen. Miller claims to be the "last
minister" on earth, and has told people, "God will kill you for opposing
his true prophet" (meaning himslef, of course.)
Hmmm, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate... the list goes on and on. Somebody
name one modern PAGAN religion with such a sordid record of blood and
death? I didn't think so.
Fire up that altar, Mr. Rat, and get ready to toss on a few goats. Jehovah
is PISSED!
- Saint Joseph
-----------------------------------------------------------
During almost 15 centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More
or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy;
ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition,
bigotry and persecution.
--James Madison
-----------------------------------------------------------
Astalis
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, The DataRat spewed the following bullshit:
>
> > "I was told countless times over and over again that I am evil, by
> > people who do not know me."
> >
> > Don't have to know you personally to know that you are a witch,
> > witchcraft is evil, and -ergo- you are evil.
> >
> > "There shall not be found among you anyone... who practices
> > witchcraft..." ( Deuteronomy 18:10-11 NASB ).
> >
> > You may not believe in the Bible -but, we do !
>
> Obviously you don't, for you do not live up to the following passages:
>
> "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and
> destroy -- who are you to judge your neighbor?"
> -- James 4:12:
Also found in Scripture...
"As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one..."
Romans 3:10
Romans 5:18-21
"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment
came to all men, resulting in condemnation,
even so through one Man's righteous act the
free gift came to all men, resulting in justification
of life. For as by one man's disobedience many
were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience
many will be made righteous. Moreover the law
entered that the offense might abound. But where
sin abounded, grace abounded much more,
So that as sin reigned in death, even so grace
might reign through righteousness to eternal
life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
So...why falsely accuse someone of
judging if they're only going by what Scripture?
Without Christ none of us are good or can ever
hope to be. This goes for for the Wiccan, or
anyone else, who who has rejected God's
forgiveness of sins.
Astalis
--
"And yet there is a time
For everything that's under heaven.
A time to run, a time to stand and fight.
So in the face in cold despair,
No matter what seems right,
Remember darkness drives us to the light..."
**from Michael Card's "Under the Sun"**
-----------------------
astalis at epsi dot net
morning_light at juno dot com
ICQ! Num: 2453141#
-----------------------
Chris Welch
>
> "I was told countless times over and over again
> that I am evil, by people who do not know me."
>
> Don't have to know you personally to know that
> you are a witch, witchcraft is evil, and -ergo- you
> are evil.
>
> "There shall not be found among you anyone
> 18:10-11 NASB ).
>
> You may not believe in the Bible -but, we do !
>
And Christianity isn't? Give me a break. The bible has no PROOF of a
deity.
The DataRat
"Obviously you don't, for you do not live up to
the following passages: James 4:12:"
Joe is the typical heathen trying to interpret a
Bible he knows NOTHING about. James Chapter
Four is addressed to Christians about their
relations with other Christians.
Moreover, what that passage states is not to use
~our~ standards in judging. Otherwise the verse
would contradict Romans 15:14, 2 Thessalonians
3:15, 1 Thessalonians 5:14, et. al. !
"1 Cor.5:12-13"
Either this verse contradicts Colossians 1:28, or
Joe doesn't understand this verse. The
Reformed Rodent votes for the Bible ! Joe is
using text as a pretext for his post-modern pagan
philosophy.
"We proclaim Him, admonishing every man and
teaching every man" ( 1 Colossians 1:28 NASB ).
All 1 Corinthians 5 says is to let God do the judging.
We -as Christians- admonish and teach those
outside the church about THAT judgement of God !
"Since Harvest Dancer is clearly 'outside the church',
you have no right, scripturally speaking, to judge."
Exactly. Yet, since you are employing the Bible as
your proof text, what does Colossians 1:28 "admonishing
every man" mean ? Is God the author of confusion
that He contradicts Himself ? Clearly, then, all that
1 Corinthians 5 means is not to judge by human
standards. Instead, admonish and teach by the Lord's
standard of judgement.
"If your brother died childless, would you be refuse
to fuck his widow... If the answer to any of the above
is yes, you have violated the laws of Deuteronomy."
Your misunderstanding of the Bible is amazing !
( Besides being a profane little jerk. )
"As if any of the laws of Deuteronomy apply to anyone
alive today, other than Hassidic Jews."
You really have no idea what Scripture says, do you ?
Witchcraft is condemned in both the Old Testament
AND the New.
"So in other words: shut the fuck up, you whining
bigoted pig."
Here Joe reveals the ~true~ personality of the
"tolerant" post-modern heathens. Welcome to
Bro. Rat's killfile, twit !
The DataRat
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
> "I have committed no crime other than to believe
> differently than you do."
>
>
> Nice post-modern rationalization. But: You have
> violated God's law.
<snip>
Right.
"For God is not the author of CONFUSION, but of peace..."
[1Cr 14:33]
> Exactly. Yet, since you are employing the Bible as
> your proof text, what does Colossians 1:28 "admonishing
> every man" mean ? Is God the author of confusion
> that He contradicts Himself ?
<snip>
Speaking of "post-modern" confusion, there's a reason you two can't
understand each other...
"The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have
begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for
them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not
understand each other."
So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped
building the city. That is why it was called Babel - because there THE
LORD CONFUSED THE LANGUAGE OF THE WHOLE WORLD. From there the LORD
scattered them over the face of the whole earth."
[Gen 11:1-9]
Regards,
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
Supreme Chief, Gnostic Friends Network
--
Gnostic Friends Network: http://www.enemies.com/
The Gnostic Ring: http://members.tripod.com/~TempleOfGnosis/join.html
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<spamx_...@magii.com> wrote:
> AMEN, DATARAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> OUR GOD REIGNS
"For God is not the author of CONFUSION, but of peace..."
[1Cr 14:33]
"But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the men were
building. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language they
The DataRat
"Without Christ none of us are good or can ever
hope to be."
Precisely !
The righteousness of a Christian -the Genevan
Rodent included- is NOT their own. We are
partakers of Christ's righteousness. Bro. Rat
is among the first to admit ( and, has done so here
in the newsgroups ) that he is a sinner.
Wiccans and other pagans only differ in that
they glory in their rebellion against God.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"The bible has no PROOF of a
deity."
The Bible is foolishness to those
who are perishing.
DR
Chris Welch
Oh, well there you go. It's all so clear now. Thank you for the
informative responce.
The DataRat
"Oh, well there you go. It's all so clear now.
Thank you for the informative responce."
Guess the Reformed Rodent's stuff is also
foolishness to the perishing.
DataRat
The DataRat
"AMEN, DATARAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
Thank you, sir.
The scoffers and atheists and pagans want us
to shut-up about sin. We should accept them
and not condemn them.
Well, it's God that condemns them. And better
that they are confronted with this now, than at the
Judgement !
If we allow a blind person to walk out into the
street at rush hour, are we doing him a favor ?
Or, is shouting a warning an expression of our
love ?
The DataRat
The DataRat
Bureau of Justice Statistics:
-- 25% (9.1 million) were crimes of violence
-- 1% were personal thefts.
--2 assaults with serious injury
--5 robberies
Joseph
> Joseph wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, The DataRat spewed the following bullshit:
> >
> > > "I was told countless times over and over again that I am evil, by
> > > people who do not know me."
> > >
> > > Don't have to know you personally to know that you are a witch,
> > > witchcraft is evil, and -ergo- you are evil.
> > >
> > > "There shall not be found among you anyone... who practices
> > > witchcraft..." ( Deuteronomy 18:10-11 NASB ).
> > >
> > > You may not believe in the Bible -but, we do !
> >
> > Obviously you don't, for you do not live up to the following passages:
> >
> > "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and
> > destroy -- who are you to judge your neighbor?"
> > -- James 4:12:
>
> Also found in Scripture...
>
> "As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one..."
> Romans 3:10
I raised exactly the same point. This is WHY there are so many firm
admonishments NOT to judge, for according to Christianity, all fall short
of the glory of God. There was something about "let he who is sinnless
among you cast the first stone" also. I believe that fellow from
Bethlehem said that...
> Romans 5:18-21 "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to
> all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous
> act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
> For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one
> Man's obedience many will be made righteous. Moreover the law entered
> that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded
> much more, So that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign
> through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
The above has little to do with the point, except to reinforce the idea
that no one is worthy of judging another.
> So...why falsely accuse someone of
> judging if they're only going by what Scripture?
The accusation is not false.
> Without Christ none of us are good or can ever hope to be. This goes
> for for the Wiccan, or anyone else, who who has rejected God's
> forgiveness of sins.
And even more so to those who CLAIM to be Christian, but twist the
Christian scripture to reinforce their own bigotry and prejudice. I
believe that Jesus said something about hypocrisy, yes? To those renowned
scripture-quoting bigots, the Pharasees, yes?
Idiots. A pagan has to explain your own religion to you.
- Saint Joseph
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Do we, holding that the gods exist, deceive ourselves with
insubstantial dreams and lies, while random and careless
chance alone controls the world?"
-- Euripides
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph
> "Obviously you don't, for you do not live up to
> the following passages: James 4:12:"
>
> Joe is the typical heathen trying to interpret a Bible he knows NOTHING
> about. James Chapter Four is addressed to Christians about their
> relations with other Christians.
As Deuteronomy is addressed to Jews about their relations with other Jews.
So what's your point?
> Moreover, what that passage states is not to use ~our~ standards in
> judging.
It says what it says. "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who
is able to save and destroy -- who are you to judge your neighbor?"
This seems quite clear and precise to me. Jesus said it himself: Judge
not.
> Otherwise the verse would contradict Romans 15:14, 2 Thessalonians 3:15,
> 1 Thessalonians 5:14, et. al. !
Romans 15:14: "And I am also persuaded of you, my brethern, that ye also
are filled with goodness, filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish
one another."
Just as in the example of James that YOU cited, this letter addressed to
Christians about their relations with other Christians. It is obviously a
direct statement to "my BRETHREN" about being able to admonish ONE
ANOTHER. Once again, a pagan is not your "bretheren", and therefore the
above does not apply here. In fact, it is in perfect agreement with 1
Cor.5:12-13 regarding the "judging" or "admonishing" to be done only
"inside the church" -- among ONE ANOTHER.
2 Thessalonians 3:15 should be taken in context with the few preceeding
verses, especially 11-14: "For we hear that there are some which walk
among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies. Now them
that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with
quietness they work, and eat their own bread. But ye, bretheren, be not
weary in well doing. And if any man obey not our word by this epistle,
note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed." THEN
we finally get to the verse you offer out of context, 15: "Yet count him
not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother."
Again, it's pretty clear the saint formerly known as Saul was dealing with
problems WITHIN HIS OWN CHURCH, and only a complete idiot could read this
as a directive to go out judging and condemning people OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.
It sounds more like Psaul was having labor problems, and was laying down
the law to lazy workers. The verse you offer, 15, is a directive to go
easy on the worker being punished -- which is wise if you don't want mass
defections
(It's also a pretty clear admonishment not to be a "busybody".)
As for 1 Thessalonians 5:14, again it's from a letter of Psaul to one of
his churches, and chapter 5 seems like some comforting words to the
followers to take care of each other while awaiting the salvation of
Christ.
The verse you refer to says, " Now we exhort you, bretheren, warn them
that are unruly, comfort the feebleminded, support the weak, be patient
toward all men." Is this the standard you're claiming to uphold by
spewing hatred at someone who calls themselves a "witch"?
> "1 Cor.5:12-13"
>
> Either this verse contradicts Colossians 1:28, or Joe doesn't understand
> this verse. The Reformed Rodent votes for the Bible !
Now is this a straight up cop-out or what? The Chirstian Bible is chock
full of blatant contradictions! For starters, just check the various
geneologies in the Gospels for Jesus that DON'T agree with each other --
and by Christian ideals are false anyway since the trace the lineage of
JOSEPH. Excuse me, but I thought JEHOVAH was the father of record.
At any rate, the Colossians 1:28 refers to "warning every man, and
teaching every man". I would say that "warning" from a proseltyzing
point-of-view would mean telling someone, "To be saved you must repent and
accept Jesus!" It does NOT follow that one must pass JUDGMENT on others,
simply WARN them. A Christian could say; "I don't know for sure if you are
"evil", or if you will be in the kingdom of heaven or not, because it's
not for me to judge. But I believe that Christianity is the only way to
salvation." Polite. To the point. Doesn't sound like an asshole. These
other verses are more than clear that judging is to be avoided completely,
at least of those OUTSIDE THE CHURCH.
> Joe is using text as a pretext for his post-modern pagan philosophy.
No, Joe is making perfect sense of the verses as written and in context.
You are clearly in error according the the sacred tenets of your own
religion. What part of "who are you to judge your neighbor?" don't you
understand? What part of " God will judge those outside" isn't perfectly
clear?
> All 1 Corinthians 5 says is to let God do the judging. We -as
> Christians- admonish and teach those outside the church about THAT
> judgement of God !
If the judging is only done by God, why did Psaul have to admonish his
followers NOT to do any judging themselves? That clearly implies that men
are capable of doing SOME kind of "judging" (otherwise, what would Psaul
be complaining about?), but they should NOT do so, that they should LEAVE
IT TO GOD.
Really, do you think anyone can't just look these things up?
> "Since Harvest Dancer is clearly 'outside the church', you have no
> right, scripturally speaking, to judge."
> Exactly.
But that's obviously what you are doing. You admit the contradiction.
> Yet, since you are employing the Bible as your proof text, what does
> Colossians 1:28 "admonishing every man" mean ?
The "Authorized King James Version" says: "Whom we preach, warning every
man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man
perfect in Christ Jesus."
It's your license to "preach". But to ALSO remain true to the other clear
directions not to JUDGE anyone outside the church, you must be very
careful not to JUDGE anyone in the process of preaching your Gospel.
It doesn't matter if a person is a witch or a saint -- we are ALL sinners
in the eyes of God, correct? Both Hitler and Mother Teresa deserve to go
to the same Hell for their sins. Thus the clear directive to refrain from
judging, "...for thou shalt also be judged." Salvation is only obtainable
by the Grace of Jesus Christ. THAT is the warning you should be preaching.
But you'd rather be a bigoted rat bag asshole instead, hiding behind a
warped, idiotic interpretation of your own religion's holy writ, just so
you can feel justified doing your holier-than-thou dumping on the
"heathen".
> Is God the author of confusion that He contradicts Himself ?
Quite often, actually. Or at least the canonical Christian Bible does.
Would you like me to send you a list?
> Clearly, then, all that 1 Corinthians 5 means is not to judge by human
> standards. Instead, admonish and teach by the Lord's standard of
> judgement.
There is nothing in the chapter about "human standards". You're pulling
things out of thin air. Nice parsing, though. You should go to work as a
lawyer for Bill Clinton.
> "If your brother died childless, would you be refuse to fuck his
> widow... If the answer to any of the above is yes, you have violated
> the laws of Deuteronomy."
>
> Your misunderstanding of the Bible is amazing ! ( Besides being a
> profane little jerk. )
It's really quite clear. Go read the story of Onan again. Jewish law
required that when a man died without children, and the dead man has a
brother, the brother must impregnate the dead man's widow so his line
would not die out. Onan did fuck his dead brother's wife, but he "spilled
his seed upon the ground", presumably to avoid impregnating her. Thus he
broke Jewish law and Jehovah killed him for it.
So if you're going to insist that strict interpretations of Talmudic law
apply to modern Christians, such as the passage about not allowing a
"witch among you", you can't just pick and choose the parts you feel like
following and ignore the rest. That's what Onan did, and look what
happened to HIM!
> "As if any of the laws of Deuteronomy apply to anyone alive today,
> other than Hassidic Jews."
>
> You really have no idea what Scripture says, do you ?
I can obviously read what is SAYS in no uncertain terms and understand
those terms, which you have a severe problem doing yourself.
> Witchcraft is condemned in both the Old Testament AND the New.
But you chose the Old Testament as binding upon you. So live up to it.
> "So in other words: shut the fuck up, you whining, bigoted pig."
>
> Here Joe reveals the ~true~ personality of the "tolerant" post-modern
> heathens.
Where did I say I was tolerant? I'm actually quite IN-tolerant of whining,
bigoted pigs such as you, especially when they're wicked, venal hypocrites
who pervert their own professed religion to support their whining, bigoted
piggishness.
> Welcome to Bro. Rat's killfile, twit !
Add yellow-bellied coward to the above description.
(Don't worry, fans -- I'll bounce this message to ol' Ratbag from another
account and cruise it right past his killfile. If he doesn't answer back
to this reply, we'll all know it's NOT becasue he didn't see it, but
because he's a chickenshit, pissant little bully without the balls to
stand up to even the most modest questioning of his idiotic
misinterpretation of his own religion.)
> The DataRat
Make that Data-CHICKEN.
- Saint Joseph
--------------------------------------------------------------
Question with boldness even the existance of God; because if
there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than
that of blindfolded Fear.
-- Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Police Box
quiet.
First, it seems there needs clarity on the following concepts:
To judge - To evaluate worth or punishment based on some criteria. We
should not judge lest we be judged.
To discern - To separate actions, things, or people into categories and deal
with them accordingly.
To teach - To share your knowledge and understanding.
To admonish - To correct someone over which you have some influence or
authority
To preach - To publicly declare a belief or truth
There is a big difference in telling a person that believes as you do "What
you did is wrong!" and telling the same thing to someone who believes
differently. When you share a common belief, the commonality gives you
grounds for the statement. When you do not share the common belief, it is
no more than a devaluation of the other person's belief. It can be
interpreted as nothing else than hatred and prejudice.
A pagan of any kind (Wiccian or other) is no more than a person who believes
differently than we do. If we wish any communication with them, we must
first accept that.
Remember that most of the sermons in the Bible were preached to Jews, and
therefore assumed that common ground.
There is also a very big difference between saying "You are evil!" and
saying "My God condems trafficing in familiar spirits." The former is a
judgement and a condemnation (we should not judge). The latter is an
objective statement of belief.
Let us try this "God loves you and wants you to join Him in his cause, but
what you are doing is keeping you from Him. As a friend and neighbor, I
would like you to consider giving that up and joining God." This is an
invitation, and a declaration of love and friendship, and a statement of
beliefs. Far more in keeping with "Love thy neighbor" than "You are going
to hell!" (to which the only answer can be "Says you!").
The DataRat wrote in message ...
Joseph
> "Without Christ none of us are good or can ever hope to be."
>
> Precisely !
Which is why Christians are admonished, over and over, NOT TO JUDGE OTHERS
(Jesus) or at least only to judge others WITHIN THE CHURCH (Psaul). When
you declare someone to be "evil" you are PASSING JUDGMENT and are in
direct contradiction of the Christian Bible and the teachings of Jesus.
All the twisting and parsing and stretching of interpretation will not get
around this. Deal with it.
> The righteousness of a Christian -the Genevan Rodent included- is NOT
> their own. We are partakers of Christ's righteousness. Bro. Rat is
> among the first to admit ( and, has done so here in the newsgroups )
> that he is a sinner.
To "admit" something that your holy writ flatly declares to be the case
is hardly something to be proud about, and does not excuse your blatant
violation of your own religion's teachings.
> Wiccans and other pagans only differ in that they glory in their
> rebellion against God.
Far worse is the snide hypocrite who CLAIMS to be following a religion,
but digs up every excuse imaginable to avoid following it's SIMPLE,
STRAIGHTFORWARD, UNAMBIGUOUS INSTRUCTIONS.
Hypocrite. Reprobate. When you meet your Maker, will you be parsing and
twisting biblical passages for Him in the vain hope that it will keep your
ass out of the pit?
- Saint Joseph
-----------------------------------------------------------
I have always found that Angels have the vanity to speak of
themselves as the only wise. This they do with a confident
insolence sprouting from systematic reasoning.
-- William Blake
-----------------------------------------------------------
The DataRat
"We should not judge lest we be judged."
You are, of course, quoting Matthew 7:1.
But quoting it out of context !
Read through to verse 5, and the passage
is clearly about ~hypocritical~ judgement,
only.
Then extend the correct hermeneutic of
reading Scripture in context to John 7:24(b)...
"But judge with righteous judgment." (NASB)
Does the Bible contradict itself ?
No. Matthew Chapter 7 condemns hypocritical
judgment, John Chapter 7 allows righteous
judgment.
But you New Agers love to distort the real
meaning of Scripture !
"A pagan of any kind (Wiccan or other) is no
more than a person who believes differently
than we do."
The post-modern Party Line. The Bible, however,
says differently.
"Remember that most of the sermons in the Bible
were preached to Jews, and therefore assumed
that common ground."
Then Paul was wrong preaching to the Greeks on
Mars Hill ? His preaching to gentiles throughout
Asia Minor -we now learn from this New Ager-
was wrong.
"As a friend and neighbor, I would like you to
consider giving that up and joining God."
That's probably 90% of what the original poster
heard. She no doubt interpreted it as hate.
We've been dealing with these Wiccans for
a while here. Anything short of acceptance of
their sin is viewed by them as bigotry.
Aside from that, anything less than telling them
the full truth is both ineffective and cowardly.
Your disinclination to confront them with the
totality of their sin does them no favor. Makes
YOU feel better, though.
"Far more in keeping with 'Love thy neighbor' than
'You are going to hell!' (to which the only answer
can be "Says you!')."
A false love for neighbor. Scripture teaches that
real love is often a hard love:
"Let the righteous smite me in kindness and
reprove me." ( Psalms 141:4 NASB )
The DataRat
harves...@hotmail.com
Joseph <ma...@slip.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, The DataRat spewed the following bullshit:
>
> > "I was told countless times over and over again that I am evil, by
> > people who do not know me."
> >
> > Don't have to know you personally to know that you are a witch,
> > witchcraft is evil, and -ergo- you are evil.
> >
> > "There shall not be found among you anyone... who practices
> > witchcraft..." ( Deuteronomy 18:10-11 NASB ).
> >
> > You may not believe in the Bible -but, we do !
>
>
> destroy -- who are you to judge your neighbor?"
>
> And even more importantly, in this case:
>
> "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you
> not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside."
> -- 1 Cor.5:12-13
>
> scripturally speaking, to judge.
True, I am very much "outside the church." I have my own beliefs. I do not
say "he is christian" or "he is not christian" since I have little basis to
judge other that my own scholarship. I do get confused, however, when two
people point at each other and say "I'm christian, and he's not."
> The passage you quote is from Deuteronomy, and I'm curious how much of
> that book's instructions you actually follow.
>
> Do you eat pepperoni pizza or cheesburgers? How about shrimp cocktail? Are
> you wearing your skullcap and prayer shawl right now? Do you ever cut your
> beard? Does your wife go about with her head uncovered?
>
> If your brother died childless, would you be refuse to fuck his widow,
> your sister-in-law, until she became pregnant and then raise the child as
> your own? No? Hey, Jehovah KILLED Onan for that one!
>
> If the answer to any of the above is yes, you have violated the laws of
> Deuteronomy. I would stock up on goats, because Jehovah is going to want a
> sacrifice or two.
>
> Of course, your own ministers are likely to tell you that all of that
> stuff was intended to be instructions from God to the Israelites. That's
> why it says specifically, "There shall not be found among you anyone
> ...who practices witchcraft..." The key words here are AMONG YOU. Harvest
> Dancer is NOT one of your tribe. As if any of the laws of Deuteronomy
> apply to anyone alive today, other than Hassidic Jews.
>
> But in case you missed it, here it is again -- aimed SPECIFICALLY at
> CHRISTIANS:
>
> "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you
> not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside."
> -- 1 Cor.5:12-13
>
> So in other words: shut the fuck up, you whining bigoted pig. YOUR OWN GOD
> COMMANDS IT!
>
> Harvest Dancer, you may if you wish ignore this idiot and his bleating.
> Consider the source. But I think you overstated your case -- in that you
> tried to imply rampant violence against pagans by Xtians that really
> doesn't happen much (they save that for the gays).
He is the one I most want to hear from, if only he would answer my questions.
He is of the same mindset as those who attack us.
> Better to point out that, in the cavalcade of henious crimes committed in
> the name of various Gods, Christianity stands head and shoulders above all
> others. Why, just this week is the 20th anniversary of the Jonestown
> Massacre. And Jim Jones was a CHRISTIAN minister in the Disciples of
> Christ denomination. 50 people dissapeared in Colorado last week after
> their CHRISTIAN minister, Monte Miller predicted the end of the world last
> October, which of course, didn't happen. Miller claims to be the "last
> minister" on earth, and has told people, "God will kill you for opposing
> his true prophet" (meaning himslef, of course.)
>
> Hmmm, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate... the list goes on and on. Somebody
> name one modern PAGAN religion with such a sordid record of blood and
> death? I didn't think so.
>
> Fire up that altar, Mr. Rat, and get ready to toss on a few goats. Jehovah
> is PISSED!
>
> - Saint Joseph
>
Harvest Dancer
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
harves...@hotmail.com
Ok, I'll answer. There is one small pagan group that has existed for
millenia. They are not Witches like I am, but they are Pagan.
They are the Temple of Set. The reason that they don't have such big events
is because they are an EXTREMELY small group. Set, or Sutekh, or Seth, is
the closest thing we have to a devil among pagans.
harves...@hotmail.com
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> "Without Christ none of us are good or can ever
> hope to be."
>
> Precisely !
>
> Rodent included- is NOT their own. We are
> partakers of Christ's righteousness. Bro. Rat
> is among the first to admit ( and, has done so here
> in the newsgroups ) that he is a sinner.
>
> they glory in their rebellion against God.
But then, from our point of view, to follow your god is to rebel most
greviously against the God and Goddess.
For some reason you seem unable to believe that we believe differently. I
tell you this truthfully when I say this. We do not deep down agree with you
and are following our Wiccan beliefs our of rebelliousness. We do not deep
down agree, and practice what we practice out of rebellion.
Trying to get us to admit that deep down we agree with you won't work, and
not out of stubbornness on our part. We actually believe what we believe.
Now, if I was to act like you, I'd offer to pray to the Goddess that you find
her. Do you wish me to do that? Why not? Then why do you constantly offer
to pray for us? Don't you see, it's the same thing?
harves...@hotmail.com
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> "I was told countless times over and over again
> that I am evil, by people who do not know me."
>
> Don't have to know you personally to know that
> you are a witch, witchcraft is evil, and -ergo- you
> are evil.
>
> "There shall not be found among you anyone
> 18:10-11 NASB ).
>
> You may not believe in the Bible -but, we do !
Does that mean you should hate us? Please try to answer my questions.
> "I am not a follower of any devil, nor do I believe in
> such a being."
>
> The Reformed Rodent is a peace officer in Arizona.
> Every day he arrests people who don't believe in
> crime, yet who commit criminal acts. They are
> criminals regardless of their belief.
>
> Practicing witchcraft is rebellion against God
> because it disobeys His commandment ( cited
> above ). Doesn't much matter if you were inspired
> to do so by a devil, or by your own sin nature. The
> penalty is the same either way.
I am inspired by The God and Goddess. It is only a sin if I believe in your
god, and then reject him.
> "I have committed no crime other than to believe
> differently than you do."
>
> Nice post-modern rationalization. But: You have
> violated God's law.
I have not violated the laws of my Gods.
> "For this I am condemned in your eyes."
>
> Yup.
And you are happy to condemn us. Why do you hate us?
> Our feelings are of little account, though. Your
> larger problem is that you are also condemned in
> God's eyes. Most of what you call our
> "condemnation" is actually a warning about THAT.
>
> "Why is it that when it is discovered that a Witch
> is raising his/her children in his/her own religion,
> it is considered child endangerment by the U.S.
> Government?"
>
> You kidding ? Under the Clinton / Reno
> administration ? ! !
Yes, even now.
> You've been reading too much of your own
> propaganda.
>
> "Why is it that each year, tales reach me about how
> some pagan was assaulted in the name of your Lord?"
>
> Exactly THAT: "tales" !
>
> Ofc. Rat has been a patrol officer in a metropolitan
> area of two million people for over ten years. He
> knows of no such case, and he has never heard of
> one from a reliable source.
>
> He is sure it has happened -sometime, somewhere.
> It is so uncommon as to be rare, however.
The only reason it is uncommon is because we are uncommon. It is still more
common than you believe, because the press doesn't report it. I, however,
have met and talked to these people in both of my above examples. Why does
it happen?
> The ~real~ crime problem is all the violent offenses
> resulting from the change in morals ( i.e., rejection
> of Biblical values ) engendered by the acceptance of
> atheist / pagan/ New Age philosophy. Felony crimes
> in the U.S. have increased over 500% since the
> mid-1960s ...when YOUR beliefs came into vogue !
Which morals do you define as "our morals"? Our moral code is to harm none.
How does that increase crime?
Athiests are not witches. Witches are pagans, but since we advocate harm to
none, your statement is weak. New Agers we are not, since our beliefs
predate yours.
> "Why is it that each time we try to tell you what we
> believe, we are accused of lying because it disagrees
> with what you want to think we believe?"
>
> Your religion is based on lies, that's why.
If we say we believe in the God and Goddess, you accuse us of lying and tell
us we really believe in your Devil. That is what the question meant. You
say that since we won't admit to believing in your Devil, we are lying. We
are accused of lying because what we said disagrees with what you want to
think we believe. Read my question again, and then answer.
> We're NOT post-modernists. Our biggest goal ~isn't~
> getting along with everyone. Truth is more important.
We consider truth most important, just we've reached different conclusions.
> "Why is it that if one goes to a Christian church,
> one is a Christian..."
>
> Churches are filled with non-Christians. Many of them
> are pagans. Church attendance does NOT make one
> a Christian.
You've sidestepped the question entirely. Allow me to rephrase it. Why is
it that a Christian is a Christian, but a Witch is someone who "dabbles" in
Witchcraft?
> "Why is it that in spite of all the times we try to tell you
> what we really are, you refuse to listen?"
>
> Living in Post-Christian America, we know all too well
> about paganism. We see the effects of it when we're
> afraid to let our wives go to a convenience store after
> dark.
Do you really know? Tell me about my beliefs in the afterlife. Tell me what
is meant by the rule of three.
> No, witches aren't out lurking to assault people.
> Instead- you promote a philosophy that has resulted
> in rampant violent crime.
I can'y see how a belief in "harm none" has resulted in crime.
> "Why do you constantly try to tell us we believe in
> your Devil? We believe in nothing about your religion."
>
> So you think.
We do believe entirely different. Even deep down we're not agreeing with
you. We're not lying about that. Our beliefs are honestly different. Our
beliefs are completely different. Are you unable to belive that?
> "Do you hate us that much?"
>
> We hate your paganism because God hates it.
>
> You, personally, we try to warn because we love
> you. But pagans can't distinguish between hate and
> warning, or between love and acceptance.
I see little loving warning in an assault. How is that loving? I know you
hate paganism, but why do you hate pagans?
Astalis
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Astalis wrote:
>
> > Joseph wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, The DataRat spewed the following bullshit:
> > >
> > > > people who do not know me."
> > > >
> > > > Don't have to know you personally to know that you are a witch,
> > > > witchcraft is evil, and -ergo- you are evil.
> > > >
> > > > "There shall not be found among you anyone... who practices
> > > > witchcraft..." ( Deuteronomy 18:10-11 NASB ).
> > > >
> > > > You may not believe in the Bible -but, we do !
> > >
> > >
> > > "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and
> > > destroy -- who are you to judge your neighbor?"
> > > -- James 4:12:
> >
> >
> > "As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one..."
> > Romans 3:10
>
> I raised exactly the same point. This is WHY there are so many firm
> admonishments NOT to judge, for according to Christianity, all fall short
> of the glory of God. There was something about "let he who is sinnless
> among you cast the first stone" also. I believe that fellow from
> Bethlehem said that...
Depends on the type of judgement used.
Scripture warns of the self-righteous, hypocritical
judgement. However, the contexts that are often used
which refer to this form of judgment is often taken out
of it's context to try to include *all* forms of
judgement.
There are differnt types of judgements.
Everyone makes judgements every single day. It's
important to remember *not* to portray all manner
of judging as the same -- much like the above tried
to do by taking the "let he who is sinnless
among you cast the first stone" passage out of context.
> > Romans 5:18-21 "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to
> > all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous
> > act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
> > For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one
> > Man's obedience many will be made righteous. Moreover the law entered
> > that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded
> > much more, So that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign
> > through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
>
> The above has little to do with the point, except to reinforce the idea
> that no one is worthy of judging another.
The above has everything to do with the point.
We are all evil, we are all sinners, we are all condemned
because of sin. We are also offered the forgiveness
of sins offered by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.
That is not self-rightoues, hypocritical
judgement. It's merely stating what God has
already said in His Word.
God has offered the way of salvation.
Any other way is not of Him and is to be
outright rejected.
This includes Wicca. In various places
of Scripture occultic practices, including
witchcraft, is listed as an abomination -- within
both the Old and New Testaments. The person
involved in such not only rejects God's love
and forgiveness offered through Christ, they also
openly mock and defy God by their actions. So,
just who is it that bring's judgement on
themselves?
Chris Welch
Well, yeah. Since you are obviously an idiot, it is.
Jack Webb
Joseph wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Astalis wrote:
>
> ...that no one is worthy of judging another.
Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of times we are to "judge" others. Paul
did it to Peter in front of others; Jesus instructed us to confront those who
call themselves believers but continue in blatant sin (Matt 18), even taking
others with us to confirm it and eventually telling it to the church--all in
hopes of turning the person around.
>
>
> And even more so to those who CLAIM to be Christian, but twist the
> Christian scripture to reinforce their own bigotry and prejudice. I
> believe that Jesus said something about hypocrisy, yes? To those renowned
> scripture-quoting bigots, the Pharasees, yes?
And who is bigoted now? Any prejudice here?
>
>
> Idiots. A pagan has to explain your own religion to you.
And doing a poor job. But don't let me judge you...huh.
>
-Jack
Joseph
> This has been a very noisy and angry thread, allow me to inject a little
> quiet.
Good idea.
<snip -- I concur with your definitions>
> There is a big difference in telling a person that believes as you do "What
> you did is wrong!" and telling the same thing to someone who believes
> differently. When you share a common belief, the commonality gives you
> grounds for the statement. When you do not share the common belief, it is
> no more than a devaluation of the other person's belief. It can be
> interpreted as nothing else than hatred and prejudice.
Which is certainly why admonishments not to judge others outside the
church is part of basic Pauline doctrine in the first place. Psaul was
obviously no fool. A misogynistic, uptight sexually repressed old cuss,
but no fool. The Christians of his time were a minority in a very violent
and nasty world. You don't make many converts by screeching at them about
how evil they are. In fact, in those days you were likely to get a yard of
sharpened bronze inserted into your liver in response.
> A pagan of any kind (Wiccian or other) is no more than a person who
> believes differently than we do. If we wish any communication with
> them, we must first accept that.
Absolutely correct. But the DataRats of the world seem less interested in
communication and more interested in elevating themselves by distaining
others.
> Remember that most of the sermons in the Bible were preached to Jews, and
> therefore assumed that common ground.
Without common ground communication is impossible.
> There is also a very big difference between saying "You are evil!" and
> saying "My God condems trafficing in familiar spirits."
This points out one of the sadly amusing aspects of this entire debate.
DataRat and Harvest Dancer -- AND the Christian Bible -- have no common
ground on what the term "witch" even means. Harvest Dancer self-identifies
as a Wiccan, and the founder of Wicca appropriated the word "witch" to
describe the religion in cultural terms, taking the positive side of the
witch image (remember Glinda the Good Witch from "Wizard Of Oz"?) combined
with nature-based feminine spirituality in a revival of Celtic Paganism.
You have correctly identified what the Semetic peoples considered a
"witch" to be: a necromancer. The tale of the Witch of Endor, whose power
was to summon the spirits of the dead, shows clearly what those people
meant when they called someone a witch.
I know many Wiccans and very, very few of them practice, or even dabble,
in necromancy. What we now call "channeling" is closer in actual practice
to what the Jews of the first century called "witchcraft" than is Wicca.
Wiccans tend not to be interested in new-age style channeling. Some
practice magick, but when they do it's actually more akin to prayer with
more complicated mechanics than Jews or Christians.
> The former is a judgement and a condemnation (we should not judge). The
> latter is an objective statement of belief.
>
> Let us try this "God loves you and wants you to join Him in his cause,
> but what you are doing is keeping you from Him. As a friend and
> neighbor, I would like you to consider giving that up and joining God."
> This is an invitation, and a declaration of love and friendship, and a
> statement of beliefs. Far more in keeping with "Love thy neighbor" than
> "You are going to hell!" (to which the only answer can be "Says you!").
And I doubt many pagans would be insulted or offended by such a statement.
Some would, of course, but there are oversensitive jerks in every
demographic group.
Thank you again for an intelligent contribution to the discussion.
- Saint Joseph
----------------------------------------------------------------
"There is nothing good nor evil, but that thinking makes it so."
--William Shakesphere
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph
> > Hmmm, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate... the list goes on and on. Somebody
> > name one modern PAGAN religion with such a sordid record of blood and
> > death? I didn't think so.
>
> Ok, I'll answer. There is one small pagan group that has existed for
> millenia. They are not Witches like I am, but they are Pagan.
>
> They are the Temple of Set. The reason that they don't have such big events
> is because they are an EXTREMELY small group. Set, or Sutekh, or Seth, is
> the closest thing we have to a devil among pagans.
Unfortunately, that is not entirely correct.
The Temple of Set is an offshoot of Anton Lavey's original Church of
Satan, and they do identify with the Egyptian god Set, who was a "dark
god" bearing some passing resemblence to to the Christian's Satan
mythologies. This isn't surprising considering that the Jews obviously
were strongly influenced by Egyptian godform imagery due to their time of
servitude.
Most religious or philosophical Satanists (such as Lavey's followers) are
in actual fact atheists, not inverted Christians. Most of the real
"anti-christian" Satanists are a pitifully small minority of losers,
misfits and heavy-metal headbangers. The Temple of Set, however, can be
properly called "pagan".
But the Temple of Set was formed in 1973, and is an non-profit religious
corporation. Their own holy writ, "The Book Of Coming Forth By Night",
declares that the Temple was established in 1973 (or the Year 7, Anno
Satanis) It is hardly an unbroken cult from antiquity, any more than Wicca
is in actuality any older than 1953 when it was created by Gerald Gardner.
- Saint Joseph
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kilgore Trout once wrote a short story which was a dialogue
between two pieces of yeast. They were discussing the possible
purposes of life as they ate sugar and suffocated in their own
excrement. But because of their limited intelligence, they
never came close to guessing they were making champagne.
-- Kurt Vonnegut
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph
> > > "As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one..."
> > > Romans 3:10
> >
> > I raised exactly the same point. This is WHY there are so many firm
> > admonishments NOT to judge, for according to Christianity, all fall short
> > of the glory of God. There was something about "let he who is sinnless
> > among you cast the first stone" also. I believe that fellow from
> > Bethlehem said that...
>
> Depends on the type of judgement used.
> Scripture warns of the self-righteous, hypocritical
> judgement. However, the contexts that are often used
> which refer to this form of judgment is often taken out
> of it's context to try to include *all* forms of
> judgement.
Data-Chicken certainly sounds self-righteous to me. I would refer you to
the posting by "Police Box" in this thread, where s/he said:
>>There is also a very big difference between saying "You are evil!" and
>>saying "My God condems trafficing in familiar spirits." The former is a
>>judgement and a condemnation (we should not judge). The latter is an
>>objective statement of belief.
> There are differnt types of judgements.
> Everyone makes judgements every single day. It's
> important to remember *not* to portray all manner
> of judging as the same -- much like the above tried
> to do by taking the "let he who is sinnless
> among you cast the first stone" passage out of context.
It is completely in context and totally applicable to this case. The
woman was a violator of God's written law and was about to be stoned
to death (the most operative expression of hatred in can think of.) Jesus
has a well-deserved reputation for keeping his teachings very simple and
straight to the point. This is why he used parables, so even the most
simple of his students could understand. The story is simple and the
message clear and easy to grasp.
> > > Romans 5:18-21 "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment came to
> > > all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man's righteous
> > > act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.
> > > For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one
> > > Man's obedience many will be made righteous. Moreover the law entered
> > > that the offense might abound. But where sin abounded, grace abounded
> > > much more, So that as sin reigned in death, even so grace might reign
> > > through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
> >
> > The above has little to do with the point, except to reinforce the idea
> > that no one is worthy of judging another.
>
> The above has everything to do with the point. We are all evil,
> we are all sinners, we are all condemned because of sin. We are also
> offered the forgiveness of sins offered by grace through faith in Jesus
> Christ alone.
The above passage is a contrasting of Adam's original sin with Jesus's
redemption of that original sin. Psaul had to "close the book" on original
sin by declaring that Jesus redeemed that sin. The Jews that were his
audience needed to hear that. Aside from the insertion into the lesson of
the declaration Jesus's promise of eternal life to his followers, there
isn't any bearing on the "judge not" concept and how it should be
realized. You can declare what you think is true without actively and
verbally condemning those who don't agree.
> That is not self-rightoues, hypocritical judgement. It's merely
> stating what God has already said in His Word.
And you speak with God's voice? You see into every heart with God's
vision? You dare to take on yourself, with your human limitations, that
which in the book you declare to be God's word is specifically amd
repeatedly declared to be God's prerogative and God's alone?
> God has offered the way of salvation. Any other way is not of
> Him and is to be outright rejected.
And you have for yourself, as is your right. But such must come from the
heart, and you cannot reject anything _for_ another person.
> This includes Wicca. In various places of Scripture occultic
> practices, including witchcraft, is listed as an abomination -- within
> both the Old and New Testaments.
In the first place, Wicca and what the Semetic peoples of the first
century called "witchcraft" are not the same thing. To them, witchcraft
meant necromancy -- raising the dead and trafficking in spirits. Check the
Witch of Endor story. That was what a witch was in those days. Wiccans are
nothing like that at all. Wiccans are pagans, closer in spirit to Native
American spritiuality than anything else.
> The person involved in such not only rejects God's love and forgiveness
> offered through Christ, they also openly mock and defy God by their
> actions.
Well, if they're raising dead spirits, you're technically correct.
> So, just who is it that bring's judgement on themselves?
Themselves.
- Saint Joseph
---------------------------------------------
"I *am* real!", said Alice, and began to cry.
-- Lewis Carroll
---------------------------------------------
harves...@hotmail.com
> "Ever heard of the salem witch hunts? Much
> more violent injustice, and it was carried out
> the name of God."
>
> In Salem, a handful of women were executed.
> In Post-Christian America, there are almost
> 20,000 murders a year !
>
> According to the U.S. Department of Justice
> Bureau of Justice Statistics:
>
> In 1996, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced
> approximately 36.8 million crimes...
>
> -- 25% (9.1 million) were crimes of violence=20
> -- 1% were personal thefts.
>
> In 1996 for every 1,000 persons age 12 or older, there
> occurred
>
> --2 assaults with serious injury=20
> --5 robberies=20
>
> Murders were the least frequent violent victimization
> -- about 7 murder victims per 100,000 persons in 1996.
>
> Only 7 murder victims per 100,000 people in
> a country of 250 million people !
>
> The DataRat
>
Look at the population difference between 1996 America, and Salem durning the
Witch hunts. Think about that.
If the population of Salem were expanded proportionally, that handful would
be an enormous bloodbath, that makes our crimes look, well, small.
BTW, it's not Wicca that increased crime, it's failing to enforce it, ala the
Democratic Party. But that's beside the point.
harves...@hotmail.com
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote:
<snip>
> "A pagan of any kind (Wiccan or other) is no
> more than a person who believes differently
> than we do."
>
> says differently.
>
> were preached to Jews, and therefore assumed
> that common ground."
>
> Mars Hill ? His preaching to gentiles throughout
> Asia Minor -we now learn from this New Ager-
> was wrong.
Actually, excepting Paul's letters to the Gentiles, the Bible was written for
christians.
> "As a friend and neighbor, I would like you to
> consider giving that up and joining God."
>
> That's probably 90% of what the original poster
> heard. He no doubt interpreted it as hate.
No, I heard "You freak, You're gonna go to hell. I'd send you there if I
could."
I heard "Hey, Paganboy, is your momma a tree? I'm gonna cut down a tree for
you!"
I heard "You are evil. Your Goddess is a Slut, your God is the Devil."
I heard "I'd bring back the inquisition if I could."
I heard "Yeah, we got freedom of religion. That's what protects you from what
you got coming."
I could go on.
> We've been dealing with these Wiccans for
> a while here. Anything short of acceptance of
> their sin is viewed by them as bigotry.
If I got the the offer the other poster said 90% of the time, I would not
have posted my original post. Sadly, it's more like 9%. That's what I wish
to understand.
The DataRat
"Actually, excepting Paul's letters to the
Gentiles, the Bible was written for christians."
Wrong.
The Bible was written for sinners.
"I heard 'You are evil. Your Goddess is a Slut,
your God is the Devil.' "
Them quit hanging out in redneck bars !
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Your statistics are skewed, DataRat."
Not Bro. Rat's statistics. The Department
of Justice's statistics. Want the URL for
the official U.S. Government web site that
The DataRat copied-and-pasted them from ?
"Look at the population difference between
1996 America, and Salem durning the
Witch hunts."
The 1966 murder rate was 7 per 100,000
population. It was nothing even close to that
in Colonial America ( except during times of
war ).
"BTW, it's not Wicca that increased crime, it's
failing to enforce it, ala the Democratic Party."
A lot of truth in THAT. However, the Democratic
Party is a branch of Post Modernism, just like
Wicca. Same philosophy applied to politics.
The two ( and a few others ) work in concert for
the same agenda.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"But then, from our point of view, to follow your
god is to rebel most greviously against the God
and Goddess."
Exactly !
One of us is wrong, and one of us is right.
Forget this PoMo (post-modern) I'm-Ok-You're-Ok
stuff.
"For some reason you seem unable to believe
that we believe differently."
No, the Genevan Rodent absolutely believes
that you believe differently.
"Trying to get us to admit that deep down we agree
with you won't work..."
Of course not ! Deep down you DON'T agree with
God and the Bible. No one -in their natural state-
believes in the God of the Bible.
"We actually believe what we believe."
Obviously.
"I'd offer to pray to the Goddess that you find
her. Do you wish me to do that?"
Bro. Rat don't care. Pray to all the false gods
you want. Non-existent gods can't help you.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Does that mean you should hate us?"
What you interpret as "hate" is actually
tough love.
"It is only a sin if I believe in your god,
and then reject him."
A comforting -but false- belief.
"I have not violated the laws of my Gods."
THAT is your problem.
"Why do you hate us?"
You say.
"It is still more common than you believe, because
the press doesn't report it."
The press reports only a small fraction of the
crimes that occur. Ofc. Rat knows this because
he is out on the streets 40+ hours / week. But,
in over ten years of police work ( most of that as
a patrol officer taking crime reports ) in a
metropolitan area of two million people, he knows
of NO INSTANCE of a Wiccan being assaulted
for their religious beliefs.
The DataRat
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
> > "A pagan of any kind (Wiccan or other) is no
> > more than a person who believes differently
> > than we do."
> The post-modern Party Line. The Bible, however,
> says differently.
<snip>
> > "BTW, it's not Wicca that increased crime, it's
> > failing to enforce it, ala the Democratic Party."
> >
> A lot of truth in THAT. However, the Democratic
> Party is a branch of Post Modernism, just like
> Wicca. Same philosophy applied to politics.
> The two ( and a few others ) work in concert for
> the same agenda.
<snip>
> One of us is wrong, and one of us is right.
> Forget this PoMo (post-modern) I'm-Ok-You're-Ok
> stuff.
<snip>
"Strategy of the Real" from Jean Baudrillard's "Simulations."
"Of the same order as the impossibility of rediscovering an absolute level
of the real, is the impossibility of staging an illusion. Illusion is no
longer possible, because the real is no longer possible. It is the whole
political problem of the parody, of hypersimulation or offensive
simulation, which is posed here.
For example: it would be interesting to see whether the repressive
apparatus would not react more violently to a simulated hold-up than to a
real one? For the latter only upsets the order of things, the right of
property, whereas the other interferes with the very principle of reality.
Transgression and violence are less serious, for they only contest the
distribution of the real. Simulation is infinitely more dangerous,
however, since it always suggests, over and above its object, that law and
order themselves might really be nothing more than a simulation."
Regards,
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
Supreme Chief, Gnostic Friends Network
--
Gnostic Friends Network: http://www.enemies.com/
The Gnostic Ring: http://members.tripod.com/~TempleOfGnosis/join.html
blac...@aol.com
harves...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Hmmm, Branch Davidians, Heaven's Gate... the list goes on and on. Somebody
> > name one modern PAGAN religion with such a sordid record of blood and
> > death? I didn't think so.
>
> Ok, I'll answer. There is one small pagan group that has existed for
> millenia. They are not Witches like I am, but they are Pagan.
>
> They are the Temple of Set. The reason that they don't have such big events
> is because they are an EXTREMELY small group. Set, or Sutekh, or Seth, is
> the closest thing we have to a devil among pagans.
Harvest Dancer,
The Temple of Set has existed since 1975. Not millenia. We are not pagan as we
are a Left Hand Path religious organization. Pagan groups are Right Hand Path.
There is no sorid record of blood and death. The Temple of Set is a legal
recognized religious organization in the United States.
For more information (truthful information) regarding the Temple of Set.
Please visit our website at http://www.xeper.org.
Xeper,
Black Wulf, O.Tr., O.V.
Priest of Set
The DataRat
Way to go, Jack !
The DataRat
Christo
supper with 'men only?'
Gerry Quinn
>"Strategy of the Real" from Jean Baudrillard's "Simulations."
>
>"Of the same order as the impossibility of rediscovering an absolute level
>of the real, is the impossibility of staging an illusion. Illusion is no
>longer possible, because the real is no longer possible. It is the whole
>political problem of the parody, of hypersimulation or offensive
>simulation, which is posed here.
>
>For example: it would be interesting to see whether the repressive
>apparatus would not react more violently to a simulated hold-up than to a
>real one? For the latter only upsets the order of things, the right of
>property, whereas the other interferes with the very principle of reality.
>Transgression and violence are less serious, for they only contest the
>distribution of the real. Simulation is infinitely more dangerous,
>however, since it always suggests, over and above its object, that law and
>order themselves might really be nothing more than a simulation."
>
Remarkable tripe. Simulated crimes and other hoaxes are far from
unknown. In general, what Baudrillard calls the 'repressive
apparatus' react with moderation. Punishment tends to be more severe
when fraud (i.e. a real crime) is the intent of the simulation.
- Gerry
----------------------------------------------------------
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn)
----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Boston
might b...you hit
the "Nail" on the head...C U L8R...God Loves u...
ShantarOmegan
Police Box wrote in message <72ker3$1t4$1...@reggie.win.bright.net>...
>This has been a very noisy and angry thread, allow me to inject a little
>quiet.
>
>First, it seems there needs clarity on the following concepts:
>
>To judge - To evaluate worth or punishment based on some criteria. We
>should not judge lest we be judged.
>To discern - To separate actions, things, or people into categories and
deal
>with them accordingly.
>To teach - To share your knowledge and understanding.
>To admonish - To correct someone over which you have some influence or
>authority
>To preach - To publicly declare a belief or truth
>
>There is a big difference in telling a person that believes as you do "What
>you did is wrong!" and telling the same thing to someone who believes
>differently. When you share a common belief, the commonality gives you
>grounds for the statement. When you do not share the common belief, it is
>no more than a devaluation of the other person's belief. It can be
>interpreted as nothing else than hatred and prejudice.
>
>A pagan of any kind (Wiccian or other) is no more than a person who
believes
>differently than we do. If we wish any communication with them, we must
>first accept that.
>
>Remember that most of the sermons in the Bible were preached to Jews, and
>therefore assumed that common ground.
>
>There is also a very big difference between saying "You are evil!" and
>saying "My God condems trafficing in familiar spirits." The former is a
>judgement and a condemnation (we should not judge). The latter is an
>objective statement of belief.
>
>Let us try this "God loves you and wants you to join Him in his cause, but
>what you are doing is keeping you from Him. As a friend and neighbor, I
>would like you to consider giving that up and joining God." This is an
>invitation, and a declaration of love and friendship, and a statement of
>beliefs. Far more in keeping with "Love thy neighbor" than "You are going
>to hell!" (to which the only answer can be "Says you!").
>
>
>The DataRat wrote in message ...
>>
>>
>>"Obviously you don't, for you do not live up to
G*rd*n
| >"Strategy of the Real" from Jean Baudrillard's "Simulations."
| >
| >"Of the same order as the impossibility of rediscovering an absolute level
| >of the real, is the impossibility of staging an illusion. Illusion is no
| >longer possible, because the real is no longer possible. It is the whole
| >political problem of the parody, of hypersimulation or offensive
| >simulation, which is posed here.
| >
| >For example: it would be interesting to see whether the repressive
| >apparatus would not react more violently to a simulated hold-up than to a
| >real one? For the latter only upsets the order of things, the right of
| >property, whereas the other interferes with the very principle of reality.
| >Transgression and violence are less serious, for they only contest the
| >distribution of the real. Simulation is infinitely more dangerous,
| >however, since it always suggests, over and above its object, that law and
| >order themselves might really be nothing more than a simulation."
| >
ger...@indigo.ie (Gerry Quinn):
| Remarkable tripe. Simulated crimes and other hoaxes are far from
| unknown. In general, what Baudrillard calls the 'repressive
| apparatus' react with moderation. Punishment tends to be more severe
| when fraud (i.e. a real crime) is the intent of the simulation.
Simulating a crime usually _is_ a crime, unless it's done
with the proper permits and authorizations (that is, for a
movie). However, I would expect the "repressive apparatus"
to react in exactly the same way to a simulated hold-up as
a real one -- that is, for example, if the real or simulated
criminals were sufficiently pigmented, the police would
shoot them many times. (There have been a number of
instances of this sort in New York City in recent years).
Baudrillard's problem in the above paragraph is that he
himself does not escape from the real-simulation dichotomy
he's apparently trying to criticize. A better approach, I
think, would be to redichotomize crime into deep and surface
crime -- deep crime being instance of serious harm being
done (as most people account "serious"), surface crime
being crimes mostly against appearances -- minor
infractions like public drunkenness, street prostitution,
retail drug sales, disorderly conduct, and the like. In
New York City, a few years ago, a new philosophy of law
enforcement was introduced, which dictated that police pay
a great deal of attention to surface crime -- sometimes
called "Broken Windows" because part of the theory is that
where one broken window is tolerated, soon many will be,
and larger crimes will follow. (See _Turnaround: How
America's Top Cop Reversed The Crime Epidemic_ by William
Bratton, or the review of it ("The Blue Revolution") in the
_New York Review Of Books_, ed. of Nov. 19, 1998, which is
online at
http://www.nybooks.com/nyrev/WWWarchdisplay.cgi?1998111932R).
The "root causes" of crime (whether they are bad economic
conditions or the moral failings of certain classes of
people) are ignored -- they're not police business. Any
infractions which come to police attention are dealt
with immediately.
This new strategy may or may not have "really" reduced
crime, but it is strongly perceived as having done so. But
in turning away from "root causes" and concentrating on
major crime, the police and their theorists are agreeing
that law and order is a matter of surface arrangements, a
matter of deliberate social construction. Sociologists,
psychologists, religious and political activists and other
savants are welcome to theorize about _why_ the new methods
seem to work, or claim that they don't really work and will
have a bad outcome someday -- but the police, having
withdrawn to the surface, can point to the falling crime
rate (which is, after all, yet another surface, that of
abstraction) and can claim success pretty successfully.
Far from illusion, that is, the appearance, the surface,
being impossible, it has been _made_ the real. The
police have seen the surface, and it works. Postmodern
police!
So Baudrillard started out in the right direction, but I
don't think he got far enough down the road. He needed to
interview Mr. Bratton.
--
}"{ G*rd*n }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
{ http://www.etaoin.com | latest new material 11/5 <-adv't
harves...@hotmail.com
thrust of my questions, I'll rephrase them.
I will have to use a lot of steriotypes and generalizations, but they do get
the point across.
This is typical of a Christian trying to convert a member of a different
religion.
Jewish: But the messiah you are waiting for has already come. Jesus is the
one you were waiting for, and if you believe in him, you will go to heaven.
Muslim: Mohammed was not the prophet, Jesus the son of God was. Jesus has
the keys to heaven.
Hindu, Buddhism, Taoism: Your religions are very interesting and respectable,
but they are wrong. Jesus, the only son of the one God is the answer.
Witchcraft: You are evil Satanists and are going to Hell!!!
Do you see the difference? That's not the tough love friendly warning you
seem so convinced that I am misinterpreting as hatred, that is hatred.
You believe that Muslims belive in Mohammed, but you believe that I believe in
the Devil. You believe that Hindi believe in Brachman, but believe that I
believe in the Devil.
Do you see the difference? Now, if you do, I ask again, why do you hate us?
harves...@hotmail.com
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote:
> The press reports only a small fraction of the
> crimes that occur. Ofc. Rat knows this because
> he is out on the streets 40+ hours / week. But,
> in over ten years of police work ( most of that as
> a patrol officer taking crime reports ) in a
> metropolitan area of two million people, he knows
> of NO INSTANCE of a Wiccan being assaulted
> for their religious beliefs.
Funny, I met them. I know the story.
> The DataRat
harves...@hotmail.com
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote:
> "BTW, it's not Wicca that increased crime, it's
> failing to enforce it, ala the Democratic Party."
>
> A lot of truth in THAT. However, the Democratic
> Party is a branch of Post Modernism, just like
> Wicca. Same philosophy applied to politics.
> The two ( and a few others ) work in concert for
> the same agenda.
I wish I knew where you got the idea that Wicca, a 5,000 year old religion, is
post-modern. But then, you have no desire to understand us, so you'll never
learn otherwise.
Harvest Dancer
G*rd*n
But in turning away from "root causes" and concentrating on
major crime, the police and their theorists are agreeing
that law and order is a matter of surface arrangements...
should read
But in turning away from "root causes" and concentrating on
surface crime, the police and their theorists are agreeing
that law and order is a matter of surface arrangements...
Joseph
> Joseph wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Astalis wrote:
> >
> > ...that no one is worthy of judging another.
> Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of times we are to "judge" others.
> Paul did it to Peter in front of others; Jesus instructed us to confront
> those who call themselves believers but continue in blatant sin (Matt
> 18), even taking others with us to confirm it and eventually telling it
> to the church--all in hopes of turning the person around.
Exactly the point made when it is stated in no uncertain terms in the
Christian Bible:
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you
not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside." -- 1 Cor.
5:12-13
All of the above examples you cite are INSIDE THE CHURCH. WHat Christians
are NOT supposed to do is judge those OUTSIDE -- like Pagans.
Sorry, but you've just made my point for me.
> > And even more so to those who CLAIM to be Christian, but twist the
> > Christian scripture to reinforce their own bigotry and prejudice. I
> > believe that Jesus said something about hypocrisy, yes? To those renowned
> > scripture-quoting bigots, the Pharasees, yes?
>
> And who is bigoted now? Any prejudice here?
Big-ot-ed (adj.) Intolerant of other creeds or beliefs; prejudiced.
Prej-u-dice (n.) A strong feeling about some subject, formed unfairly or
without regard for the facts.
My reply to "Police Box" on this thred shows that I can be quite tolerant
of someone with different beliefs and even express admiriation for them.
Prejudice requires one to have opinions "without regard for the facts."
The FACTS are that Data-Chicken and his ilk are themselves blatantly
bigoted and prejudiced, since they spew hatred and venom and are JUDGING
those outside thei church without regard to the facts. So if I resnt or
challange THEM, it is not "prejudice".
> > Idiots. A pagan has to explain your own religion to you.
>
> And doing a poor job.
I think not.
> But don't let me judge you...huh.
My religion does not prevent me from judging those outside of it, though I
generally refrain from doing so, at least verbally and spitefully. YOURS,
however, DOES clearly prohibit you from doing so.
- Saint Joseph
------------------------------------------------------------
I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge
me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and
lead him to a quiet place and kill him.
-- Mark Twain
------------------------------------------------------------
Gerry Quinn
>The sentence
>
> But in turning away from "root causes" and concentrating on
> major crime, the police and their theorists are agreeing
> that law and order is a matter of surface arrangements...
>
>should read
>
> But in turning away from "root causes" and concentrating on
> surface crime, the police and their theorists are agreeing
> that law and order is a matter of surface arrangements...
>
Point taken ;)
Joseph
> god (dog) and his son were gay! Whom else do you know would have his last
> supper with 'men only?'
He didn't, you blithering idiot. Unfortunately, Mary Magdeline's Gospel
was surpressed by the Council of Nicea.
Please stop helping. There's a good lad...
- Saint Joseph
The DataRat
"I wish I knew where you got the idea that Wicca,
a 5,000 year old religion, is post-modern."
Wicca is a modern phenomena. Actually, a
modern American phenomena. Who ever heard
of Wicca before the 1960s. The post-modernists
dug a name out of history and used it to promote
their New Age philosophies.
The DataRat
Joseph
> "Does that mean you should hate us?"
>
> What you interpret as "hate" is actually tough love.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA <snort>
You just made me spew coffee out of my nose.
You really are a dickhead, aren't you? No, wait... you MUST be a troll. No
human capable of operating a computer could be this much of a idiot,
right?
I notice that you are still not responding to any of my posts, but
continue to pick on poor Harvest Dancer. That's because you are a complete
and total twat, with your head firmly insterted into your anal cavity so
far you can lick your liver.
Coward. Wimp. Girly man. You can't debate with me without LOSING, since
I'm exposing you for the shithead bigoted fuck that you are. And you know
it, so you run and hide behind your "killfile".
Pussy. Afraid of the big, bad pagan. Your Savior must be REAL proud of
you. In the old days, Christians stared down LIONS in the name of their
faith. You can't even face up to words on a computer screen. Pathetic.
> "It is only a sin if I believe in your god, and then reject him."
>
> A comforting -but false- belief.
Read your own Holy Book, Data-Chicken. Read what it SAYS, not what you
wish it said.
> "I have not violated the laws of my Gods."
>
> THAT is your problem.
NOT violating the laws of her gods is a problem? Do you even have a
coherent thought in your head? I think those years on the beat have
affected your mind, Data-Chicken. Don't skip your medication anymore.
> "Why do you hate us?"
>
> You say.
S/he is absolutely right. You DO hate hir, and all pagans. I thought your
Savior told you that the greatest commandment was love.
> "It is still more common than you believe, because the press doesn't
> report it."
>
> The press reports only a small fraction of the
> crimes that occur. Ofc. Rat knows this because
> he is out on the streets 40+ hours / week. But,
> in over ten years of police work ( most of that as
> a patrol officer taking crime reports ) in a
> metropolitan area of two million people, he knows
> of NO INSTANCE of a Wiccan being assaulted
> for their religious beliefs.
Officer Chicken should know that a great number of crimes, especially
harrassment crimes, are not reported at all. Although, as I have pointed
out to Harvest Dancer, s/he is over exaggerating the problem as far as
crime on the street goes. One shouldn't do this, since it opens one up for
the adversary to make seemingly persuasive statements like the one above.
Harrassment of pagans is not so much a criminal problem but a social one.
There are several documanted cases of Wiccan parents having cases brought
against them by child protective services for simply being Wiccan, and
therefore somehow unfit to be parents. A simple web search will uncover a
lot of them.
Right-wing Christians were the impetus behind the "Satanic Panic" of the
1980's, which has been completely discredited by the FBI. Many Wiccans
were falsely accused of being "satanists" -- not only an idiotic charge in
the first place, but the kind of "satanists" that the zealots were
campaigning against didn't exist anyway.
So, Data-Chicken -- did the satanic scare of the 1980's occur or not? If
it did, then there were victims of the oppression, yes? Well, who were the
victims? Pagans, by and large.
Poor Data-Chicken. Just another coward with a gun and a badge. Tell me, if
a pagan citizen was being chased by a maniac with a knife, would you help
her, or would you offer the maniac a lift in your squad car? I mean, it's
just one filthy god-hating pagan witch that the world is better off
without, right? Why don't you just take your service revolver and go out
and cleanse the world of a few heretics, in the name of Jesus?
Gods, the idea of this complete lunatic cruising around armed to the teeth
with arrest power is frightening in the extreme.
- Saint Joseph
---------------------------------------------------------------
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal
example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has
preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of
grief has produced!
-- John Adams
---------------------------------------------------------------
GoldRush
harves...@hotmail.com wrote in article
<72n2l6$jgs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
>
You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
At least good Christians will give you honest warning.
Others could care less.
--
GoldRush
For Scriptures & Christian Studies
visit . .http://www.mlode.com/~jrrush
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<jrr...@mlode.com> wrote:
<snip>
> You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
> You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
>
> At least good Christians will give you honest warning.
>
> Others could care less.
>
>
You may not overtly believe in Yaldabaoth, but you serve him.
You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
At least good gnostic Christians will give you honest warning.
Others could care less.
"But of what sort is this God? First He maliciously refused Adam from
eating of the tree of knowledge. And secondly he said, "Adam, where are
you?" God does not have foreknowledge; otherwise, would he not know from
the beginning? And afterwards he said, "Let us cast him out of this place,
lest he eat of the tree of life and live for ever." Surely he has shown
himself to be a malicious grudger. And what kind of a God is this? For
great is the blindness of those who read, and they did not know him.
And he said, "I am the jealous God; I will bring the sins of the fathers
upon the children until three and four generations." And he said, "I will
make their heart thick, and I will cause their mind to become blind, that
they might not know nor comprehend the things that are said. " But these
things he has said to those who believe in him and serve him!"
(Julius Cassianus (?), The Testimony of Truth, pub. ~ A.D. 150, from James
M. Robinson's Nag Hammadi Library, p.455, pub. A.D.1990)
**********************************
"This gloomy ruler has three names: The first name is Yaldabaoth. The
second is Saklas. The third is Samael.
And the Chief Ruler is impious, in its madness that is with it. For it
said, "It is I who am, god, and no other god exists apart from me."
(The Apostle John, The Secret Gospel of John, pub. ~ before A.D. 180)
Astalis
>
> Joseph wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Astalis wrote:
> >
> > ...that no one is worthy of judging another.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of times we are to "judge" others. Paul
> did it to Peter in front of others; Jesus instructed us to confront those who
> call themselves believers but continue in blatant sin (Matt 18), even taking
> others with us to confirm it and eventually telling it to the church--all in
> hopes of turning the person around.
>
> >
> >
> > Christian scripture to reinforce their own bigotry and prejudice. I
> > believe that Jesus said something about hypocrisy, yes? To those renowned
> > scripture-quoting bigots, the Pharasees, yes?
>
> And who is bigoted now? Any prejudice here?
>
> >
> >
>
>
> >
>
> -Jack
Might wanna pay more attention to
editing your replies before posting.
Nothing I had contributed to this discussion
was listed here and yet I was being credited for
what was being responded to.
Astalis
--
"And yet there is a time
For everything that's under heaven.
A time to run, a time to stand and fight.
So in the face in cold despair,
No matter what seems right,
Remember darkness drives us to the light..."
**from Michael Card's "Under the Sun"**
-----------------------
astalis at epsi dot net
morning_light at juno dot com
ICQ! Num: 2453141#
-----------------------
Astalis
>
> Joseph wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, Astalis wrote:
> >
> > ...that no one is worthy of judging another.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. There are plenty of times we are to "judge" others. Paul
> did it to Peter in front of others; Jesus instructed us to confront those who
> call themselves believers but continue in blatant sin (Matt 18), even taking
> others with us to confirm it and eventually telling it to the church--all in
> hopes of turning the person around.
>
> >
> >
> > And even more so to those who CLAIM to be Christian, but twist the
> > Christian scripture to reinforce their own bigotry and prejudice. I
> > believe that Jesus said something about hypocrisy, yes? To those renowned
> > scripture-quoting bigots, the Pharasees, yes?
>
> And who is bigoted now? Any prejudice here?
>
> >
> >
> > Idiots. A pagan has to explain your own religion to you.
>
> And doing a poor job. But don't let me judge you...huh.
>
> >
>
> -Jack
Actually, the only thing I really contributed...
or stood on was this...
:-)
Astalis
Joseph wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Nov 1998, The DataRat spewed the following bullshit:
>
> > "I was told countless times over and over again that I am evil, by
> > people who do not know me."
> >
> > Don't have to know you personally to know that you are a witch,
> > witchcraft is evil, and -ergo- you are evil.
> >
> > "There shall not be found among you anyone... who practices
> > witchcraft..." ( Deuteronomy 18:10-11 NASB ).
> >
> > You may not believe in the Bible -but, we do !
>
> Obviously you don't, for you do not live up to the following passages:
>
> "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and
> destroy -- who are you to judge your neighbor?"
> -- James 4:12:
Also found in Scripture...
"As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one..."
Romans 3:10
Romans 5:18-21
"Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment
came to all men, resulting in condemnation,
even so through one Man's righteous act the
free gift came to all men, resulting in justification
of life. For as by one man's disobedience many
were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience
many will be made righteous. Moreover the law
entered that the offense might abound. But where
sin abounded, grace abounded much more,
So that as sin reigned in death, even so grace
might reign through righteousness to eternal
life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
So...why falsely accuse someone of
judging if they're only going by what Scripture?
Without Christ none of us are good or can ever
hope to be. This goes for for the Wiccan, or
anyone else, who who has rejected God's
forgiveness of sins.
The DataRat
"Wicca is not New Age doctrine. It is
The Old Religion"
Yeah, all the way back to circa 1970 !
Nobody heard of Wicca being practiced
in the United states until the early-1970s.
The DataRat
harves...@hotmail.com
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> "But then, from our point of view, to follow your
> god is to rebel most greviously against the God
> and Goddess."
>
> Exactly !
>
> Forget this PoMo (post-modern) I'm-Ok-You're-Ok
> stuff.
I'm not talking post-modernism here. I know that at least one of us is
wrong. I'm not interested in discussing which one of us is wrong. I'm here
to discuss why we get such hostile treatment.
Oh, I'm not a post-modernist. I am as close to being an Objectivist as
someone with a religious belief can get.
> "For some reason you seem unable to believe
> that we believe differently."
>
> No, the Genevan Rodent absolutely believes
> that you believe differently.
>
> "Trying to get us to admit that deep down we agree
> with you won't work..."
>
> Of course not ! Deep down you DON'T agree with
> God and the Bible. No one -in their natural state-
> believes in the God of the Bible.
I wonder why. No, strike that, I was being sarcastic in my frustration over
your inability to listen.
> "We actually believe what we believe."
>
> Obviously.
>
> "I'd offer to pray to the Goddess that you find
> her. Do you wish me to do that?"
>
> Bro. Rat don't care. Pray to all the false gods
> you want. Non-existent gods can't help you.
I'm not here to argue which one of us is right, be it my Gods or your Idol.
I wrote this in a different post, and I'll write it again. This might - just
might - enable you to understand what my question truly is.
The next passage contains generalizations and stereotypes, but they are
useful in getting the point across. They show the average Christian trying
to convert someone of a different faith.
Jewish: But the messiah you are waiting for has already arrived. Accept
Jesus, for he holds the keys to heaven.
Muslim: No, Jesus was the final prophet, the true son of God, and you must
accept him to go to heaven.
Hindu,Taoist, Buddhist: You have an interesting religion, but it does not
have the answers. Jesus the Son of God is the Answer.
Witch: You are an Evil Satanist and are going to HELL!
Do you, by any chance, see the difference? If you do, then I repeat the
question; Why the hatred?
harves...@hotmail.com
Gee, I wonder why... Put away those torches, I'm not interested in a bonfire
right now.
By the Gods, Judiasm only gained acceptance this century. And they had a
better rep than we had!
harves...@hotmail.com
"GoldRush" <jrr...@mlode.com> wrote:
> You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
> You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
>
> At least good Christians will give you honest warning.
>
> Others could care less.
Would you say the same to a Jew/Muslim/Hindi/Buddhist?
If no, then why not?
Rev. Frank
GoldRush wrote:
> harvestdancer wrote:
>
> > Witchcraft: You are evil Satanists and are going to Hell!!!
> >
> > Do you see the difference?
>
>
> You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
> You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
In politics one may choose the middle of the road some call "moderate".
However in Christ there is NO middle of the road! One serves or NOT.
Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate
the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and
despise the other..." {NKJV}
James 3:11 "Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the
same opening?" {NKJV}
--
Peace Be With You
Rev. Frank
Visit:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/i/n/t/intmismin/index1.html
The DataRat
"I'm not interested in discussing which one
of us is wrong."
The PoMo (post-modern) Party Line !
"I'm here to discuss why we get such hostile
treatment."
That's easy: Because you're wrong.
"Oh, I'm not a post-modernist."
Sure sound like it.
"I am as close to being an Objectivist as
someone with a religious belief can get."
A PoMo Objectivist, huh ?
"I wonder why. No, strike that, I was being
sarcastic..."
Why strike it ? The Word of God is "foolishness"
to those who are perishing. It's our sin nature !
"...your inability to listen."
You wonder why Bro. Rat considers you to be a
PoMo. Yet, you use classic PoMo lines like THAT !
"I'm not here to argue which one of us is right..."
Another PoMo line. Stop talking like a PoMo, and
the Calvinist Rodent will stop calling you one !
( Folks, a fundamental tenet of Post-Modernism
is that truth is elastic and, therefore, who is "right"
is irrelevant. )
"This might - just might - enable you to understand..."
( Folks, the Post Modernists don't care who is "right",
because -in their view- everybody is. But being
understood is a major preoccupation with them ! )
"Do you, by any chance, see the difference?"
Sure. Christians are telling you the bold truth.
They care enough to warn you. Outside your
recognizing your sin state -and the penalty God
imposes for sin- there is no hope you'll avoid
eternal damnation. Law and Gospel !
Your Pal,
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Judaism only gained acceptance this century."
Not talking acceptance. Even unaccepted,
Judaism was a religion practiced continuously
in America for centuries.
Wicca, in contrast, is a recent invention. It has
more in common with Modern American Feminism
than anything from ancient history.
The feminist New Agers wanted their own
religion. They culled several mismatched pagan
philosophies from dubious sources, and are
trying to pretend they practice some long-established
belief system.
The DataRat
The DataRat
The Reformed Rodent missed this one:
"You believe that Muslims belive in Mohammed,
but you believe that I believe in the Devil."
He replies:
No, Bro. Rat believes BOTH Wiccans ~and~
Muslims believe in the Devil.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"Would you say the same to a
Jew/Muslim/Hindi/Buddhist?
If no, then why not?"
Jews believe in the God of the Bible
( i.e., the one, true God ).
Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus
Joseph
> harves...@hotmail.com wrote in article
> > This is typical of a Christian trying to convert a member of a different
> > religion.
> >
> > Jewish: But the messiah you are waiting for has already come. Jesus is
> > the one you were waiting for, and if you believe in him, you will go to
> > heaven.
> >
> > Muslim: Mohammed was not the prophet, Jesus the son of God was. Jesus
> > has the keys to heaven.
> >
> > Hindu, Buddhism, Taoism: Your religions are very interesting and
> > respectable, but they are wrong. Jesus, the only son of the one God
> > is the answer.
> >
> > Witchcraft: You are evil Satanists and are going to Hell!!!
> >
> > Do you see the difference? That's not the tough love friendly warning
> > you seem so convinced that I am misinterpreting as hatred, that is hatred.
> >
> > You believe that Muslims belive in Mohammed, but you believe that I
> > believe in the Devil. You believe that Hindi believe in Brachman,
> > but believe that I believe in the Devil.
> >
> > Do you see the difference? Now, if you do, I ask again, why do you hate
> > us?
>
> You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
> You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
>
> At least good Christians will give you honest warning.
And don't you think s/he's heard it before? How many "honest warnings" do
you need to give before you figure you've done your duty and SHUT UP?
> Others could care less.
You didn't answer the question.
Let's put it another way.
Do Moslems, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists also serve the same devil? If so,
when you meet a Jew or a Moslem, do you tell them that they are slaves to
the devil to their face? If not, why not?
Answer the question.
- Saint Joseph
Joseph
> Might wanna pay more attention to editing your replies before
> posting. Nothing I had contributed to this discussion was listed here
> and yet I was being credited for what was being responded to.
>
> Astalis
My apologies. The error was not intentional.
- Saint Joseph
Joseph
> GoldRush wrote:
>
> > harvestdancer wrote:
> >
> > > Witchcraft: You are evil Satanists and are going to Hell!!!
> > >
> > > Do you see the difference?
>
> > You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
> > You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
>
> In politics one may choose the middle of the road some call "moderate".
> However in Christ there is NO middle of the road! One serves or NOT.
>
> Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate
> the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and
> despise the other..." {NKJV}
>
> James 3:11 "Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from the
> same opening?" {NKJV}
Do you extremeist Chirsters ALWAYS refuse to answer a simple question,
when the answer to the question might be embarrassing? I suppose so.
- Saint Joseph
GoldRush
harves...@hotmail.com wrote in article
<72otqh$2j0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <01be1113$4d657c60$ab3587d0@default>,
> "GoldRush" <jrr...@mlode.com> wrote:
> > You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
> > You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
> >
> > At least good Christians will give you honest warning.
> >
> > Others could care less.
>
> Would you say the same to a Jew/Muslim/Hindi/Buddhist?
>
> If no, then why not?
<snip>
Yes, we would say the same to the above. For why,
read Frank's answer.
Joseph
"Rev. Frank" wrote:
>GoldRush wrote:
>
>> harvestdancer wrote:
>>
>> > Witchcraft: You are evil Satanists and are going to Hell!!!
>> >
>> > Do you see the difference?
>>
>> You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
>> You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
Thus does another Christer avoid the question entirely.
> In politics one may choose the middle of the road some call
> "moderate". However in Christ there is NO middle of the road! One
> serves or NOT.
> Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will
> hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the
> one and despise the other..." {NKJV}
You cut out the last line: "... Ye cannot serve God and mammon." Again, it
seems to be alright for Christers to quote their holy writ out of context
to make it appear to address something it does not.
The above was intended to show that one cannot both strive for earthly
riches (serve mammon) and strive for righteousness (serve God.) This
preceeded the parable of the rich man and Lazarus the beggar.
I would answer to you with the verses that immediately follow, Luke
16:14-15:
"And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things; and
they derided him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify
yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is
highly esteemed among men is an abomination in the eyes of God."
So, my friend -- are you really going to try to justify the judgemental
hatred that so many Christians heap upon Wiccans and other pagans "before
men"? God does "knoweth your heart", after all.
> James 3:11 "Does a spring send forth fresh water and bitter from
> the same opening?" {NKJV}
Do you people really think I can't look these things up?
Another example of quoting out of context in order to make a point that
has nothing to do with the intention of the author.
The above has NOTHING to do with Biblical inerrancy, or polarization of
good and evil, or whatever "Rev. Frank" is trying to say.
The chapter dealt with how Christians should refrain from speaking
"poinsonously". It says in the verses leading up to your quote:
"Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men,
which are made after the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth
proceedeth blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to
be." THEN comes the verse you quote: "Doth a fountain send forth at the
same place sweet water and bitter?"
It goes on to say: "For where envying and strife is, there is confusion
and every evil work. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then
peaceable; gentle, and easy to be intreated; full of mercy and good
fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrasy. And the fruit of
righteousness is sown in peace of them that make peace."
So, tell me how ranting at Wiccans and other witches about their being
"evil" and calling them "murderers" and other vile epithets is in keeping
with the message James was trying to get across? (Check the posting by
"Dore Williamson" as well as "DataRat" on this thread to see what I mean.)
The only Christian in this discussion that has exemplified the values
above is "Police Box".
How can you be espousing the message of Jesus (sweet water) and vile
hatred and groundless accusations (bitter) with the same mouth? THAT is
what the chapter is talking about.
Do you people even READ your own holy book, or do you just keep a list of
out-of-context quotes to spew out to support your obviously NON-CHRISTIAN
views?
- Saint Joseph
--------------------------------------------------------------
Question with boldness even the existance of God; because if
there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than
that of blindfolded Fear.
-- Thomas Jefferson
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Astalis wrote:
> Actually, the only thing I really contributed...
> or stood on was this...
And you completely ignored other parts, and cut up my response in this
reply to eliminate the embarassing stuff.
> > "There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and
> > destroy -- who are you to judge your neighbor?"
> > -- James 4:12:
Now let's PUT BACK the verse you CUT OUT which is more germaine to the
discussion, and more embarassing for you:
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you
not to judge those inside? God will judge those outside." -- 1 Cor.
5:12-13
Now, let's go on...
> Also found in Scripture...
>
> "As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one..."
> Romans 3:10
This is particularly germaine to Harvest Dancer's question of why do
Christers reserve their SPECIAL ire for anyone calling themsleves a
"witch", as opposed to those who are Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists,
etc.
(Not all. "Police Box" offered an understanding of basic Wiccan precepts
and realized that they are not "witches" in the Biblical sense of the
word.)
As pointed out previously, according to Christain doctrine, Hitler and
Mother Teresa are both equally sinners and deserve to go to the same Hell
for their "sins". Christ is the only "answer" to save a person from
punishment in hell, regardless of their "goodness" in life.
This is another reason why Jesus admonished his followers not to judge
others, because we are all equally tainted by "original sin" -- even a
newborn baby is doomed to hell due to original sin. So all "judgements"
are useless anyway -- no one is "sinnless" enough to cast stones at others
-- EVEN IF THEY ARE UPHOLDING RELIGIOUS LAW, as was the mob in the
original story. Overzealous Christers with a holier-than-thou complex tend
to completely ignore this simple teaching of Jesus, or offer
justifications for their blatant violation of the founder's teachings,
such as this:
> Romans 5:18-21
> "Therefore, as through one man's offense judgment
> came to all men, resulting in condemnation,
> even so through one Man's righteous act the
> free gift came to all men, resulting in justification
> of life. For as by one man's disobedience many
> were made sinners, so also by one Man's obedience
> many will be made righteous.
The error here is to think that when Psaul is says "man" (lower case) he
is speaking in generalizations. He is not. He is referring to Adam, whose
"offense" was the eating of fruit of the Tree of Knowledge -- that this
offense resulted condemnation coming "to all men" is the vital clue as to
WHO Psaul is talking about -- Adam. ADAM is the "one man" by whose
disobedience many were made sinners. It is not some general condemnation
of "men" who lead people into "sin".
> Moreover the law
> entered that the offense might abound.
Appearently Psaul thinks that God's Law is merely a ruse, to show just how
depraved humans actually are by laying down Law that cannot possibly be
upheald completely, and thereby "the offense might abound."
> But where
> sin abounded, grace abounded much more,
Jesus's grace exceeds the weight of the sin and thereby offers a way out.
> So that as sin reigned in death, even so grace
> might reign through righteousness to eternal
> life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
And those who become Christians can avoid the eternal punishment for their
sins and obtain eternal life.
> So...why falsely accuse someone of
> judging if they're only going by what Scripture?
> Without Christ none of us are good or can ever
> hope to be. This goes for for the Wiccan, or
> anyone else, who who has rejected God's
> forgiveness of sins.
Astalis, it is still not clear at all how the passage you have now quoted
twice has any bearing on the question of Christians being commanded, by
both Jesus and Psaul, not to judge others. (Actually, Psaul modified that
to allow Christians to judge OTHER CHRISTIANS, but never those "outside
the church.")
It doesn't say, "Only judge others if you go by Scripture", it says very
clearly and plainly, JUDGE NOT, FOR THOU SHALT ALSO BE JUDGED! Jesus said,
"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." What do you think he was
talking about?
- Saint Joseph
-----------------------------------------------------------
During almost 15 centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More
or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy;
ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition,
bigotry and persecution.
--James Madison
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph
> > > At least good Christians will give you honest warning.
> > >
> > > Others could care less.
> >
> > Would you say the same to a Jew/Muslim/Hindi/Buddhist?
> >
> > If no, then why not?
> <snip>
>
> Yes, we would say the same to the above.
Bullshit. "Witches" are reserved for extra-special derogatory treatment,
because you've got some real cool quotes like "THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A
WITCH TO LIVE!" in your holy book that you can use to make yourselves feel
extra-special holy.
> For why, read Frank's answer.
Hey, at least they're equal opportunity bigots.
Since you demand your God-given right to be a blithering assholes to other
people, as well as violate the basic tenets of the religion you claim to
follow, you therefore aborgate any right to complain when others show you
up to be the self-righteous, overzealous prigs that you are. Which has and
will continue to happen quite often.
Theodore M. Seeber
> > Yes, we would say the same to the above.
>
> Bullshit. "Witches" are reserved for extra-special derogatory treatment,
> because you've got some real cool quotes like "THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A
> WITCH TO LIVE!" in your holy book that you can use to make yourselves feel
> extra-special holy.
No different than the druids burning Catholic missionaries at the stake.
But it's all in a name, and your religion bears no real resembelance to
the witches of 4000 B.C.
Ted
mailto:seebe...@bigfoot.com
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert
Click here for your official 1998 IDIC how to be an anarchist spoof:
http://www.teleport.com/~seebert/howto.html
Rev. Frank
Joseph wrote:
>
> Do you extremeist Chirsters ALWAYS refuse to answer a simple question,
> when the answer to the question might be embarrassing? I suppose so.
hehehehe!!!
Joseph,
Please define "extremeist Chirsters".
Maybe you just don't like the answer[s].
Rev. Frank
Joseph wrote:
> "Rev. Frank" wrote:
>
> >GoldRush wrote:
> >
> >> harvestdancer wrote:
> >>
> >> > Witchcraft: You are evil Satanists and are going to Hell!!!
> >> >
> >> > Do you see the difference?
> >>
> >> You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
> >> You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
>
> Thus does another Christer avoid the question entirely.
Once again "YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE ANSWER[S]"!!!
> > In politics one may choose the middle of the road some call
> > "moderate". However in Christ there is NO middle of the road! One
> > serves or NOT.
>
> > Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will
> > hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the
> > one and despise the other..." {NKJV}
>
> You cut out the last line: "... Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
Luke 16:13-15 "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate
the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and
despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon." Now the Pharisees,
who were lovers of money, also heard all these things, and they derided
Him. And He said to them, "You are those who justify yourselves before
men, but God knows your hearts. For what is highly esteemed among men is
an abomination in the sight of God. {NKJV}
1 John 5:18-20 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he
who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not
touch him. We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under
the sway of the wicked one. And we know that the Son of God has come and
has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we
are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God
and eternal life. {NKJV}
Ok Joseph, serving mammon/world = serving "the wicked one".
> So, my friend -- are you really going to try to justify the judgemental
> hatred that so many Christians heap upon Wiccans and other pagans "before
> men"? God does "knoweth your heart", after all.
>
> How can you be espousing the message of Jesus (sweet water) and vile
> hatred and groundless accusations (bitter) with the same mouth?
> Do you people even READ your own holy book, or do you just keep a list of
> out-of-context quotes to spew out to support your obviously NON-CHRISTIAN
> views?
Joseph, reread 1 John 5:18-20.
What does it say about "the true God"??
Rev. Frank
Joseph wrote:
> Since you demand your God-given right to be a blithering assholes to other
> people, as well as violate the basic tenets of the religion you claim to
> follow, you therefore aborgate any right to complain when others show you
> up to be the self-righteous, overzealous prigs that you are. Which has and
> will continue to happen quite often.
hehehehe!!!
Your frustration and inner turmoil is showing!
Maybe the Holy Spirit is working on you.
There may be hope for you after all.
God bless you Joseph and may the Holy Spirit guide you to Christ Jesus!
Walksalone
<see...@teleport.com> Having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of
life & uttered the following:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 1998, Joseph wrote:
>
>> > Yes, we would say the same to the above.
>>
>> Bullshit. "Witches" are reserved for extra-special derogatory treatment,
>> because you've got some real cool quotes like "THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A
>> WITCH TO LIVE!" in your holy book that you can use to make yourselves feel
>> extra-special holy.
>
>No different than the druids burning Catholic missionaries at the stake.
>But it's all in a name, and your religion bears no real resembelance to
>the witches of 4000 B.C.
Names & dates please?
>Ted
advertising snipped
In giving advice, seek to help, not please, a friend.
Author unknown
Cormac
> You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
> You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
>
> At least good Christians will give you honest warning.
>
> Others could care less.
Fine, leave it at "They do not believe in the devil, but I think
they serve him anyway." I'll believe what I believe you believe
what you believe, just don't put words in our mouths.
BB
Cormac
GoldRush
We did not realize "Saints" used such foul language
and were so full of vitriol!
GoldRush
Joseph <ma...@slip.net> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.96.981116080753.5189A-100000@slip-3>...
> On 16 Nov 1998, GoldRush wrote:
>
> > harves...@hotmail.com wrote in article
>
> > > This is typical of a Christian trying to convert a member of a
different
> > > religion.
> > >
> > > Jewish: But the messiah you are waiting for has already come. Jesus
is
> > > the one you were waiting for, and if you believe in him, you will go
to
> > > heaven.
> > >
> > > Muslim: Mohammed was not the prophet, Jesus the son of God was.
Jesus
> > > has the keys to heaven.
> > >
> > > Hindu, Buddhism, Taoism: Your religions are very interesting and
> > > respectable, but they are wrong. Jesus, the only son of the one God
> > > is the answer.
> > >
> > > Witchcraft: You are evil Satanists and are going to Hell!!!
> > >
> > > Do you see the difference? That's not the tough love friendly
warning
> > > you seem so convinced that I am misinterpreting as hatred, that is
hatred.
> > >
> > > You believe that Muslims belive in Mohammed, but you believe that I
> > > believe in the Devil. You believe that Hindi believe in Brachman,
> > > but believe that I believe in the Devil.
> > >
> > > Do you see the difference? Now, if you do, I ask again, why do you
hate
> > > us?
> >
> > You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
> > You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
> >
> > At least good Christians will give you honest warning.
>
> And don't you think s/he's heard it before? How many "honest warnings" do
> you need to give before you figure you've done your duty and SHUT UP?
>
> > Others could care less.
>
> You didn't answer the question.
>
> Let's put it another way.
>
> Do Moslems, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists also serve the same devil? If so,
> when you meet a Jew or a Moslem, do you tell them that they are slaves to
> the devil to their face? If not, why not?
>
> Answer the question.
>
> - Saint Joseph
>
>
>
Yes, we have been know to do that.
Cormac
> "Would you say the same to a
> Jew/Muslim/Hindi/Buddhist?
> If no, then why not?"
>
> Jews believe in the God of the Bible
> ( i.e., the one, true God ).
>
> Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus
> believe in the Devil.
Don't forget
Pagans
Baha'i
Hare Krishna
Confucianism
Humanism
Jainism
Shinto
Taoism
Native American Religions
Drat! I think I missed a few still, wait a minute, I think
that most of the world worships the devil! Wow you
really have your work cut out for you.
HEY!!! Why not educate yourself with the following link
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ocrt_hp.htm
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
> "Would you say the same to a
> Jew/Muslim/Hindi/Buddhist?
> If no, then why not?"
>
>
> Jews believe in the God of the Bible
> ( i.e., the one, true God ).
>
> Muslims,
Wrong. Muslims believe in the God of the Bible as well.
Have you ever seen a copy of the Koran in translation, DR? This might come
as a shock to you, but Muslims consider Islam to be the perfect
fulfillment of the Judeo_Christian trajectory - the Koran discusses
Abraham, Isaac, Jesus, et al - and in almost exactly the same terms, as
the NT and the Torah.
> Buddhists,
Sorry, DR, wrong again. Buddhists don't believe in a personal,
anthropomorphic god as exists in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.
The buddhist worldview is a little more metaphysical and a little less
myth & story-based.
> and Hindus
> believe in the Devil.
You have to have a Devil in your pantheon before you can believe in it.
Strike three!
Regards,
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
Supreme Chief, Gnostic Friends Network
--
Gnostic Friends Network: http://www.enemies.com/
The Gnostic Ring: http://members.tripod.com/~TempleOfGnosis/join.html
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
> The Reformed Rodent missed this one:
>
> "You believe that Muslims belive in Mohammed,
> but you believe that I believe in the Devil."
>
>
> He replies:
>
> No, Bro. Rat believes BOTH Wiccans ~and~
> Muslims believe in the Devil.
>
>
> The DataRat
Well, Bro. Rat believes WRONG! Wiccans do not believe in the devil because
he has no real purpose in their metaphysical scheme.
Muslims believe in the devil, in much the same way you do - the
obstructor, the tempter of Adam and Eve, the adversary of God.
If you ever go to college, take a compartive religions course, DR, it
would do you a world of good.
Rev. Illuminatus Maximus
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
Datarat:
You seem to use the term "post-modernism" pretty loosely, so I thought I
would help you out a bit but posting an essay or two on postmodern theory.
The mere fact that you say "Postmodern party line" (an impossibility,
since postmodernism REFERS to the end of "party lines") shows just how
badly we need to discuss this term a bit before you abuse it anymore.
from http://zap.simplenet.com/ned/whatis.htm
"What is Postmodernism? by Larry Solomon
"Postmodernism" is a concept in flux. The nature and description of
postmodernism has changed over the past few decades as the movement has
developed. Scholars dedicated to the subject generally do not agree on a
definition. Very different concepts have been proposed in
deconstructionist
theory (Derrida, Lacan), politics (Foucault), social theory
(Baudrillard), architecture (Jencks), literature (Barthes), philosophy
(Rorty), etc. Some of
these theories are European in origin and reflect on what is primarily
an American phenomenon, where the practice is focused. The result has been
a
mishmash of deconstructivist verbiage that is barely comprehensible,
even to those who are considered be postmodern practitioners.
I do not intend to launch into a critique of the literature or even a
summary of it, since it is only likely to confuse rather than illuminate.
Instead, I
hope to give a simplified and straightforward view of some basic
concepts that have made us aware that we are no longer living in the
Modern age,
with a modernist aesthetic. Modernism has become a relic of the past.
Thus, "we are living in a new world, a world that does not know how to
define
itself by what it is, but only by what it has ceased to be". Something
new and different is going on, and because the practice is yet evolving,
it is
difficult to define. This change of paradigm is what is now called
"postmodernism", which has become the accepted rubric.
The paradigm shift of postmodernism was seeded by two potent factors: 1.
a disenchantment with Enlightenment dogma, and 2. an emerging global
culture.
The Enlightenment, an era of faith in reason and science as the source
of truth, began with the Renaissance and reached its last phase in
modernism of
the early twentieth century. The focus of power during this period
turned away from the Church to an aristocracy and monarchs who served, on
the
one hand, as the patrons of the arts, and on the other as masters and
conquerors. They supported a line of social and scientific theories from
Kant and
Hegel to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche. The last pronounced that God was
dead, and that a race of supermen were destined to rule the world. These
and
other ideas, such as Darwinian evolution, the "survival of the fittest",
and racism, were applied to social theory and fed an increasing
aristocratic
arrogance that led to European imperialism, colonialism, and two World Wars.
The modern age of the early twentieth century was the final stage of the
European Enlightenment. It represented the culmination of centuries of
"progress", knowledge, and culture, The Enlightened world was a world
ruled by monarchs and dictators enforcing a class system and a belief in
the
progress of civilization from "primitive" beginnings. It was a time of
reductive science and master codes, an age of exploration, conquest,
imperialism, and colonization. Conquest came to be justified as a part
of the natural principle of "the survival of the fittest". The children of
the
Enlightenment embraced a belief in a Newtonian world that would be
determined and mastered completely when or if only our powers of deduction
and induction were applied to the fullest, and if only we could remain
objective and detached. Abstract theories were superior to subjective
observations. Every effect had a cause, and every thing had a reason.
The universe was a huge deterministic machine created by a single god, the
Christian god.
The twentieth century, which is often claimed to be the most civilized
ever, was, instead, the cruelest and bloodiest in human history. Over
fifty
million lives were destroyed by World War II alone. An atomic bomb was
built that enabled destruction on an unprecendented scale, on the order of
tens to hundreds of thousands of people in a single blow, rather than
the relative few who were killed in previous wars. Such was the
culmination of
an Enlightened world. Both World Wars were instigated by haughty
dictators and conquerers who believed their "race" was superior to all
others, that
they deserved a greater share of the world, or even the world itself.
The second war was begun by a dictator whose rule was so monstrous that no
other
can even remotely claim to have led to so many deaths. Yet he was
followed and supported by a nation of people who were considered to be at
the
peak of Western civilization.
The world that led to these catastrophes came to an end after the two
bloodiest wars in human history. Empires fell. Dictators and monarchs were
deposed. Colonialism ended. The faith in authority had been shaken, as
it was in elitist posturing, in hierarchical class systems, and in the
idea of
progress itself. Even science was changed. This was the beginning of
perhaps the biggest paradigm shift in human history, the beginning of the
postmodern world, which was, in part, due to a reaction against the
previous paradigm, represented by modernism.
In postmodern science the human observer has become a necessary player.
Science is now looked upon as another creation of the human mind,
subjective rather than an objective abstraction of some external
reality. Thus, it is participatory rather than detached. Art, too, has
turned from
abstraction to representation, from control to indeterminacy and chaos,
to a preference for communication and participation. Logic does not rule
supreme in the postmodern world. Instead, a new spiritual dimension has
been revived, e.g., in the New Age movement, a revival of interest in
astrology, ESP, etc. Postmodern art has accepted the past as just as
valid as the present, that we haven't progressed to a better world. Thus,
instead of
rejecting the past, it is incorporated into art.
There is no longer faith in a single over-all embracing metanarrative or
consistency of style and idea, but rather postmodernism embraces the
eclectic.
There is greater trust in humor and irony and less in staid and serious
theorizing. Postmodernism reflects an emerging global perspective, of
differing
cultures living together on a single planet (pluralism,
multi-culturalism), and an acceptance of these differences, each as valid
as the other.
Postmodernism validates the nonintentional. It validates polytheism and
a concern for the environment, ecology. It has turned from the theoretical
to
the pragmatic, from uniformity to diversity. and from elitism to populism.
Perhaps the first awareness of postmodernism was in the field of
architecture. It is in architecture that the multifarious manifestations
of
postmodernism are most clearly visible and, therefore, most easily
described. In architecture, postmodernism is a comparative concept, as it
is in
general, and therefore it must be contrasted with modernism.
Postmodernism is not the opposite of modernism, as it is often portrayed,
but is rather
broader, more inclusive, and encompasses modernism within it. Charles
Jencks, perhaps the foremost spokeperson on postmodernism architecture
describes it as "double coding"; i.e., it is modern architecture with
something else juxtaposed on it. This "something else" is not an
amalgamation
but must be contrasting, eclectic. This is often a historicist
juxtaposition (something from the past), but may also be from a different
culture; e.g.,
Western + Japanese, or a different aesthetic. As such, postmodernism
seems to represent a period of transition, a period in which a uniform
aesthetic
has not yet matured.
Dates can only be artificial divisions, but they are useful as
guidelines. Modern music is generally considered to be a period from about
1910 to 1960,
with 1960-70 being a transitional stage. Modern composers include
Schoenberg, Bartok, Varese, and Stravinsky. Postmodern composers include
John
Zorn, and Frank Zappa. But, Charles Ives was, in some ways, a
proto-postmodernist who lived early in the century, which demonstrates
that dates
cannot be relied upon completely. On the other hand, modernism survives
today as late-modernism, with such composers as Pierre Boulez, Milton
Babbitt, and Karlheinz Stockhausen.
Modern artists include Piet Mondrian, Paul Klee, Juan Miro, Pablo
Picasso, William de Kooning, and Mark Rothko. Postmodern artists include
Peter Blake, Ron Kitaj, and Robert Longo. Postmodern architects include
Charles Moore (Piazza d'Italia), Michael Graves (Portland Public Service
Building), and Yasufumi Kijima (Matsuo Shrine). Modern science is
represented by Einstein's relativity and unified field theories.
Postmodern science
includes quantum theory, indeterminacy, and chaos.
The following chart, garnered from various sources with some additions,
is meant to contrast modernism with postmodernism, but any such chart is
bound to be an oversimplified generalization. Nevertheless, distinctions
are necessary and useful. This is offered as such. The contrasts between
the
two are rarely clear-cut, and postmodern thought normally embraces
modernism within it.
Modern
Postmodern
monism
pluralism
monotheism, atheism
pantheism
authoritarian, totalitarian
democratic
utopian, elitist
populist
patriarchal
non-patriarchal,
hierarchical
anarchical
totalization
non-totalized,
centered
dispersed
European, Western
global,
multicultural
master code
idiolects
uniformity
diversity
determinist
indeterminant
objectivism
anthropic principle
objectivist values
values from nature
detached
participatory
separation from and control of nature
ecological
staid, serious
playful, ironic
formal
non-formal
purposeful
playful
intentional, constructive
non-intentional,
progress
dynamics
theoretical
practical, pragmatic
reductive, analytic
synthetic
simplicity, elegance, spartan
elaboration
logical
spiritual
Newtonian mechanics, Relativity
quantum mechanics,
cause-effect
synchronicity
control-design
chance
linear
multi-pathed
harmonious, integrated
eclectic
permanence
transience
abstraction
representation
material
semiotic
non-communicative
communicative
anti-symbolic
pro-symbolic
anti-metaphorical
pro-metaphorical
non-narrative
narrative
nonhistoricist, cult of the "new"
historicism
mechanical
electronic
analog
digital"
from http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/curric/soc/postmode/post1.htm
"What is postmodernism?
by Lois Shawver
What is postmodernism?
Where to begin?? Postmodernism begins with a loss of faith in
the dreams of modernism. Modernism is the mindset that emerged during the
Enlightenment, an optimistic faith in the idea that methodology of science
can lead the human sciences to meaningful psychological understanding of
people. Postmodernism begins, as Lyotard said, with an incredulity towards
our cultural metanarratives, and a major metanarrative, especially in
psychology, is individual difference theory. But postmodernism does not
replace this modernist dream and all its metanarratives with another
metanarrative.
In place of the lost dream of modernism, postmodernism gives us a new
vocabulary, a new language game, for helping us notice dimensions of
experience that were obscured by the modernist vision. It's a dynamic
language game, with meanings evolving and changing.
And when you are within this language people may well say things that you
will want to challenge. Being postmodern is not endorsing a dogma. It is
just a new language game, but it is a powerful language game that calls
attention to dimensions of our reality that were obscured in our
forgetting, our denial, such as the political dynamics behind
publications which then become recognized as truth. It doesn't say that
specific dynamics are always there. It simply calls attention to the
dynamics modernism tried to minimize and overlook. Once we're looking in
this direction, we can discuss and ponder what various people see.
So postmodernism is partly a new language, a new set of terms that call
our attention to new dimensions. No one is committed to using these
words, but those who begin to see the landscape around us through this new
vocabulary are inclined to use these words. Myself, I think it is a
mistake to move too quickly into this vocabulary. It strikes those who
haven't learned to speak it as utter nonsense. And there are many
epigones who use the terms in a nonsensical way. But there is no
proposition, no argument that postmodernism has the last word, no theory
as to how people work.
Understanding postmodernism merely involves learning to read and
understand this new language. The task is made difficult, in part,
because the writing to this point is largely exploratory work in which the
authors, especially later Wittgenstein and Derrida, are more concerned
with thinking through these issues with a select group of thinkers than
they are in teaching new students. This movement desperately needs
introductory interpreters.
How do you know your interpreters are giving you the right interpretation?
Trust interpreters who open up postmodern text for you so that it starts
making sense when you read and hear it. Distrust the detractors who make
postmodern text seem idiotic. Good interpretation doesn't just inform
you so you can avoid reading and learning from other sources. It opens
up those sources and makes them meaningful. The same is true, of course,
for what it helps you read. That, too, should open up new sources of
text (and not necessarily just postmodern text).
A few key concepts that we can discuss if you like: "language game",
"metaphorical structuring", "parasitic language", "deconstruction",
"metaphysics of presence", "the Other", "the dialogic mind", "social
constructionism", "differance", "metanarrative." You can probably
provide me with a few more. Postmodernism, by the way, includes learning
to say, "What does that mean?" and recognizing the hidden dynamic force
in all of us that wants to avoid doing that too often.
This is enough for starters. What do you think about my
suggestion that postmodernism is not only an incredulity towards
metalanguages, as Lyotard suggests, but is also a new evolving, dynamic,
and powerful language game in its own right? Is that a meaningful image
for you? Can you see how that might apply to postmodern discourse that
you have come across?
..Lois Shawver"
Cormac
> The Reformed Rodent missed this one:
>
> "You believe that Muslims belive in Mohammed,
> but you believe that I believe in the Devil."
>
> He replies:
>
> No, Bro. Rat believes BOTH Wiccans ~and~
> Muslims believe in the Devil.
>
> The DataRat
Fine, but your wrong. As mentioned above, you might
want to take a course in religion (about other religions).
Who knows, it could strengthen your faith as a Christian,
but at least it will let you get your facts right.
BB
Cormac
harves...@hotmail.com
Look, DataRat, even though you're entierly, completely, and utterly wrong,
I'm not going to let you lead me astray.
I'm not here to argue which religion is better.
I'm not here to convert or be converted.
I'm not here to argue which religion is true.
I'm here to find out why we get a treatment, that if given to the Jews, would
brand the offender as a Nazi.
Don't go astray by saying how they're blessed and we're cursed. The average
Christian also shows more respect to the Muslims, the Hindu, and the
Buddhists than they would ever dream of showing a Witch. DataRat, answer the
question this time, and don't lead this thread astray again!
Why is it that we get worse treatment than the Muslims, the Hindus, or the
Buddhists?
Harvest Dancer
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
harves...@hotmail.com
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote:
> Jews believe in the God of the Bible
> ( i.e., the one, true God ).
>
> believe in the Devil.
Excuse me, Mr. Rat, but up until now, most of what you posted has been
intelligent. But you are wrong this time.
How can, in your narrow beliefs, the Jews serve God, since according to you,
one must believe in the divinity of Jesus to serve your Idol?
You may believe that the other three serve your fiction of a devil, but of
them, only the Muslims share a belief in the devil, and they too consider him
to be an advisary, not an idol.
Buddhists and Hindus do NOT believe in your superstition of a Devil at all.
You may believe that they serve him, but that doesn't mean they believe in
him. They believe in him even less than I do, and I don't believe in him at
all.
Try again.
harves...@hotmail.com
"The DataRat" <dat...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> The Reformed Rodent missed this one:
>
> "You believe that Muslims belive in Mohammed,
> but you believe that I believe in the Devil."
>
> He replies:
>
> No, Bro. Rat believes BOTH Wiccans ~and~
> Muslims believe in the Devil.
>
In that case, the Rat is really a Blind Mouse. I know you believe that we
serve your fiction of a Devil, but that is not the same as believing in your
Devil.
Do you see the difference? Do you? If you do, then perhaps we can try to
get back to the topic of this thread.
harves...@hotmail.com
"GoldRush" <jrr...@mlode.com> wrote:
> Joseph <ma...@slip.net> wrote in article
> <Pine.GSO.3.96.981116080753.5189A-100000@slip-3>...
> > On 16 Nov 1998, GoldRush wrote:
> > > harves...@hotmail.com wrote in article
> > > > This is typical of a Christian trying to convert a member of a
> different
> > > > religion.
> > > >
> > > > Jewish: But the messiah you are waiting for has already come. Jesus
> is
> > > > the one you were waiting for, and if you believe in him, you will go
> to
> > > > heaven.
> > > >
> > > > Muslim: Mohammed was not the prophet, Jesus the son of God was.
> Jesus
> > > > has the keys to heaven.
> > > >
> > > > Hindu, Buddhism, Taoism: Your religions are very interesting and
> > > > respectable, but they are wrong. Jesus, the only son of the one God
> > > > is the answer.
> > > >
> > > > Witchcraft: You are evil Satanists and are going to Hell!!!
> > > >
> > > > Do you see the difference? That's not the tough love friendly
> warning
> > > > you seem so convinced that I am misinterpreting as hatred, that is
> hatred.
> > > >
> > > > but believe that I believe in the Devil.
> > > >
> > > > Do you see the difference? Now, if you do, I ask again, why do you
> hate
> > > > us?
> > >
> > > You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
> > > You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
> > >
> > > At least good Christians will give you honest warning.
> >
> > And don't you think s/he's heard it before? How many "honest warnings" do
> > you need to give before you figure you've done your duty and SHUT UP?
> >
> > > Others could care less.
> >
> > You didn't answer the question.
> >
> > Let's put it another way.
> >
> > Do Moslems, Jews, Hindus and Buddhists also serve the same devil? If so,
> > when you meet a Jew or a Moslem, do you tell them that they are slaves to
> > the devil to their face? If not, why not?
> >
> > Answer the question.
> >
> > - Saint Joseph
> >
>
> Yes, we have been know to do that.
>
Yes. my point exactly. You have been known to do that. That is not what you
do the majority of the time. I wrote those stereotypes because that is what
you do most of the time. Most of the time you do not tell a
Jew/Moslem/Hindu/Buddhist to their face that they are slaves to your mythical
devil, but that is the first thing said to us.
Now answer the question! Quit trying to go off on tangents!
Why? Why is that the first thing you say to us, but you seldom say it to
them?
That is the topic of this whole thread. Holy Goddess! Try to answer it!
The DataRat
"I'm not here to argue which religion
is better."
Neither is the Reformed Rodent ! Rather:
Which religion is the truth, and which a lie.
"I'm not here to convert or be converted."
Christians don't believe they convert people.
Real Christians know that the Holy Spirit has
~that~ job description. We are only to proclaim
the Truth.
"The average Christian also shows more respect
to the Muslims, the Hindu, and the Buddhists than
they would ever dream of showing a Witch."
The "average Christian" isn't a Christian. Churches
are filled with people on their way to hell. Anyone
believing that Islam or Buddhism are less
doctrines-of-demons than Wicca is gravely mistaken.
Does THAT answer your question ?
Your Pal,
The DataRat
The DataRat
Hey, did you notice, HarvestDancer ?
In the above reply that The DataRat wrote
he feels many "Christians" are going to
hell.
Don't feel singled-out just because you
are a Wiccan. Real Christians tell false
Christians that they're not saved -just like
they tell Buddhists and Muslims and
Wiccans.
The gate ~is~ narrow, HarvestDancer.
Many are called, but few will enter !
DataRat
The DataRat
"How can, in your narrow beliefs, the
Jews serve God..."
Read what Bro. Rat wrote, NOT read into
what he wrote !
Never said Jews "serve God". Only that
they "believe" in the one, true God. Big
difference there !
"...only the Muslims share a belief in the devil..."
You're a regular fountain of PoMo ideology,
aren't you !
( Folks, the post-modernist Party Line states
that only those things we believe in have
reality for us. Therefore, if a Buddhist, say,
doesn't believe in satan, for him Satan doesn't
exist ! )
No, Satan exists whether Buddhists and Hindus
believe in him or not.
The DataRat
The DataRat
"As mentioned above, you might want to
take a course in religion (about other religions)."
The Reformed Rodent was an atheist for
thirty years. Twenty of that he was a Buddhist
who also subscribed to Taoism. Bet he knows
more comparative religion than most of you
New Agers !
DataRat
The DataRat
"...but that is not the same as believing in your
Devil. Do you see the difference?"
The Calvinist Rodent sees that you PoMo's
(post-modernists) think that -if you don't
believe in something- it's not a reality for you.
Wrong ! Satan is real whether you believe
Rev. Frank
harves...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
> Now answer the question! Quit trying to go off on tangents!
>
> Why? Why is that the first thing you say to us, but you seldom say it to
> them?
>
> That is the topic of this whole thread. Holy Goddess! Try to answer it!
*************************************************************************
***Below are some questions from Harvest Dancer's original post the ones
s/he is saying no one will answer. I will answer each and every
question, of course they are ~my~ answers and I do not claim to speak
for anyone else.*** Rev. Frank
*************************************************************************
>Does your religion teach such hatred toward those who disagree?
NO.
>Are you that afraid of us?
NO.
>Does the misinformation you have mean that much to you?
NO.
>Do you hate us that much?
NO.
>Do you fear us that much?
NO.
>Do you want us dead?
NO.
>WHY DO YOU HATE US?
I don't.
>Harvest Dancer
REV. Frank
Joseph
> Joseph wrote:
>
>> > Yes, we would say the same to the above.
>>
>> Bullshit. "Witches" are reserved for extra-special derogatory treatment,
>> because you've got some real cool quotes like "THOU SHALT NOT SUFFER A
>> WITCH TO LIVE!" in your holy book that you can use to make yourselves feel
>> extra-special holy.
>
>No different than the druids burning Catholic missionaries at the stake.
Um, do tell. Could you cite any historical references to this? I mean,
other than Watchtower magazine.
As I understand it, the Druids were Celtic priests that florished from
around 500 BC until around 100 AD, when the Roman Empire launched a series
of surpressions. Most accounts of the Druids come from either the Roman
historian Ammianus (ca. 330-395 BC) or from the accounts of Julius Caesar.
Druidism was banned form the Roman Empire by Claudius in 43 AD. Needless
to say, this all predated the Roman Catholic Church by several centuries.
The Druids did not burn people "at the stake", but rather executed
convicted criminals as human sacrifices by caging them in huge
humaniod wicker statues and setting them on fire. The Romans considered
this barbaric, as if they had room to talk. Romans fed their criminals and
political prisoners (like Christians) to lions and gladiators.
>But it's all in a name, and your religion bears no real resembelance to
>the witches of 4000 B.C.
It's not my religion. But that is something I've been saying all along.
Witches in the Bible are necromancers and poisoners. So why do so many
Christers think that the bit about not "suffering a witch to live"
applies to Wiccans?
- Saint Joseph
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Do we, holding that the gods exist, deceive ourselves with
insubstantial dreams and lies, while random and careless
chance alone controls the world?"
-- Euripides
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joseph
> Joseph wrote:
>
> > Do you extremeist Chirsters ALWAYS refuse to answer a simple question,
> > when the answer to the question might be embarrassing? I suppose so.
>
> hehehehe!!!
Nervous laughter?
> Please define "extremeist Chirsters".
Allow me to give an example:
On Sun, 15 Nov 1998, Dore Williamson wrote:
>> You are a liar.
>>
>> Witchcraft is NOT an innocent religion. Witchcraft uses spells to pour
>> havoc in other peoples lives. They do nothing but evil.
>>
>> I have seen witches murder, hurt and destroy with their practices.
>>
>> Don't play innocent with me, we are all not that stupid. Whether you
>> believe in the devil or not, that is where all witchcraft gets their
>> power. Are you really so blind to belong to something you know nothing
>> about.
Any clearer now?
> Maybe you just don't like the answer[s].
Maybe I'd like to HEAR some answers so I could decide if I liked them or
not.
Try this one on for size:
Why to Christians insist on judging and condemning those OUTSIDE of their
church in direct contradiction to the commands of their own holy writ?
"What business is it of mine to judge those outside the
church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge
those outside."
-- 1 Cor. 5:12-13
Well?
- Saint Joseph
------------------------------------------------------------
There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to
save and destroy -- who are you to judge your neighbor?
-- James 4:12:
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph
> Joseph wrote:
>
> > "Rev. Frank" wrote:
> >
> > >GoldRush wrote:
> > >
> > >> harvestdancer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > Witchcraft: You are evil Satanists and are going to Hell!!!
> > >> >
> > >> > Do you see the difference?
> > >>
> > >> You may not overtly believe in the devil, but you serve him.
> > >> You are his slave, whether you know it or not.
> >
> > Thus does another Christer avoid the question entirely.
>
> Once again "YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE ANSWER[S]"!!!
Once again, I've yet to get one. Refer to my previous post to this one and
answer the question. Or, by refusing, admit that you CAN'T.
> > > In politics one may choose the middle of the road some call
> > > "moderate". However in Christ there is NO middle of the road! One
> > > serves or NOT.
> >
> > > Luke 16:13 "No servant can serve two masters; for either he will
> > > hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the
> > > one and despise the other..." {NKJV}
> >
> > You cut out the last line: "... Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
<snip -- I already typed that entire verse in, and it referes specifically
to serving wealth as opposed to serving God. It has NOTHING to do with why
so many Christians violate their own holy book by condemning and judging
those outside of their church.>
> 1 John 5:18-20 We know that whoever is born of God does not sin; but he
> who has been born of God keeps himself, and the wicked one does not
> touch him. We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies under
> the sway of the wicked one. And we know that the Son of God has come and
> has given us an understanding, that we may know Him who is true; and we
> are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God
> and eternal life. {NKJV}
>
> Ok Joseph, serving mammon/world = serving "the wicked one".
And "serving mammon/word = serving the "wicked one"" is what chapter and
verse of the Bible? How did they translate the "equals sign" from the
original Greek?
Oh, I'm sorry -- you made this conclusion YOURSELF! I see.
And what twisted logic and reasoning brings you to tie these two verses,
from different books by different authors at different times to different
audiences, into one unified statement? As if any of it has ANYTHING to do
with the QUESTION that you still refuse to directly address.
>
> > So, my friend -- are you really going to try to justify the judgemental
> > hatred that so many Christians heap upon Wiccans and other pagans "before
> > men"? God does "knoweth your heart", after all.
> >
> > How can you be espousing the message of Jesus (sweet water) and vile
> > hatred and groundless accusations (bitter) with the same mouth?
> > Do you people even READ your own holy book, or do you just keep a list of
> > out-of-context quotes to spew out to support your obviously NON-CHRISTIAN
> > views?
>
> Joseph, reread 1 John 5:18-20.
>
> What does it say about "the true God"??
It claims that the Christians know they are the followers of the "true
god". This is not a surprising claim, since every religion claims
basically the same thing. So what's your point?
Again, the Christer avoids answering the question.
- Saint Joseph
---------------------------------------------------------
What business is it of mine to judge those outside the
church? Are you not to judge those inside? God will judge
those outside.
-- 1 Cor. 5:12-13
---------------------------------------------------------
Joseph
> Joseph wrote:
>
> > Since you demand your God-given right to be a blithering assholes to other
> > people, as well as violate the basic tenets of the religion you claim to
> > follow, you therefore aborgate any right to complain when others show you
> > up to be the self-righteous, overzealous prigs that you are. Which has and
> > will continue to happen quite often.
>
> hehehehe!!!
>
> Your frustration and inner turmoil is showing!
>
> Maybe the Holy Spirit is working on you.
>
> There may be hope for you after all.
>
> God bless you Joseph and may the Holy Spirit guide you to Christ Jesus!
Your Jedi mind tricks will not work on me, Skywalker...
- Saint Joseph
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kilgore Trout once wrote a short story which was a dialogue
between two pieces of yeast. They were discussing the possible
purposes of life as they ate sugar and suffocated in their own
excrement. But because of their limited intelligence, they
never came close to guessing they were making champagne.
-- Kurt Vonnegut
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph
> The DataRat wrote:
>
> > The Reformed Rodent missed this one:
> >
> > "You believe that Muslims belive in Mohammed,
> > but you believe that I believe in the Devil."
> >
> > He replies:
> >
> > No, Bro. Rat believes BOTH Wiccans ~and~
> > Muslims believe in the Devil.
> >
> > The DataRat
>
> Fine, but your wrong. As mentioned above, you might want to take a
> course in religion (about other religions). Who knows, it could
> strengthen your faith as a Christian, but at least it will let you get
> your facts right.
Data-Chicken has already made up his mind. Don't confuse him with the
facts. They make his tiny head hurt really bad.
Joseph
> "As mentioned above, you might want to
> take a course in religion (about other religions)."
>
> The Reformed Rodent was an atheist for
> thirty years. Twenty of that he was a Buddhist
> who also subscribed to Taoism. Bet he knows
> more comparative religion than most of you
> New Agers !
Ok, Data-Chicken: what school of Buddhism did you subscribe to?
What are the basic differences between the Madhyamaka and Nyingmapa
schools of Buddhism?
You must have learned SOMETHING in your twenty years. Or are you just a
lying sack of shit? Silence confirms the latter.
- Saint Joseph