WICCA

[Kemosave]

If there were a nation of Wiccans who attacked another nation and slit thousands of throats because those peopel did not believe as the Wiccans do, then your analogy would make sense. I think you're reaching here. You know very well Kemo that what I say is true, and is even happening as we speak. Yes pagan cultures were warlike, but for the most part they were accepting. They did not usually force their gods onto others, or if they did, they did not force you to stop worshipping your original gods. It was not anything like the muslims or christians/catholics where there is no middle ground. You attack a country because they are nonbelievers and they don't "count", they are "savages" becasue they don't believe in your god. Then once you conquer them, you force the survivors to accept your god and punish them for worshipping their own. This is not only fact, this has happened over and over and over, and for you to deny it would really lower your standing in my eyes.

Dear Panik, To the best of my recollection, I have never violently forced anyone to do anything but merely acted in self-defense and with discretion when attacked. I was a white boy in hoods not a gangmember. Yes, I practice martial arts and believe in self defense. But if you judge me for not allowing someone high on ice to stomp my head into the concrete because I'm walking to the store to get a sandwich as not turning the other cheek, then you have misunderstood the meaning of the scripture in context. If you believe paying taxes or fulfilling civic responsibilities is wrong (like voting for whom you believe is the best candidate) because you disagree with our system of Government or a current sitting President then you and Bin Laden agree on those points. I'm not for the Iraq war but I do care about supporting our troops and keeping the country I live in safe from terrorism along with our personal freedoms. That's about it. If you want to discuss a Christian's proper relationship to Government I will be happy to discuss it. In fact, further down I think you will see I am already laying the foundation for that discussion. The truth is I live a simple peaceful life, as do those in my assembly. We practice peace and forgiveness of our enemies. Sure when a new hardcore gangster comes into the home, for example, it is sometimes difficult because they may get mad and give someone a black eye or run away for a few days. But the process of positive change has begun and for the guys that stick with it, the vast majority become peaceful men and loving fathers and husbands. That's a fact that I visually observe day in and day out. And sure I think if we can stop Hitler from perpetuating genocide or North Korea from spreading nuclear bombs to terrorist organization that's good and very important to do and sometimes there is a price to be paid (even a high one). But that is simply a personal opinion I have and gaining understanding/wisdom is a life long process (though this should not be used as an excuse to procrastinate critical decisions) so all these personalized you/your baseless accusations need to be addressed in historical context to hopefully further enlighten you as to the enormous mistake you continue to make when failing to differentiate between politics and the invisible body of authentic christians. Let's stop worrying about me shall we and move on to the discussion..

I think I now see that your position is warring Pagans allowing captured territories to often retain their gods (the ones they didn't have a problem with anyway). Sounds right in some places and times but I think you are downplaying how many pagan nations forced conversions to one or more of their gods upon victory. Also your complete dismissal of human sacrifice with a "so what?" doesn't win any points with me. I will continue to differentiate between what Christ said, did, and who he was and what many people and governments were and chose and continue to choose to do and how they use religion to further their aims and what an authentic Christian position is historically regarding same.

But first I wish to address how you have incorrectly profiled Christians. There are plenty of authentic peace loving Christians in this world not conquering, forcing, or punishing anyone or supporting "right wing fundamentalists" efforts. It is wrong of you to project blame for what some people and governments do onto them. But to properly address the issue we must move beyond the first century where the only thing Christians warred against were the lions in the arenas the Pagans were throwing them. This was the era of Christian pacifism (regarding war). Under the Roman Empire prior to Constantine, Christians were persecuted and during many seasons martyred for simply being Christian. The grace and love displayed by these early followers of Christ eventually won over their oppressors and conquered an Empire without Christians shedding even one other person's blood for the cause of Christ.

The Christian church of the first three centuries was pacifist. Check out Introduction to the History of Christianity, ed. Tim Dowley. Obviously Christ never would have fought for Rome. Paul would not have either. Nor any of the apostles or believers of that time. But Paul spoke highly of Rome when he wrote to the believers in Rome. He urged them to submit to the authorities, only a few years after a mass expulsion of all Jews from the city by the authorities during riots. Was the type of submission he was talking about including giving one's one life into the hands of generals and politicians? Or was he making another statement against violence, seeing what a tinderbox Rome was? When Jerusalem was leveled during the Jewish wars of 70 A.D., the Christians fled the city, sealing the rift between Jews and the Christian Church that was predominantly Jewish at the time. After that, it was viewed as a separate religion and later became known as a Gentile faith. History shows that there was no militancy to speak of within Christianity until Emperor Constantine got converted. In many Christian's eyes, this was the beginning of A wretched decline for the faith. The persecution of the Church ended which is wonderful, but then the bishops and scholars began to turn on themselves and bring persecution INTO Christianity! The Church even allowed the government to intervene in Church matters as if the Emperor knew anything about it.

Now is the time to differentiate between the invisible Church made up of those who have a real authentic relationship with Christ and a political church which is the new way to rise to the top: the Emperor likes it, therefore I will too. This kind of thinking swept through the social, political, and military ranks of society until it became the new tool to justify the empire and its actions. And leaders within the political church bought into their new influence and prestige, accepting the bribe of power and all its perks. The cross went on the shields, and off the soldiers went to fight for Rome (in the name only of Christ). This was the first horrible union of Christianity with nationalism/patriotism. Today there are multiple states with this same dysfunctional marriage. (Note: Theocracy was not a New Testament option, nor one today).

The majority of Jews in Israel at the time of Jesus were seeking a political revolution through the Messiah, to be free from Rome, but Christ didn't come for that AT ALL. His Kingdom Is above, as HE explained to Pilate. And so Christians live for the same Kingdom. But what about this big government thing that keeps sending me bills? Well, that's certainly not something to be ignored. None of our people really ignored it during the days of the early Church. Government played its role in every day life. But it definitely wasn't the center. When Paul was writing to the believers in Rome, he knew it was to the advantage of all Christians to have a government that was more or less indifferent to Christianity. That's all Paul needed to travel about freely, declaring the Gospel to every city and soul he could find. The system of the Roman empire favored communication and travel, and he used both of these extensively. All the Church needed was justice and the freedoms to declare the Gospel, meet together, and worship God. And that's all we need today. But even the word "need" is conditional. Obviously Satan was uncomfortable with the situation in 70 A.D. and made his move. Yet the Church surged forward when persecution broke out against it. It became outlawed with the harshest penalties, yet it refused to die. God made it grow under all circumstances, and brought good out of anything.

Today, the basics of what the Christian needs to practice Christianity in the open are justice, freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly. Of course, without these, we continue onward as always with all the more perseverance and conviction. But we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves in times of peace by taking more of the pie than we potentially can. Taking over the government is the same as the government taking over the Church. Nobody wins. What we favor is the secular government that Christians influence in the appropriate ways, chiefly seeing justice and those freedoms maintained. I make a point out of justice for a few reasons. God makes it clear throughout the entire Bible that He hates injustice, and judges nations accordingly when they embrace the latter. It's also to our advantage to advocate it in government. When any government takes a liking to injustice - whether it means rigged trials, allowing the rich to trample the poor, persecution of minorities - they take a disliking to true Christianity, because it defends the downtrodden. This comes out extremely well through the example of Nazi Germany, where a German pastor poured out his heart in writings from within a prison cell before dying under persecution by his government.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Thus Hitler said: "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." And what a profound statement this madman made. One could not be a true Christian and usher Jews or Gypsies into the gas chambers. Hitler saw that his ideal of German nationalism was incompatible with the Christianity of Christ. One had to go, and so there were many other examples like the pastor's in Nazi prisons and labor camps throughout Europe. So a government that loves injustice will hate Christianity.

Any government that demands absolute allegiance to its own cause will persecute Christians as well. Look at how every communist government in history has treated Christianity (in addition to other faiths). And even the "Christian" governments of Europe began persecuting non-conformist elements within the Church, particularly other denominations. In Latin America, governments such as El Salvador's turned on the Church when the Church finally turned against the government's absolute corruption and violence to break the unholy alliance. What are the patriotic causes of today's government? War, national security, and always money. If we don't start making the U-turn soon, this government will begin acting hostile towards people who take a public stance on these issues in a way that might jeopardize its own agenda. The rights spoken of above are already eroding away under the pressure of fear and greed. Anyways, from the historical vantage point, the proper nature of the relationship between Church & state should be one of friction. While the Church recognizes the right of government to govern, it refuses to be silent about any form of corruption or injustice it sees. This can come at great cost, but the cost of compromise has proven greater.

Ambrose refused to give communion to Emperor Theodosius after he'd ordered a grand massacre in Thessalonica. He later excommunicated Theodosius! That takes guts and a passion for Christ. Honestly there is much more to discuss along these lines and I will if you want me to.

The American Indian wasn't conquered because they were "heathen savages that needed Jesus." They were conquered because the manifest destiny of the US was to spread from sea to shining sea and rape the land and people for whatever wealth and power was there to be had. The Lakota, Cherokee, Black Foot et al were just on the land that the US wanted. This is the same reason that pagan nations went to war. Rome for example. It is especially weak argument for someone to say, "well, Rome let them continue to worship whomever they chose, as long as a temple of the emperor was erected in the land and you said 'kaiser kurios' when asked." It amounts to the same thing, lots of bloodshed, followed by slavery and subjugation for the purpose of increasing the glory of Rome in the way of land, money and power. Was Alexander less ruthless? Gengis Khan? What of the feuding samurai? The way you talk sometimes falsely makes it sound like Jesus invented war.

Next, did Jesus walk the earth or not? If you deny the historicity of Christ, you are going even against the atheists who believe there is a historical Christ. So how do atheists know there WAS a real Jesus? Did they see him? Did they read about him? If you say YOU don't rely on textual evidence, do you believe anybody in ancient history ever existed? You cannot sustain that argument without denying the availability and accuracy of historical evidence in general. If you do deny historical evidence in general, then your arguments for all the evils of "religion" are bogus, also, because he was never there to see the Crusades or the Salem Witch Trials or whatever he's claiming were the evil historical events perpetrated by "religion."

Regarding Bezerkers and substances. I have heard and read that drugs were used. I'm not an expert on this subject but I have seen this before. One example involves the use of A. muscaria as a psychoactive substance found throughout a variety of sources. Debates exist between Norse scholars on whether or not the mushrooms were consumed by Viking Bezerkers before going into battle. Recent reports exist as well about the use of the substance in a recreational manner, yet its current spiritual use is rarely heard of.

As for your "hearsay" argument, that's entirely bogus. The question of the existence of any historical figure is not done in a using juridical or testimonial means. It's done using forensic means. That includes written documents that are analyzed from a multitude of systems. One is comparative: you compare the way the text was written in one document with other documents known to have come from the same period. If their styles/modes match, they're probably contemporaries. But that's only one means. Another is carbon-13/12 dating of the original papyra to verify that the document is the right age; another is the internal-linguistic approach, where the author's statements are compared with the statements of other contemporaries on the same or similar subjects. On and on and on.... The point: it is FORENSIC not JURIDICAL analysis that we use to validate ancient texts. You, my friend, are playing fast and loose with logic.

[Kemosave]

Now, as for the bible as a historical document, like I said. It needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, there are things in the bible that are no doubt factual. There are others that may be related to fact, but altered by either exaggeration or wrong dates and placement in context. Then there are other things that are outright false and nothing more than a fairy tale. So, like I said it is much like the Illiad and the Odyssey by Homer. There are lots of facts there, but mixed in with fiction, and sometimes it is very hard to draw the line. And to use either one as a end all argument on someone elses beliefs I think is arrogant, and a little ignorant. You alreay agreed in another post that some of the apastles have varrying stories, even if my so much as for one to include something and the other to exlucde something from telling the same stories. This alone proves that there can be things either left out, or added that may or may not have happened in the stories related to Jesus. And just as you can ask my homies about a certain story about me and get 5 different versions, especially if asked 20 years from now, or if you ask one of their nephews 50 years form now. You see my point? To someone who does not blindly believe that every word of the bible is truth and from gods mouth to the paper, your arguments are not valid unless backed up by another source. I've said it before, but even the Enquirer won't print something without a 2nd source to verify the story, and in this, the bible comes up lacking in several areas.

Remember the Bible is not one book: it's a collection of 66 books written over the course of hundreds of years by many people. Each book has to be interpreted within a cultural context from the perspective of the author. Just because God used a number of people, and the unique circumstances and personalities of these people does not make them false. And as far as the "word-for-word" accuracy goes, we can (and should) only say that the word-for-word divine inspiration was for the originals, not the translations. Our translations will always suffer minor difficulties, but never the kind of content corruption that would rob them of their value as God's word. Always recognize that to really get at the meaning of some passages, we have to look to the original languages and the history surrounding the writings to understand what was being said. But in passages like the first chapter of John, for example. There is no problem in understanding it. It's just straight-forward narrative.

Regarding the multiple gospel accounts, you have to realize that each gospel was written to a different audience, and the author wanted to cover aspects of Jesus' life that was important to the particular audience he was writing to. The Bible needs to be understood from the perspective of the author of each book, and the differences in what the authors found important explains why the accounts vary: some things were just more important, for example, to Matthew (who was writing to the Jews to show that Jesus was the Messiah) than to Mark (who was writing to the Roman gentiles, which is why there is no need to mention the geneology of Christ, etc. ).

So the manuscripts of the Bible are examined just as any other ancient document are examined. Their age is pretty much agreed on even by non-Christian scholars who say these documents about Jesus are real and do exist. Using the same logic you have you cannot simply lump all 66 (73) books of the Bible together as one monolithic thing with one kind of literature like a modern history book nor assume that history was written the same way in the first century as now. (Note: Although the gospels are bound together nowdays, they were actually written several years apart, by different people, in different places. They ARE 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sources in and of themselves). It's like Josephus (remember our previous discussion of external secondary sources) giving us testimony of what was said inside Masada when everyone committed suicide. Josephus was outside with the Romans, but he wrote "what ought to have been said under the circumstances."

The Gospel of John tells us that a whole lot has been left out (Jn 21:25), however, this doesn't prove anything was added. Rabbi's teachings were designed for memorization. "Blessed are ye...for ye shall..." Stories, parables, memorable sayings....all easy to remember. That is how oral cultures like first century Palestine worked. I admit that While few would study their people's history or learn their moral code from Shakespeare, people have done just that with Homer and the Bible. For the Greeks, Homer was the Bible, although in the sixth century B.C., Xenophanes criticized Homer for attributing to the gods that which is disgraceful among men, including adulery, theft, and lies. [M.I. Finley, World of Odysseus, p. 12]. A poet once said: “To err is human....” How very true. Humans err. God does not. And that is why the careful student can discern the difference between a document that is a mere human composition, and one which was penned under the guidance of the infallible Creator of the Universe. Herodotus was a Greek historian of the fifth century B.C. Cicero called him “the father of history.” He wrote nine books dealing with the Greek and Persian wars, together with a history of the customs and geography of those empires. In one of his writings, Herodotus claimed that the reason the oxen in Sythia grew no horns was because it was too cold there (4.29). Apparently, he never had heard of reindeer! Aristotle, the famous Greek scholar of the fourth century B.C., was renowned for his knowledge. Yet he made some colossal speculative blunders. In his work titled Parts of Animals, he argued that within the human body, man’s soul is “lodged in some substance of a fiery character.” He contended that the brain “is a compound of earth and water.” He further suggested that sleep is caused by the blood flowing into the brain, thus making it heavy. This, he declared, “is the reason why drowsy persons hang the head” (Book II, Chapter 3). Marcus Porcius Cato was a Roman statesman who died about the mid-second century B.C. His famous work, De agri cultura (“On Farming”), has survived. In one passage (71) he gave a remedy for treating an ailing ox. It consisted of forcing down the ox a raw hen egg, swallowed whole, followed the next day by a concoction of leek and wine. However, this treatment—in order to be efficacious—absolutely had to be administered from a wooden vessel while both the ox and the administrator were standing (cited by Sarton, 1959, p. 408). It is obvious that the method of administration would have nothing to do with the curative value of Cato’s concoction. Yet such is the nature of human superstition. Flavius Josephus was a Jewish writer who authored several works regarding the Hebrew nation, its fortunes, and its fate. Though considered a respectable historian for his day, he frequently slipped. For instance he declared that during the siege of Jerusalem (A.D. 70), a heifer, being led to be sacrificed in the temple, gave birth to a lamb (Wars, 6.3). Josephus also spoke of a certain place in Egypt where fierce serpents “ascend out of the ground unseen, and also fly in the air” (Antiquities, 2.10.2). In contrast, the holy writers works are characterized by a razor-sharp accuracy that defies explanation, save on the ground that they were controlled by the Spirit of God.

Consider the following factors:

(1) The first two chapters of the Bible contain the divine record of the commencement of the Universe, including the Earth and its inhabitants. Though it was penned thirty-five centuries ago, there is not a syllable in this account that is at variance with any demonstrable fact of science. Any book on astronomy or Earth science, penned fifty years ago, already is obsolete. And yet Genesis, simple and sublime, is factually flawless. The Mosaic narrative asserts that the Universe had a “beginning” (1:1), which is perfectly consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Contrast this with the Enuma Elish, the Babylonian creation tablets, which asserts the eternality of matter (see Pfeiffer, 1966, p. 226). The Genesis record affirms that creation activity was concluded by the end of the sixth day (2:1-3). Science says, as per the First Law of Thermodynamics, that nothing is being created today. No less than ten times Genesis 1 affirms that biological organisms replicate “after [their] kind.” In passing, we must note that modern pseudoscience (i.e., the theory of evolution) is dependent upon the notion that in the past organisms have reproduced after their non-kind! The biblical account, however, is perfectly in harmony with the known laws of genetics.

(2) The medical knowledge revealed in the Bible record truly is astounding. It is well known, for instance, that in the antique world, medicine was based upon myth and superstition. This was true both in Babylon and in Egypt. For example the Papyrus Ebers (from the sixteenth century B.C.), edited by Georg M. Ebers in 1874, offered some very strange remedies for various illnesses. Here is a prescription for folks who are losing their hair: “When it falls out, one remedy is to apply a mixture of six fats, namely those of the horse, the hippopotamus, the crocodile, the cat, the snake, and the ibex. To strengthen it, anoint with the tooth of a donkey crushed in honey” (as quoted in McMillen, 1963, p. 11). Even the Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus, one of the more sophisticated examples of Egyptian medical “science,” contains a spell for “transforming an old man into a youth of twenty.” In spite of the fact that Moses was reared in an Egyptian environment, and “was instructed in all the wisdom of the Egyptians” (Acts 7:22), not one time did the great law-giver incorporate any of this magical mumbo-jumbo into the Scriptures. On the contrary, Moses was far ahead of his time in terms of medicine and sanitation. A careful study of Leviticus 13, with reference to certain skin diseases, reveals some rather modern techniques, e.g., diagnosis of certain symptoms, treatment to lessen spread (e.g., disinfection), and quarantine. No other law code in the whole of ancient history came anywhere near rivaling these health regulations. Consider, for instance, the fact that the “leper” was required to “cover his upper lip” (Leviticus 13:45). Dr. J.S. Morton has noted: “Since the leprosy bacilli are transmitted from nasal drippings and saliva, this practice of having lepers cover their upper lips was a good hygienic policy” (1978, p. 255). Concerning Moses’ procedures for quarantining, Dr. William Vis has written: To show how far Moses was ahead of modern society we need only to remind ourselves that the word quarantine originated in the fourteenth century when the Italian ports of Venice and Genoa first refused admission to immigrants who might be harboring plague and required them to stay on board for forty days, hence the word quarantine. Even in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries leprosy spread over southern Europe until the principles of Moses were re-enacted successfully (1950, p. 244). (3) When the Encyclopaedia Britannica first was published, it had so many mistakes relative to American geography and topography that the publishers of the New American Cyclopedia issued a special pamphlet correcting the numerous blunders of its British rival. J.W. McGarvey once noted that when Tacitus wrote his celebrated work, Germany, which dealt with the geography, manners, customs, and tribes of Germany, it contained so many errors that many were inclined to doubt that this well-known Roman historian could have produced such a flawed volume (1956, 3:26-27). The Encyclopaedia Britannica stated concerning Tacitus’ work that “the geography is its weak point” (1958, 21:736).

The biblical writings contain literally hundreds of references to geography and topography relating to those lands that the prophets and apostles traversed. For example, we are quite casual in our topographical allusions. One is said to travel from Atlanta up to Chicago, whereas Chicago is almost 500 feet lower than Atlanta. Usually we speak of going “up” north and “down” south. With the biblical writers, elevation references always are precise. One travels from Jerusalem (in the south) “down” to Antioch, some 150 miles to the north (Acts 15:1-2). Not once is there a geographical or topographical blunder in the sacred volume, in spite of the fact that the ancients did not possess the sophisticated instruments that we have today. Here is another amazing fact. In the book of Acts, the historian Luke mentions thirty-two countries, fifty-four cities, and nine of the Mediterranean islands (Metzger, 1965, p. 171). There is not the slightest mistake in any of his references. Luke has been criticized over the centuries to be sure; his influence has increased, however, while his critics’ credibility has decreased! Over a span of many centuries, hostile critics of the Bible have charged the sacred writers with “nodding.” Time after time, however, when the true facts have come to light, the Scriptures have been vindicated. Reflect upon a few examples of such. The Genesis record declares that while he was in Egypt, Pharaoh presented Abraham with some camels (Genesis 12:16). Liberal writers disputed this. T.K. Cheyne wrote: “The assertion that the ancient Egyptians knew of the camel is unfounded” (1899, 1:634). Professor Kenneth Kitchen has shown, however, that “the extant evidence clearly indicates that the domestic camel was known [in Egypt] by 3,000 B.C.”—long before Abraham’s time (1980, 1:228). On several occasions in the book of Genesis it is recorded that Abraham and Isaac had associations with the Philistines (cf. Genesis 21; 26). Liberal scholars consider these references to be anachronistic (details from a later age inappropriately inserted into the patriarchal account). H.T. Frank characterized the allusions as “an historical inaccuracy” (1964, p. 323). It has been shown, however, that “Philistine” was a rather generic term and that there is no valid reason to doubt that these groups were in Canaan before the arrival of the main body in the early twelfth century B.C. (Unger, 1954, p. 91; Archer, 1964, p. 266; Harrison, 1963, p. 32). Harrison noted that the archaeological evidence “suggests that it is a mistake to regard the mention of the Philistines in the patriarchal narratives as an anachronism” (1983, p. 362). So while the noble Homer and man may slip, God never did.

When someone says the Bible needs to be take cum grano salis they reveal that they know little of the literature itself, nor how we authentic Christians use it. Example: is the Christian life changed one bit by whether or not there was a worldwide flood in actual history? No. Irrespective to the historical fact of whether the flood was a regional or not event is the spiritual truth conveyed in the story. Is the flood story a retelling of the story of Utnapishtim? Maybe (though the prevalence of flood narratives in ancient lit and the similarity of these two combined with other proofs seem to indicate an actual event), but it's retold with such rich literary genius to a people in captivity who needed the message surreptitiously hidden in chiasmic structure of the story that if the retelling wasn't inspired by God it should have been. Utnapishtim's story is second rate by comparison, a story meant to explain why babies die in childbirth. Compare this with all its similarities to the flood narrative in the Bible and the spiritual qualities of the Noah story should be evident. Now if one says, "there was never a flood, the Bible should be taken with a grain of salt" they just missed the real purpose of the story. First, there probably was a flood of some magnitude, and second it requires a more mature person reading the account than this. But we should really be dealing with the philosophical heart of the matter that leads us to deal with the moral implications of a transcendent God. And when someone says tries to downplay the importance of these manuscripts they show their ignorance and/or personal bias against them especially when that person simply parrots assertions as you continue to do without bringing any real specifics. Both are wrong. I challenge you to stop going all over the board and making assertions without specifics and prove to me that "Then there are other things that are outright false and nothing more than a fairy tale." You may discover your assertions are simply that. Assertions without substance. And anyone can choose to not believe testable revealed truth if they will to do so.

[Kemosave]

Oh, and just because Jesus said that his powers were not sorcery because they were the powers of god does not make it so. Again, here is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Just because the bible says that jesus said this does not mean that Jesus really healed anyone. And if he did, just because he said it doesn't mean that if he did perform miracles that they were through the power of god. That they were done through sorcery is every bit as believable to a non christian. Do you see where I'm coming from? You can quote him all day long, but if the person you are talking to doesn't believe him to be the son of God, then none of his quotes matter, and they don't help your arguments against any other religion being wrong. This is the major problem that non-christians have with christians. The arrogance of being right all the time when you are only right in your own minds. None of it is provable, yet you would talk down to someone because they don't have the same belief as you. You are telling this man that what he thinks is wrong because of something that someone who might have been the son of a god that might exist might have said 2000 years ago, maybe. If it was remembered word for word and written correctly and traslated right, and again this all depends on your belief that this man was the son of a certain god. This all hangs on a thread, and is in no way a powerful enough argument to completely down a mans beliefs. Your argument wouldn't even be allowed in a court of law. It's all based on hersay. You couldn't convict me of a misdemeanor with the type of eveidence that you have that there is a god and that jesus was his son.

The type of censure and exclusion you assert is necessary for this discussion is seriously flawed. Seems like a strategy move to help you "win" rather than learn. There will be no dismissal of relevant evidence to bolster your position. In addition to continuing to show you the relevance of scripture to this discussion I will restate although the gospels are bound together nowdays, they were actually written several years apart, by different people, in different places. They ARE 2nd, 3rd, and 4th sources. You have to realize that each gospel was written to a different audience, and the author wanted to cover aspects of Jesus' life that was important to the particular audience he was writing to. The Bible needs to be understood from the perspective of the author of each book, and the differences in what the authors found important explains why the accounts vary: some things were just more important, for example, to Matthew (who was writing to the Jews to show that Jesus was the Messiah) than to Mark (who was writing to the Roman gentiles, which is why there is no need to mention the geneology of Christ, etc.). Now on to a reply..

In the Bible, the Greek words pharmakeia and pharmakeus translate as sorcery and sorcerer. We learn in Revelation 21:8 and 22:15 that sorcerers are judged and forever separated from God. The sorcerer is one who uses drugs to induce pseudo religious fantasies and occult experiences. Demonic spirits use this altered state of consciousness to communicate their lies and paranoia. We can choose who we want to influence and control our thoughts and actions (ie satan and demons or Jesus). Satan's rule ends in misery and death and is elementary when contrasted with the freedom, love, joy and peace that we have in Jesus.

In addition to already revealing to you internal proofs and showing you a clear position, check out Deut 13.1-3 where God tells us that even if false prophets have prophecies or dreams that come true, but then ask you to follow other gods, not to listen to them. So things not from God can seem to work or be right.

An early mention of the miracles of Christ comes from Julian the Apostate (Roman Emperor from 361-363 A.D.) who was an enemy of Christianity, he wrote: "Jesus . . . has now been honored for about three hundred years; having done nothing throughout his lifetime that was worthy of fame, unless anyone thinks it a very great work to heal the lame and the blind and to cast out demons in the towns of Bethsaida and Bethany." This statement shows that it was commonly accepted that Jesus performed miracles in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany as recorded in the bible. Mark 8:22 states that Jesus healed a man who had been blind since birth in Bethsaida, and John 12:1 records that Jesus rose Lazarus from the dead in Bethany. Jewish rabbinical writings found in the Talmud also give witness to the fact that Jesus had the power to heal. One such writing from around 100 A.D. involves the case of Rabbi Eleazar ben Dama who a was bitten by a poisonous snake: ‘Jacob of Kephar Sama arrived to heal him in the name of Jesus [Yeshua]. But Rabbi Ishmael did not permit it. He said:"Ben Dama, you must not do so!" (Ben Dama) replied: "I will bring you proof (from the scriptures) that he may heal me!" But he died before he was able to produce the proof.’ --Tosefta, Hullin 2.22-23. The early Jewish Rabbis of the first century did not deny that Jesus performed miracles, but they tried to attribute them to acts of sorcery. A passage taken from the Babylonia Sanhedrin written sometime between 95-110 A.D. states: "During the time of Passover they executed Yeshu (of Nazareth). An announcement was made for forty days before this saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) will be stoned in that he has practiced sorcery and deceived and led Israel astray. Let everyone who knows contrary, come and plead for his defense. But they found nothing in his defense and crucified him . . ." These false allegations by the Jewish leaders trying to say that Jesus performed these miracles by practicing sorcery and magic arts can also be found in the Bible. Luke 11:14-20 states: "And He was casting out a demon, and it was mute. So it was, when the demon had gone out, that the mute spoke; and the multitudes marveled. But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons." Others, testing Him, sought from Him a sign from heaven. But He, knowing their thoughts, said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls. "If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? Because you say I cast out demons by Beelzebub. "And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. "But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you." Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered, saying, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You." But He answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign, and no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Matthew 12:38-40. Therefore they said to Him, "What sign will You perform then, that we may see it and believe You? What work will You do? "Our fathers ate the manna in the desert; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" Then Jesus said to them, "Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. "For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." Then they said to Him, "Lord, give us this bread always." And Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst... "This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. "And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day." John 6:30-40.

Again: These false allegations by the Jewish leaders trying to say that Jesus performed these miracles by practicing sorcery and magic arts can also be found in the Bible. Luke 11:14-20 states: "And He was casting out a demon, and it was mute. So it was, when the demon had gone out, that the mute spoke; and the multitudes marveled. But some of them said, "He casts out demons by Beelzebub, the ruler of the demons." Others, testing Him, sought from Him a sign from heaven. But He, knowing their thoughts, said to them: "Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and a house divided against a house falls. "If Satan also is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? Because you say I cast out demons by Beelzebub. "And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. " But if I cast out demons with the finger of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you."

Books and books are filled with verifable instances of this spiritual war between the power of God and the power of Satan occuring in modern history by respected doctors, professors, missionaries in the field, etc.. etc.. You cannot and I will not allow you to, for the purposes of this discussion, simply wave your hand and dismiss them. No authentic manuscripts whose truths echo across the globe today will be removed from this discussion.

[Kemosave]

Only on for a second here, but specific sources for the resurrection? If you want, I'll get them, but there were dozens of religions before christianity with similar resurrection stories, it was nothing new. Zaroastrianism for one, I believe also the religion of egypt, Isis maybe? Not sure, I still have my mythology books here, just found them the other day from my classes. I'll get you more examples, but I know there are quite a few that had very similar resurrection stories that predate jesus. As for the bible having information on jesus's life, yes it does. But the Illiad has infomation about Hector and Achilles. Did they exist, yes, is most of the story true? Yes, was jesus the son of god? I doubt it, was Achilles invincible except for one spot on his ankle? Doubtful. That is what I mean. The bible is a mix of history along with exagerated story telling, just like the Illiad. It doesn't mean that everything is wrong, but you have to take it with a grain of salt. You can not use it as a 100% infalable means to dicredit anyone else in my opinion. It is not the Encyclopedia
Brittanica.

You are comparing the Gospels account of the ressurection with the mysteries of ancient polytheistic religions and therefore objecting to it. This is common. The usual objection is that the accounts of Gospels and the Book of Acts are not so original and that they can be found in, and even inspired by, other mystery religions. Let us take the case with
resurrection. An alleged example of resurrection in ancient myth is provided by the early Egyptian cult of Isis and Osiris.

The myth has Osiris being murdered by his brother Seth who then sinks the coffin containing Osiris' body in the Nile River. Osiris' wife, Isis, the goddess of heaven, earth, sea, and the unseen world below, discovers her husband's body and returns it to Egypt. Seth, however, regains the body, cuts it into fourteen pieces, and scatters it abroad. Isis counters by
recovering the pieces. According to Ronald Nash, former head of the Department of Philosophy and Religion at Western Kentucky
University, in his Christianity And The Hellenistic World, observes:

"It is at this point that the language used to describe what follows is crucial. Sometimes those telling the story are satisfied to say that Osiris came back to life. But some writers go much too far and refer to Osiris' resurrection."

Nach's later discussion continues:

"Which mystery gods actually experienced a resurrection from the dead? Certainly no early texts refer to any resurrection of Attis. Attempts to link the worship of Adonis to a resurrection are equally weak. Nor is the case for a resurrection of Osiris any stronger. After Isis gathered together the pieces of Osiris' dismembered body, he became "Lord of the Underworld."

As Metzger comments, "Whether this can be rightly called a resurrection is questionable, especially since, according to Plutarch, it was the pious desire to devotees to be buried in the same ground where, according to local tradition, the body of Osiris was still lying." One can speak then of a "resurrection" in the stories of Osiris, Attis, and Adonis only in the most extended of senses. And of course no claim can be made that Mithra was a dying and rising god. French scholar Andre Boulanger concludes: "The conception that the god dies and is resurrected in order to lead his faithful to eternal life is represented in no Hellenistic mystery religion."

If the "savior-gods" mentioned above can be spoken of a resurrected, then we need to differentiate Jesus' resurrection from theirs. Jesus was a person of history who rose from the dead never to die again. He appeared in the flesh several times before his ascension, and the story was told by eyewitnesses.

James D. G. Dunn concludes:

"The parallel with visions of Isis and Asclepius (...) is hardly close. These were mythical figures from the dim past. In the sightings of Jesus we are talking about a man who died only a few days or weeks earlier. (Dunn, James D. G. The Evidence for Jesus. Philadelphia: The Westminister Press, 1985. p. 71).

Another issue related to the resurrection has to do with the amount of time between the crucifixion and the resurrection. Attis is supposed to have come back to life four days after his death, one account has Osiris being reanimated two or three days after his death, and it is even suggested that Adonis may have been "resurrected" three days after his death. In the case of all three, there is no evidence earlier than the second century A.D. for the supposed "resurrection" of these mystery gods."

Norman Anderson states:

"that if borrowing there was by one religion from another, it seems clear which way it went. There is no evidence whatever, that I know of, that the mystery religions had any influence in Palestine in the early decades of the first century. And the difference between the mythological experience of these nebulous figures and the crucifixion "under Pontius Pilate" of one of whom eyewitnesses bore testimony to both his death and resurrection is again obvious. (Anderson, Norman. Jesus Christ: The Witness of History. Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1985; pp. 53-54)."

Scholars and lay people alike have recognized for almost two millennia a clear distinction between the reports of the gospel writers and the creators of the myths of the mystery religions. For example, Walter Künneth, professor of systematic theology at Erlangen University in Germany, states concerning the exclusiveness of the gospel:

"The message of the resurrection did not appear to the contemporary world to be one of the customary cult legends, so that Jesus Christ would be a new cult hero standing harmoniously side by side with other cult heroes. But the message was in terms of strict exclusiveness: One alone is the Kyrios ("Lord"). Here every analogy fails. This witness, in contrast to the tolerance of the whole mythical world, comes with an intolerant claim to be absoluteness which calls in question the validity and truth of all mythology. (Künneth, Walter. The Theology of Resurrection. London: SCM Press Ltd., 1965. p. 62)."

Read through a number of the Greek myths and then read through the gospel accounts and you will notice a marked difference in the overall flavor of the material. Concerning the Gospel of John, often the most criticized of the gospel narratives, Blaiklock says:

"I read him often in his simple Greek without translating and always gain an overwhelming impression of his directness, his intimacy with theme and reader. Simply read the story of the wedding at Cana and feel the homely atmosphere, Mary's embarrassment, the best man's feeble joke (chapter 2). Follow on to the story of the rabbi (chapter 3) who came in the night and was annoyed at first because the answer to the question he was not allowed to ask was given by allusion to the books of Ezekiel and Numbers (Ezekiel 36:25-27; Numbers 21:4-9). And then read the story of the conversation at Sychar's well, with the Samaritan fighting her losing battle of words with the strangest Jew she had ever met (chapter 4).

Read on the poignant account of the Passion Week with its climax in the vivid resurrection stories, paralleled for simple reality only by the narrative in Luke. Simply read. These men were not writing fiction. This is not what myth sounds like. This is history and only thus set down because it was reporting. (Blaicklock, E. M. Jesus Christ: Man or Myth? Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984. pp. 77-78),:

J. B. Phillips describes his experience this way:

"I have read, in Greek and Latin, scores of myths, but I did not find the slightest flavor of myth here. There is no hysteria, no careful working for effect, and no attempt at collusion. (...) One sensed again that understatement to think is more "British" than Oriental. There is an almost childlike candour and simplicity, and the total effect is tremendous. (Phillips, J. B. The Ring of Truth. New York: Macmillian Publishing Co., 1967; p. 77)."

See Panik there is only one true explanation. Four men, under the dire compulsion of a truth which made them free, wrote of what they saw, or of what immediate and reliable eyewitnesses reported to them.

Peace.

[Panik]

well, you comared one of a dozen or more ressurection stories and made your decision. As for the "eyewitness" accounts? Consider the source. These were illiterate peasants who still thought the world was flat and were scared of lepers, and thought that anyone who was slightly retarded was possed by demons. These are people who would have bowed down and declared anyone god that showed them a disposable camera. It is myth, just the same as Isis. What you should do is research Zaroastrianism. They had a similar flood and resurrection story to the bible and it predated the bible by almost 1000 years.

[Kemosave]

Assertions and more empty assertions. You shot this out way too quick. If you had carefully read my replies you would see much. Your statement about disposable cameras is way way off. Now I know you don't understand the environment Jesus ministered in.

Let's deal with some of your other hipshots. Prove those who healed lepers were scared of them after Pentecost. Their ability to reason and ability to discern is the same as us today (You can be an intellectual fool with much knowledge and little truth or a simple person that possess the truth without much knowledge. This is a philosophical argument). Prove that Jesus and his apostles (after Pentecost) looked at retarded people as demon possessed. You can't because it's not true. Also, you cannot look at Jesus's words in context as anything less than wise and I'd love to debate that, with specifics, with you.

[Panik]

what I am saying, and it is a fact, is that the people of this time were ALL ignorant. And yes, a disposable camera, or even a book of matches would have been enough to declare yourself a god back then and it would have started a whole new religion. These people were not Romans. And their literacy was below 1%. And even the Romans whe were semi educated still believed the world was flat, and yes, it is true that nobody back then even understood retardation or birth defects, and these people were looked on as demons, or some other type of evil. To trust the eyewitness accounts of such a backward people is folly. The eyewitnesses are no more reliable than those who would have slaimed to see Zues throw lighting from the sky. Have you ever seen the gods must be crazy? same idea. These were a very ignorant and superstitious people, a perfect breeding ground for religion.

[Kemosave]

How do you know that these authors of the gospels--and their contemporaries--were as ignorant as you think? Did you talk with them when they wrote the poetry some of the Psalms (and other passages) which are still today studied in secular universities as models of literary beauty? Were you there when they mined ores to make implements? (Gen. 4:22) Did you see them struggle in biology class wearing a dunce cap when they were hybridizing farm animals to produce progressively better livestock? (Gen 30:30-43) Can you mine and process ore and create weapons, household, and commercial implements like the "ignorant" ancients of the Bible? Can you even today write world-renowned poetry like the "ignorant" authors of the Bible? Can you hybridize livestock in the wild like the "ignorant" farmers of the Bible 3,000 years ago without using a manual of animal husbandry? Can you produce the temples of the "ignorant" ancient Bible peoples without the help of modern construction techniques? Read the Bible, look at the hundreds of artisans, musicians, writers, livestock engineers, metallurgists, lawyers, theologians, and others in it and then prove that they were as a group "ignorant."

Sure, there were some ignorant folks in history, but the Hebrew culture -- and the Greek and Roman cultures in which Christ came -- were among the most intellectually gifted and analytically trained in the history of the world. It is not "ignorance" that makes people believe in lies, nor does "intelligence" or scientific sophistication necessarily prevent the belief in "obvious" lies: it is self-deception and presumptuous thinking. The easiest person to fool is oneself when one's mind closes in anger or prejudice. Modern arrogance is not proof of ancient ignorance.

[Panik]

How do you know that these authors of the gospels--and their contemporaries--were as ignorant as you think? Did you talk with them when they wrote the poetry some of the Psalms (and other passages) which are still today studied in secular universities as models of literary beauty? Were you there when they mined ores to make implements? (Gen. 4:22) Did you see them struggle in biology class wearing a dunce cap when they were hybridizing farm animals to produce progressively better livestock? (Gen 30:30-43) Can you mine and process ore and create weapons, household, and commercial implements like the "ignorant" ancients of the Bible? Can you even today write world-renowned poetry like the "ignorant" authors of the Bible? Can you hybridize livestock in the wild like the "ignorant" farmers of the Bible 3,000 years ago without using a manual of animal husbandry? Can you produce the temples of the "ignorant" ancient Bible peoples without the help of modern construction techniques? Read the Bible, look at the hundreds of artisans, musicians, writers, livestock engineers, metallurgists, lawyers, theologians, and others in it and then prove that they were as a group "ignorant."

Sure, there were some ignorant folks in history, but the Hebrew culture -- and the Greek and Roman cultures in which Christ came -- were among the most intellectually gifted and analytically trained in the history of the world. It is not "ignorance" that makes people believe in lies, nor does "intelligence" or scientific sophistication necessarily prevent the belief in "obvious" lies: it is self-deception and presumptuous thinking. The easiest person to fool is oneself when one's mind closes in anger or prejudice. Modern arrogance is not proof of ancient ignorance.

Kemo, you are wrong here. Like I said, I was talking about the people of the area in general. 99% of them to be exact. Abviously the F'ing authors could write and were educated, but they were some of the only ones that were. And as far as hybrid animals? Are you serious? It was no intelligence involved. It was done by looks, and sometimes by accident. Then when something worked, they remembered it. As for art, so what, there were neanderthal cave paintings that are better than my artwork, does that make them smart? Truly, that was one of your worst arguments ever. And no, the hebrew culture was not educated. The Romans were for a good portion, but think about this for a minute. The hebrews were a conquered poeple that weren't cooperating with the Romans. The Hebrew were never known for their wealth, and in this time in particular, they were shi- poor for the most part. Hardly any of them were educated at all, almost none of them could even read, exept for the well to do. It is even doubtful that Jesus himself could read. Did you ever wonder why this guy went around preaching to anyone that could listen, and there are all kinds of opeople that heard him and met him, but he never so much as autographed a napkin. He was most likely illiterate too. Kids didn;t go to school in Isreal bach then, they went to work, and their parent didn't read so they weren;t teaching them. Only the rich and the holy men could read and write. And yes kemo, with a book of matches i8n hand 2000 years ago, if I was there, nobody would even remember jesus's name. You would be worshipping Panik "the fire god".

[Panik]

oh, and please do not compare the Greeeks and Romans with the Hebrew culture. If not for the bible, the hebrews would have been forgotton. They were just a small band of habitual losers. They made getting their ass kicked and their lamnds taken into a sport, and they were not even halfway on par with the great civilizations of the greeks and romans. As a mattter of fact, I wouldn;t even call the hebrews a civilization becasue they were never really in the same place long enough, and even when they were, they fought each other as much as anyone else, they were never a cohesive nation, they were just a people that had a religion in common, but then again, most of them never agreed on how to practice the religion either.

[Kemosave]

Actually, at this time Alexander the Great had founded his empire in the 4th Century BC, which included Palestine. He, and his successors had spread Greek learning all over the Eastern Mediterranean area. Greek had become the common language of commerce and learning. Athens, Alexandria, (in Egypt), and Tarsus, (Paul's home town), were university towns.

Ever wonder how Paul can quote from Greek poets so easily? He was an educated man, and understood Greek philosophy, as his preaching at Athens shows.

The Macabees, and later the Pharisees, were actually reactions against the cultural encroachment of Hellenistic, (Greek), culture. They were quite aware of the Greek philosophy and mathematics.

Most Jews of the era were at least bi-lingual, (Aramaic and Greek) and many spoke Latin as well. Had to deal with the Romans all the time. Many scholars believe that Jesus was tri-lingual.

Jesus was a poor carpenter's son. Yet he could read Hebrew! Why? Every synagogue maintained a school for boys. Literacy was common among the Jews of Jesus times.

You misunderstand those times in that place.

[quote="Panik"] The eyewitnesses are no more reliable than those who would have slaimed to see Zues throw lighting from the sky. Have you ever seen the gods must be crazy? same idea. These were a very ignorant and superstitious people, a perfect breeding ground for religion. [/quote="Panik"]

Really! Allow me to retort: Heraclitus of Ephesus....investigated the underlying nature of matter....4th Century BC. Leucippus of Miletus and Democritus of Abdera 4th Century BC....taught that matter is made up of indivisible atoms and theorized that planets, etc, are created by some force causing these atoms to group together in large numbers. (Which BTW, is what modern cosmologists believe. They call the force, gravity.)Pythagoras of Kroton, claimed that the earth rotated on its axis. Empedocles of Akragas, believed that animal life originated in warm shallow seas by chance. 2200 years before Darwin. Euclid worked out the principles of Geometry. Kids are studying Euclidian Geometry at school TODAY. Aristotle worked out the principles of Logic. We still use them today. Eratosthenes not only believed in the sphericity of the earth, he calculated its curvature by measuring the angles of stars, and then used that plus geometry to calculate the circumference at about 22,000 miles, (he used a measure called stadia). That is within 10% of the modern figure. 5th Century BC. Ptolemy, 1st Century BC, did mathematical calculations on the orbits of the planets and created a model of the universe that could predict the amount and direction of retrograde motion of the planets. (They appear to move backwards as the earth swings inside of them).

Oh, and BTW, in the middle ages all educated people knew that the earth was a sphere. The story about Columbus arguing with the Church officials about the earth not being flat comes from none other than American Nathaniel Hawthorn. He put it in a book of "historical" fiction. The real subject of the discussion was not the shape of the earth, but the size. Columbus had it wrong! The church officials, who had read Eratosthenes, knew the real size. If Columbus had not run into America he would have run out of water and died long before reaching China.

If you had struck a match before them, they would simply wanted to know how you did that trick.

Oh and Homer wrote the Iliad centuries after the events at Troy. No eyewitness accounts at all for Hector and friends. Probably mythical.

Do you know that at least seven contemporary sources talk about Jesus apart from the Bible that I am personally aware of: Tacitus, Suetonius, Josephus, the Talmud, Hegissipus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger. Now Jesus, that's reality.

[useless_person]

Ok, I'm gonna try and bring this topic back into circulation...

Witchcraft is a practice. Wicca is a religion. Witches are people.

Belive it or not, all those spells and shit are real. I don't want to get involved in that shit cause I fear when I die I'll go to hell physiclly instead of just rotting in the ground...

Here is some shit that will make you think twice:

http://www.google.com/Top/Society/Relig ... gan/Wicca/

and the spells...

http://www.google.com/Top/Society/Relig ... pellcraft/

or...

http://www.spellsandmagic.com/
http://www.luckymojo.com/spells.html
http://www.everythingunderthemoon.net/

Crazy ass shit that I wouldn't have belived till some time ago and now it reassured me that through all this shit, we're doomed...

PS How do they get those spells to work? How do you convert to Wicca? Damn I can't belive this...

Ahhh I will go to hell cause Wicca is a thing of hell just like Witches, which is basiclly Satanic and shit...

[BxMilitia]

WHO CARES?

[Christina Marie]

Ahhh I will go to hell cause Wicca is a thing of hell just like Witches, which is basiclly Satanic and shit...

Its just using the power w/o selling your soul. Pretty dangerous stuff. Me, I dont f*ck w/it.

[Anesis]

Wicca is not Satanic, unless that's what you think it is because it's non-Christian. If Wiccans don't believe in a Christian god, they don't believe in a Christian devil, either. Church of Satan doesn't even believe in an entity called Satan. And if you are talking to a non-believer, threats of Hell do nothing except create more tension.

Be careful of websites that find on the internet about Wicca and spellcraft - most of it will be crap "selling" spells to teenagers who want revenge or to make the high school quarterback fall in love with them.

Most pagans feel that spells work the same way prayers work.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm

Gives a good description of the basics.

If you want to read some realistic websites/books, pm and I'll forward you some ones that I consider to be trustworthy and can answer questions you have better than I can.

Most of the time, because Wicca/witchcraft is not an organized religion, answers will differ depending on who you ask. You can't even get the community to decide what a "witch" really is. But, you get that in any religion. I have heard so many different definitions of a Christian that it made my head spin.

[Christina Marie]

I be safe and just not mess with it.

[Anesis]

I founded an alternative religion organization when I was in college - I actually went around and talked to the Christian group on how to witness to non-Christians.

It was an eye-opening experience, to say the least.

[none for you]

"the man that knows something.....knows that he knows NOTHING AT ALL"

Isnt that from the Tao te Ching?

[blackandred]

I don't agree with Wicca..

[BlaKK]

Wicca is of Lucifer

[Christina Marie]

Wicca is of Lucifer

Yup. Just borrowing the power w/o selling the soul.

[BlaKK]

Wicca is witchcraft, and witchcraft is satanism. Its transparent, How can anyone even put up an argument, Wicca is the Devil.

[Christina Marie]

Wicca is witchcraft, and witchcraft is satanism. Its transparent, How can anyone even put up an argument, Wicca is the Devil.

Alls I know is I do f*ck w/it. Its evil.

[DeaD-SouL]

yes another new age religion that worships the devil, but the witches themself don't even know it.

[DeaD-SouL]

Lol if it aint Satanic why is the official wicca symbol a fucking pentagram

[Anesis]

I'm not going to get into the argument with people over their personal beliefs, because if you believe it's evil, then that's your perogative.

However, do a little research obefore you start saying it's of the devil.

Again, I am going to post this link because it doesn't seem like anyone is throwing out anything other than name calling.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/witchcra.htm

How can you argue something when you don't even know what it is? Saying the pentagram is Satanic is just based on ignorance. Yes, some Satanists/Devil Worshippers use it, but it's a symbol older than Satanism. (And there is a difference between Satanists and Devil Worshippers).

If you have read the basics and you want to tell people about Jesus Christ (or whatever your particular blend of religions is) read this:
http://www.witchvox.com/va/dt_va.html?a ... ds&id=1946
It is a great article on how to witness to pagans/wtiches.

And don't fall back on the excuse that you KNOW it's evil and that is all that matters. If your faith is so fragile that merely reading about what someone else believes weakens it, you don't need to be professes your belief with that religion to begin with.

Last I remember, this was a forum for discussion, not bashing or name calling.

Know your definitions. Even if you THINK you know them, you need to find out what others think because your definitions aren't the only one if this world. Even in the Bible, witchcraft was not worshipping the Devil. Granted, I think that also depends on WHOSE Bible you are reading.

When most people say Satanism, they refer to the Church of Satan, which is an entirely different thing altogether. Satanists, from what I remember, don't even worship an entity - they worship themselves. Pick up the Satanic Bible and see what it's about. It's a gross book, but really not all that disturbing. It's mainly about sex. From what I recall, most people who actually worship an entity call themselves devil worshippers as to not get confused with the LeVay crowd. (this isn't my area, so I'm open to correction)

My whole point is KNOW what you are talking about. Read up on it. Name calling doesn't win any arguments unless you are dealing with people who don't know what they are talking about to begin with also. Just look at how the majority of threads on this site end - someone gives up because the other person has NO CONCEPT. Get a concept.

Again, if you have read about it and still think it's evil, I have no issue with that. I just don't think you guys have read anything. And if you have, it's from a crappy website, like those I mentioned earlier.

www.religioustolerrance.org is not affliated with any group and it looks at things from an educational stance, so it gives you the basics without trying to convince you that it's right.

Ugh. I'm done with this. I'm sure that people will ignore real content as usual and go back to the name calling.

Thump away!

[none for you]

Wicca is witchcraft, and witchcraft is satanism. Its transparent, How can anyone even put up an argument, Wicca is the Devil.

How can you be so sure?

[BlaKK]

It is either of God or of The Devil. There is no medium and there are no middle grounds, the great ultimatum, as the king of kings has spoken, as it is written in the book.

Wicca is not of God. Thus...

[none for you]

It is either of God or of The Devil. There is no medium and there are no middle grounds, the great ultimatum, as the king of kings has spoken, as it is written in the book.

Wicca is not of God. Thus...

\\


Sorry, I disagree.

There is plenty that is not christian, that is very much of God.

[BlaKK]

Did I say "Christian"? No I said "Of God"... Assume Not... motherfuck religion. It is here solely to confuse the masses. As it has effectively done. Religion has nothing to do with God, As I'm sure God wants no parts of religion... Its a quagmire. Manifested by Man... Like I done said... Fuck Man.