Survey: Wicca Unknown to Majority of Americans

Online4Him »

Mon Feb 23, 2009 12:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

GoldMonkey,

I dont know most Christians I know are very happy . . . including myself. Who is killing those whom they disagree with? If you are referring to history then yes . . . there has been times when those who have claimed to be Christians demonstrated themselves to be any but Christians. I absolutely believe in freedom of religion . . . this is what makes this country great . . . I pray it never changes.

GoldMonkey »

Sun Feb 22, 2009 10:13 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

Christians seem so very unhappy. They seem to dislike the world they live in so much, most of them look forward to its ending. Some of them actually pray for it to end. It's hard for others to understand. But it's easy to understand why that scares people of other religions. Plus... Christians have a very bad habit... of killing people who don't agree with them. That scares people too. Wiccans, I understand, have a simple creed: "As long as you harm no one, do what your conscience says is right." Which is what most Americans simply call... "Freedom."

Online4Him »

Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

(5) Early Christianity was an exclusivistic faith. As J. Machen explains, the mystery cults were nonexclusive. (A man could become initiated into the mysteries of Isis or Mithras without at all giving up his former beliefs; but if he were to be received into the Church, according to the preaching of Paul, he must forsake all other Saviors for the Lord Jesus Christ....Amid the prevailing syncretism of the Greco-Roman world, the religion of Paul, with the religion of Israel, stands absolutely alone). [21] This Christian exclusivism should be a starting point for all reflection about the possible relations between Christianity and its pagan competitors. Any hint of syncretism in the New Testament would have caused immediate controversy.

(6) Unlike the mysteries, the religion of Paul was grounded on events that actually happened in history. The mysticism of the mystery cults was essentially nonhistorical. Their myths were dramas, or pictures, of what the initiate went through, not real historical events, as Paul regarded Christs death and resurrection to be. The Christian affirmation that the death and resurrection of Christ happened to a historical person at a particular time and place has absolutely no parallel in any pagan mystery religion.

(7) What few parallels may still remain may reflect a Christian influence on the pagan systems. As Bruce Metzger has argued, (It must not be uncritically assumed that the Mysteries always influenced Christianity, for it is not only possible but probable that in certain cases, the influence moved in the opposite direction). [22] It should not be surprising that leaders of cults that were being successfully challenged by Christianity should do something to counter the challenge. What better way to do this than by offering a pagan substitute? Pagan attempts to counter the growing influence of Christianity by imitating it are clearly apparent in measures instituted by Julian the Apostate, who was the Roman emperor from A.D. 361 to 363.

Online4Him »

Sun Feb 22, 2009 1:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Irishcoyote,

(Your whole Christian shtick is to believe without proof and you seek to make a case for your faith by external verification of pagan and heathen sources? Pretty weak dude)

It appears that you are now trying to discredit the testimony of scripture not by addressing its actual content but by misapplying its original source . . . that to me is weak. To say that Christianity borrowed from pagan and heathen sources is simply untrue. Consider the following:

(1) Arguments offered to (prove) a Christian dependence on the mysteries illustrate the logical fallacy of false cause. This fallacy is committed whenever someone reasons that just because two things exist side by side, one of them must have caused the other. As we all should know, mere coincidence does not prove causal connection. Nor does similarity prove dependence.

(2) Many alleged similarities between Christianity and the mysteries are either greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Scholars often describe pagan rituals in language they borrow from Christianity. The careless use of language could lead one to speak of a (Last Supper) in Mithraism or a (baptism) in the cult of Isis. It is inexcusable nonsense to take the word (savior) with all of its New Testament connotations and apply it to Osiris or Attis as though they were savior-gods in any similar sense.

(3) The chronology is all wrong. Almost all of our sources of information about the pagan religions alleged to have influenced early Christianity are dated very late. We frequently find writers quoting from documents written 300 years later than Paul in efforts to produce ideas that allegedly influenced Paul. We must reject the assumption that just because a cult had a certain belief or practice in the third or fourth century after Christ, it therefore had the same belief or practice in the first century.

(4) Paul would never have consciously borrowed from the pagan religions. All of our information about him makes it highly unlikely that he was in any sense influenced by pagan sources. He placed great emphasis on his early training in a strict form of Judaism (Phil. 3:5). He warned the Colossians against the very sort of influence that advocates of Christian syncretism have attributed to him, namely, letting their minds be captured by alien speculations (Col. 2:8).

irishcoyote »

Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

i meant "by" not "of" pagan and heathen(ie secular)

irishcoyote »

Sun Feb 22, 2009 11:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Your whole christian shtick is to believe without proof and you seek to make a case for your faith by external verification of pagan and heathen sources? Pretty weak dude. The whole "doubting thomas" story in the gospel of john (which is in itself suspect to me, read the gospel of thomas for more insight) is all about how you should just take the proverbial word for it that the whole ship holds water and not seek to verify by hard proof.

Online4Him »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

irishcoyote,

You stated, (In fact, have you ever considered the possibility that you are wrong about Christianity? Wrong about the supposed absolute truth of your bible? Is this where you fall back to Pascal's wager?)

I think you may be overlooking my point . . . my last several posts have demonstrated that the Christian faith is a faith that can be historically and prophetically verified . . .

I was merely asking if your faith which you described as having multiple gods and goddesses have demonstrated anything similar . . .

irishcoyote »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

You want to know the future? Why? Knowing the future for certain locks you into whatever particular probability thread you happen to latch onto. Every moment to me in a new possibility, a new choice. All there is is the eternal now-moment that is ever in flux and we can either live well or we can choose not too. I usually don't ask Goddess or any of the other Gods to tell me the future; what a terrible bore life would be if I knew "the date and the hour" and all those sorts of gazings ahead. Worrying about the future only distracts one from the present.

Online4Him »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

irishcoyote,

Here is a friendly question . . . can your gods or goddesses reveal the future with absolute accuracy?

Online4Him »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

irishcoyote,

I guess that claim is all speculation . . . that claim can be directed to all faiths for that matter . . .

irishcoyote »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:44 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Let me get this straight; so all Messianic Jews are poor, emotionally unstable, naive or untutored in the Scriptures . . . is that right? "

No, they all aren't but the people they zero in on and target for conversion generally are; like any cult, the idea is to hook the vulnerable.

Online4Him »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

irishcoyote,

The theory that Christianity borrowed its beliefs from paganism has now been largely discredited. If any borrowing of beliefs occurred it was almost certainly the other way around. Unlike Christianity, which claims to be the sole source of truth, one could be a participant in many of the mystery cults without giving up his or her previous beliefs. Even if all the Mithras/Christ similarities were true, nevertheless, since the two religions hadnt overlapped in Rome during the time when the New Testament was being written, Mithraism could not have influenced Christianitys primary sources. The Bible has withstood the test of time and still today stands strong in the face of continued critical scholarship.

Online4Him »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

irishcoyote,

I noticed in this Jewish rebuttal a focus on the rituals and traditions of these Messianic Jews . . . there is no scriptural exegesis of the actual texts that refer to the Messiah . . . also, he/she makes a false assumption: The prey on the vulnerable individuals as the lonely, the elderly, the poor, etc. . . Let me get this straight; so all Messianic Jews are poor, emotionally unstable, naïve or untutored in the Scriptures . . . is that right?

irishcoyote »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:45 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

And to the fact that the key elements of the Jesus myth are patterned on the previous mosaic of belief already present throughout the mediteranian region:

" Christianity is based on the (supposedly) unique belief that jesus was the son of god, born of a virgin, and sacrificed for the salvation of man. In reality, as sacrificed, virgin-born savior of man son of god, jesus was not unique. Not even close. The jesus mythos simply followed the traditional model of the ancient pagan savior-gods.
At the time of jesus of nazareth, as for centuries before, the mediteranean world roiled with a happy diversity of creeds and rituals. Details varied according to location and culture, but the general outlines of these faiths were astonishingly similar:
-were born on or very near the Winter Solstice
-were born of a virgin mother
-were born in a cave or similar underground chamber
-led a life of toil for mankind
-were called light-bringer, healer, mediator, savior, deliverer
-were however vanquished or challenged by powers of darkness
-decended into hell or the underworld
-rose again from the dead and became poneers of mankind to the heavenly realm
-founded communions of saints, and churches into which disciples were recived by baptism
-were commemorated by eucharistic meals

Some specific examples :

Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki; the Savior
Dionysus was born of the virgin Semele. Buddha too was
born of a virgin, as were the Egyptian Horus and Osiris.
The old Teutonic goddess Hertha was a virgin
impregnated by the heavenly Spirit and bore a son.
Scandinavian Frigga was impregnated by the All-Father
Odin and bore Balder, the healer and savior of mankind.
Mithras was born in a cave, on December 25th, of a
virgin mother. He came from heaven to be born as a man
to redeem men from their sin. He was know as "Savior,"
"Son of God," "Redeemer," and "Lamb of God." With
twelve disciples he traveled far and wide as a teacher and
illuminator of men. He was buried in a tomb from which
he rose again from the dead -- an event celebrated yearly
with much rejoicing. His followers kept the Sabbath
holy, holding sacramental feasts in remembrance of Him.
The sacred meal of bread and water, or bread and wine
was symbolic of the body and blood of the sacred bull.
The celebration of Christmas on Dec. 25 was originally
the pagan birthday of Mithras, the sun god, whose day of
the week is still known as "Sunday." The halo of light
which is usually shown surrounding the face of Jesus and
Christian saints, is another concept taken from the sun
god. The theme of temptation by a devil-like creature was
also found in pagan mythology. In particular, the story of Jesus's temptation by Satan resembles the temptation of
Osiris by the devil-god Set in Egyptian mythology. The Buddha was tempted/challenged by a demon lord prior to achieving enlightemnment as he sat under the Bodhi tree.

irishcoyote »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

As to the so-called "messianic jews", here is an eloquent rebuttal from an actual Jew :

"Messianic Judaism is a Christian movement that
began in the 1970s combining a mixture of Jewish ritual
and Christianity. There are a vast and growing numbers
of these groups, and they differ in how much Jewish
ritual is mixed with conventional Christian belief. One
end of the spectrum is represented by Jews For Jesus,
who simply target Jews for conversion to Christianity
using imitations of Jewish ritual solely as a ruse for
attracting the potential Jewish converts. On the other end are those who don't stress the divinity of Jesus, but
present him as the "Messiah." They incorporate distorted
Jewish ritual on an ongoing basis.
The movement has received criticism from mainstream Christian leaders, for these groups claim to
believe in the New Testament and yet gloss over the
distinction between the two communities instituted in
that work, and for the deceptive tactics used to gain
Jewish converts. They are typically very pro-Israel and
include an unusually high number of Jewish symbols --
the Magen David, Torah, talleisim, shofars, yarmulkes,
mezzuzahs, Shabbat candles, and use of Hebrew and
Yiddish language -- to assure prospective converts that
they are not renouncing Judaism by accepting Jesus.
According to Jewish law and tradition, such an
acceptance is indeed a renunciation of Judaism.
Like the Christian Missionary, one of the major
roles of the Messianic Jew is to proselytize others. They
prey on such vulnerable individuals as the lonely, the
elderly, the poor, the emotionally unstable, the naive, or
those who are just untutored in Scripture. These
unfortunates are lured into accepting missionary
doctrines out of emotional need, not intellectual
conviction. For even after a superficial reading of the
missionaries' textual "proofs" within context, one sees
that their doctrines are founded solely upon
misquotations and mistranslations of Hebrew Scripture."

Online4Him »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

(As far as the kjv of the bible goes)

Sorry my friend . . . as I mentioned already, the KJV is based on the majority text not on miniscule manuscripts as you say. Consider these testimonies:

About the middle of the second century [AD 150] and the early centuries AD . . . [the Goths] swept southeastward across Europe to the Black Sea. The Goths migrated into Scythia and became part of the (Barbarian, Scythian) people mentioned in Pauls letter to the Colossians 3:11. A large part of the nation became Christian about this time. (The first Germanic Bible, p. xiv; The Bible Through the Ages, ed. Robert V. Huber, Pleasantville, New York: The Readers Digest Association, 1996, pp. 224, 225; Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. New York: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc., 1910-1911, s.v. Goths, s.v. Rome, map of Scythia, pp. 648-649).

The reason I refer to the Goths is because our English language descends from them and their Bible translation matches not only the majority text but also the KJV.

During the preceding century Christianity had been planted sporadically among Goths beyond the Danube, through the agency in part of Christian captives and in part of merchants and traders. The Goths were acquainted with Christianity before Ulfilas, [also called Wulfila, the apostle to the Goths] through missionary work in their territory. (EB, s.v. Ulfilas; Cambridge History Vol. 2, p. 339; The Bible Trough the Ages, p. 224).

With all that said, The Goths and Ulfilas got their Bible first hand and guess what, it not only matches the original Greek texts but it also matches with the KJV. Again:

All investigators agree (e.g. Wescott and Hort, von Soden, Streiterg, Nestle, Streeter, Kenyon, Friedrichsen, et al.) that it [the Gothic Bible] is basically a Syrian or Antiohian form of text . . . It is, therefore, the oldest extant representative of the Lucianic or Antiochian type of text. (Metzger, pp. 384-385).

So, The Gothic [Codex Aregenteus represents a Byzantine text] and is best existing exemplar of the Gothic text. Erasmus had easy access to it at the Abbey of Werden on the Ruhr River in Westphalia, just 80 mile from his back porch in Holland.

You can research this yourself; in the book In Awe of Thy Word . . .there are literally 20 pages that show the Gothic and KJV Bible passages in parallel columns (pages 629-648); and there are 22 pages that show the Gothic, Anglo-Saxon, Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, Bishops and KJV in the same parallel columns . . . they also are identical (See pages 650-671).

Online4Him »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:55 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Irishcoyote,

Good morning . . . you said, (The noun (moshiach) (translated as messiah) annotatively means (annointed one); it does not, however imply (savior).

I disagree . . . the term Messiah (anointed one) has primarily been used to describe the coming of the prophet, priest and king . . . (for prophet see Deuteronomy 18:15-18) (for priest see Psalm 110:4) (for king see Isaiah 9:6-7). The promise of a savior begins way back in Genesis 3:15 and is constantly mentioned throughout the Old Testament; in fact unbelieving Jewish scholars have a difficult time interpreting Psalm 22 and Isaiah 53. I could post text after text that speak of the Messiahs work, life and purpose but that would take too much time and space. There are close to a million Messianic Jews that would disagree with their brothers on this matter . . . plus, Judaism is still waiting for a Messiah despite the fact that Jesus fulfills all of the Old Testament prophecies . . . interesting.

Q: Can those mythical archetypes be found in verifiable records of history . . . do they account for real people, places and events?

irishcoyote »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:37 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Furthermore, if you review the historical mythological collective archetypes, you will see that the myth of the sacrificial "son" (ie Sun) god who sacrifices himself to renew a people or the world itself is incredibly common and thoroughly pagan notion. You even celebrate the birth of you sun god on the feast of an earlier sun god, Mithras. This, again, was part of the marketing campaign to sell christianity to the wider Roman-dominated world via the legions and the slave class to a large degree.

irishcoyote »

Sat Feb 21, 2009 9:31 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

To quote a Jewish scholarly account: "The noun "moshiach" (translated as messiah) annotatively means "annointed one;" it does not, however imply "savior." The notion of an innocent, semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequence of our own sins is a purely christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought or SCRIPTURE. In Judaic texts, the term messiah was used for all kings, high priests, certain warriors, but never eschatological figures. In the Tanach, moshiach is used 38 times: two patriarchs, six high priests, once for Cyrus, 29 Israelite kings such as Saul and David. Not once is the word moshiach used in reference to the awaited messiah. *Even in the apocalyptic book of Daniel*, the only time moshiach is mentioned is in connection to a murdered high priest. The dead sea scrolld, the pseudepigrapha and apocrypha never mentioned the messiah."


As far as the kjv of the bible goes :

"The king james' version's textual basis is essentially a handful of late and haphazardly collected miniscule manuscripts, and in a dozen passages its reading is supported by no known Greek witness. This version is a debased form of the Greek text, and was essentially reproduced faithfully from Erasmus' "corrected" text"* For almost 400 years the kjv has resisted scholarly efforts to displace it in favor of an earlier and more accurate text."

*-"Desiderius Erasmus was a Dutch scholar and humanist from Rotterdam. Erasmus fabricated his own Greek text (he "corrected" texts of manuscripts). Found within his texts are readings which cannot be found in any known and extant Greek manuscript......His bible was the first on the market that was printed, bound, and available in a cheaper and a more conveniently handy form, resulting in greater circulation than its rival (the bulky and cumbersome complutensian polygot). Its influence became greater and was therefore accepted because of one economic reason: its marketability and resulting sales."

Online4Him »

Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Irishcoyote,

(It follows logically then that depending on others' testimony of experience (faith/opinion/belief) is exponentially more problematic)

Logically, yes; it does appear to be problematic if it were not for the historical and prophetic witness . . .

(If the bible is merely of human opinion)

A: Yes, the Bible is a book, B: Yes, books are written by human beings, C: Yes, the Bible was written by human beings, D: No, the testimony of scripture is that the Holy Spirit moved upon the prophets and apostles to pen holy writ . . . again, its historical and prophetic witness cannot be surpassed by any other witness.

(Can you find another person in history that fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah?)

I am sure that you can quote many Jewish scholars who do not agree with Christians, however, they cannot give a sound explanation for the many Old Testament passages that point to the life of Jesus Christ . . .

(You have also skirted my previous thrust of inquiry, have you ever considered the possibility that you are wrong about Christianity and that every word of your bible isn't literally true?)

I do not believe that I have skirted your inquirers . . . in fact; my last few post demonstrate that the Bible is not merely human in origin . . . additionally, there are many more prophecies recorded in the Bible that need to be fulfilled . . . they will come to pass just like the rest of them . . .

irishcoyote »

Fri Feb 20, 2009 11:04 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"That is so subjective . . . dont you think? Depending on ones own experience or observation alone is problematic to say the least. "

I admit that in so far as problematic means not absolute and sure, then I freely concede that; it foolows logically then that depending on others' testimony of experience (faith/opinion/belief) is exponentially more problematic.

"If the bible is merely of human opinion . ."

A. bible is a book
B. books are written by human beings
C. bible was written by human biengs
D. bible is the opinion/testimony of human beings

"Can you find another person in history that fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah . . . ? "

We could find a whole ton of Jews who don't believe that Jesus fufilled the messiah prophecies including scholars who can and have read the Hebrew texts IN hebrew...can you read hebrew?

You have also skirted my previous thrust of inquiry, have you ever considered the possibility that you are wrong about christianity and that every word of your bible isn't literally true?
I hope you have a better answer than "no" or pascal's wager.

Online4Him »

Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:58 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

(My proof is all empirical, not based on another human being's belief/opinion)

That is so subjective . . . dont you think? Depending on ones own experience or observation alone is problematic to say the least.

(If, however, your belief is rooted entirely in the onions/belief of others, what you are told by preachers, what you have read in bible (which itself is merely the written opinion/belief of other human beings) you are only taking their word for it)

If the bible is merely of human opinion . . . then that would mean its historic and prophetic witness could be easily disproved . . . right? Can you find another person in history that fulfilled the prophecies of the Messiah . . . ?

irishcoyote »

Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"What is the origin of this goddess and how has she/they revealed her/themselves? What verifiable evidence can you present in her/their behalf?"

Ah-ha :) I asked you first brother; also, I'm not here to proselytize, I'm a Witch remember? My proof is all empirical, not based on another human being's belief/opinion. It can't mean anything to you unless you experience it firsthand and likewise for myself of your experience. If your opinion/faith/belief is rooted in direct experience of the divine as my opinion/faith/belief is, then I am impressed and I salute you. If, however, your belief is rooted entirely in the opnions/belief of others, what you are told by preachers, what you have read in bible (which itself is merely the written opinion/belief of other human beings) you are only taking their word for it.

"What verifiable evidence can you present in her/their behalf?"

Hmmm, what exactly do you mean by 'verifiable evidence'? verifiable by whom exactly? In the most strict sense of 'verifiable', I can offer just as much 'evidence' as you can. You surely must acknowledge that a given data set can be interpreted by you as proof for the existence of yahwey, can be interpreted by myself as proof of the existence of Goddess as well as may be interpreted by the athiest-materialist as proof no such thing as deity exists.

Online4Him »

Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

(What do you say if I asked you if you have ever considered that there is a price to pay for rejecting Goddess's will?)

What is the origin of this goddess and how has she/they revealed her/themselves? What verifiable evidence can you present in her/their behalf?

Thanks

irishcoyote »

Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

" have you considered the possibility that there is a price to pay for rejecting Gods will?"

This question only applies if you acknowledge yahweh as the supreme and/or only diety.

What do you say if I asked you if you have ever considered that there is a price to pay for rejecting Goddess's will? In fact, have you ever considered the possiblity that you are wrong about christianity? Wrong about the supposed absolute truth of your bible? is this where you fall back to Pascal's wager?

Online4Him »

Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Pagan,

(No, I don't believe in 'evil' spirits, but some pagans do I'm pretty sure. I believe there are Godd and spirits that don't have humanity as a priority)

How did you come to these conclusions?

(So, anyways, every time Kally goes to church, the pastor and congregation tell her that her mommy's going to burn in hell.)

Perhaps, that is not exactly what she was told . . . have you considered the possibility that there is a price to pay for rejecting Gods will?

(Well, I'm unregistering from this site.)

Thanks for your honesty and for sharing . . . . Take care.

paganpride »

Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

No, I don't believe in 'evil' spirits, but some pagans do I'm pretty sure. I believe there are Godd and spirits that don't have humanity as a priority. They work towards Their own ends. That doesn't make them evil.

One of my friends lets her daughter go to church with her grandparents. She supports her daughter's curiosity and believes she should be allowed to make up her own mind about which path to follow. So, anyways, every time Kally goes to church, the pastor and congregation tell her that her mommy's going to burn in hell. And she will too if she keeps practicing with her mother. No, I'm not kidding or exaggerating. And, naturally, this is not EVERY Christian. But there are many many of them like that out there. And every time you turn around it's in their cartoons. It's like the cigarrette commercials that used to use the camel, but had to stop because it was targeted for children. Same thing.

Well, I'm unregistering from this site. Because obviously it's not one I ever planned to frequent, lol. Thanks for the...debate, conversation, somewhat open mindedness.

Online4Him »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 4:13 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Pagan,

(You know, the only beef I have against Christianity, is that, well okay 2 issues)

1.Force their religion on children? How so?
2.From a Christian world view . . . we believe there is only one God and the only other spiritual entities are angels . . . good and bad.

Nothing personal but we believe that magik is something gained by those fallen angels who masquerade themselves as angels of light in order to deceive mankind. You do believe in evil spirits . . . right?

paganpride »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Blessing! *found the word I was looking for*

paganpride »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:23 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Ah, misread your post. That's kind of what many Pagan's believe magick is though. Gifts from the Gods. Without the Goddess's...searching for the right word...touch/essence/influence...it's not possible to do the craft.

paganpride »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Also, I disagree that prophecy is magick . . . it is Gods revelation . . . "

lol, you squeezed that one in while I was typing. Then why are so many Christians against magick? I shouldn't ask you that, to speak for the masses. Anywho, ok I can ask, what's your take on magick? That works better.

paganpride »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hm, haven't heard that before. Not that it affects me, I was just curious how you lot view it.

"God is jealous for our love . . . since he created us and sustains us . . . he is deserves our love."

I have to agree that the Gods deserve our love and attention because They created us. We think similiarly there, but it's all in the point of view, that I don't see that as truth. I see him as being jealous of those other Gods who would recieve love and attention that he desires. Almost as if he's a younger God, like younger children. They want ALL the cookies, not just a few, they don't like to share.

Again we agree, "nature testifies to a intelligent designer" but naturally I would say designers. As I said before, prophecy is magical, which would be considered more my religion than yours. But, that's irrelevant, the bible is written by man. I could just as easily spend my days in meditation and put pen to paper and write out everything my Gods relate to me. It doesn't make it fact, no matter how many historical events I add to it. It makes it my interpretation of what They were trying to convey to me. Having a book that says something is the one and only truth, simply does not make it so.

You know, the only beef I have against Christianity, is that, well okay 2 issues.

1. Many try to force their religion on us and our children. And the children part is what irks me the most there. I have my own mind, I know what is truth for me. But children are impressionable.

2. They deny the remote possibility that my religion could be valid. My religion doesn't deny yours. I have no problem with you facing your Christian God to be judged and accept whatever ruling he deals you. Why is it so hard to accept that there could be other Gods or realities that you just choose not to worship. But, I already know your answer, lol.

I knew a very religious Jewish man maybe 5-6 years ago. We used to discuss our differences every so often. Not hostily but more as we (you and I) have been doing today. He used to tell me that he could accept my belief in other Gods. He didn't believe they existed though. He identified Pagan Gods with the angels of his faith. And that he could relate other religions to his in much the same manor.

And in a way, I agree with him. Not that my Gods are angels but that his angels are my Gods. And that his God is one of the many of mine, albeit not one I want to worship. I also relate many of the other Gods and Goddesses that I don't know as being the same as mine, just named differently to better relate to the culture of their followers.

Online4Him »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Also, I disagree that prophecy is magick . . . it is Gods revelation . . .

Online4Him »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:45 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

God is jealous for our love . . . since he created us and sustains us . . . he is deserves our love.

You are right; I cannot point to someone and say, hey, look here is God but he clearly has left plenty of evidence to support his existence . . . nature testifies to a intelligent designer and his written word is historically verifiable as well as the multiple prophecies which again, are verifiable.

Yes, you have a mind to choose to believe what you wish and yes there are different religious world views . . . but I tend to believe that Christianitys claims are most verifiable when compared to others.

Online4Him »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 2:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Pagan,

Yes, according to the Scriptures salvation is only through Jesus Christ-Acts 4:12, 1Corinthinans 3:11, John 14:6; however, the scriptures also teach that the Lord will consider WHERE one was born and WHAT one knows. For those who come to KNOW the clear teaching of who Christ is . . . they will be held accountable. For those who do not come into contact with this knowledge; consider the following passages -

I will make mention of Rahab and Babylon to them that know me: behold Philistia, and Tyre, with Ethiopia; this man was born there. And of Zion it shall be said, This and that man was born in her: and the highest himself shall establish her. The LORD shall count, when he writeth up the people, that this man was born there. Selah-Psalms 87:4-6.

For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel-Romans 2:11-16.

So, God appears to judge us according to our knowledge and character . . . I am positive that there will be people in heaven who never heard the name of Jesus.

I am sure that there are people who beg for forgiveness out of fear . . . but those who do so really do not understand the gospel (good news) . . . what motivates me is gratitude; the good news is that Jesus Christ took our place so that Gods justice was placed upon him and therefore sets us free sin and its penalty.

paganpride »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 1:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Online,
Thanks. It was actually supposed to be a question, not an assumption. I didn't 'read' it anywhere, I think for myself. Anyway, those who don't believe in/worsip your god (according the bible) go to hell. Yes? So, what about all those who never heard of Christianity? According to your religion, they are non-believers, so what happened to them? Or are they exempt from this rule/law/however you want to put it? But if your god created Earth/existance all by himself why would the rules change from one generation to the next?

I'm not saying your god is worshipped solely out of fear. But when your people commit sins, they fear hell and that's the biggest reason MOST beg forgiveness, notice I say most and not all.

Yes I do realize the prophecies were foretold long before, that doesn't change any of what I said. Obviously people of that faith knew of the prophecies or why would they know he was a messiah? And if you believe no one knew about them, then how did they end up in the bible?

Jealousy is motivated by a lot of things, perhaps it is his love for humans. But, what is there to be jealous of then? If he is the only god, if we Pagans are all off our rockers, why would he be jealous of our imaginary gods? If your husband talked to an imaginary woman, would you be jealous or just roll your eyes and think he was a doof?

How do I know there are multiple Gods? It's of course, nothing concrete, the same as you have no concrete evidence to show an atheist that there is any god at all. It's a feeling in my heart. A pull towards the divine that doesn't live within the Christian faith. An interaction with said dieties, feeling their presence with me. Much the same as you'd describe knowing your god was real, I imagine.

The difference is your's is a book religion mine comes from the mind and the heart of each. We have books to help guide you, especially when first starting. But nothing that says this is the one and only Truth. We're more of a I'll worship my way, you worship yours kind of people.

There are even some branches of Paganism such as Kemetic Orthodox that believe there is only one divine but that the gods: Bast, Aset, Ra, etc, are facets of that divine. Just faces it shows us that embodies different aspects of itself, to better relate to us.

Online4Him »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 12:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Pagan,

Greetings and welcome to this discussion . . . . There are a couple assumptions in your post; first, you assume that pre-Christian societies/those who have not heard the gospel will be in hell. Where did you read that? Second, you state that the Christian God is angry and is worshipped out of fear . . . . Wrong again; third, you fail to realize that the prophecies of the Messiah were foretold hundreds of years before his arrival; fourth, yes, you are at liberty to worship whatever you will . . . I am not imposing my beliefs; and finally, Gods jealously is motivated by his love . . . (1John 4:8). How do you know that there are multiple Gods?

paganpride »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:52 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Reguarding your Messiah: How many of those things came to pass simply because at that point he had already assumed this role?

He was already a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, of the house of King David, so naturally they were waiting and watching all of the children born to this line. So naturally, for his future, his parents would want him to be born in Bethlehem.

Of course, when Herod started killing the infants, his parents would want to save him. How many others were sent away? How many happened to go to Egypt.

At this point, many I'm sure noticed the links to the prophecy and he was heralded by the John the Baptist as the Messiah. (annointed by the Holy Spirit, is totally subjective and not really verifiable one way or the other)

So after being declared the Messiah, it's only natural that he would follow the prophecy and preach the Kingdom of God, minister in Galilee, cleans the temple, and enter Jerusalem on a donkey. Is it really surprising then that the Jews would reject him?

Who hasn't been accused by false witnesses, and betrayed by a friend? Sold for 30 pieces of silver, there are such things as coincidence. How many others were sold for the same price? Crucified without any of his bones being broken, so the person who performed the crucifiction was experienced, and? Prayed for his persecutors, of course he did. When you're being wronged don't you pray/hope that the ones doing it will see the what pain their actions have caused? That it won't have to happen to anyone else.

He was buried in a rich mans tomb, which was guarded by his enemies and his body was never recovered? To me this seems like the 'enemies' were either bribed with goods or money or by a sob story that touched their hearts.

But, you know, suppose all of that isn't just coincidence or the natural flow of one circumstance following another. The bible was still written by the hand of man. And naturally your god would claim to be the only one, he's, according to your bible, a self proclaimed jealous god. "For the Lord thy God is a jealous God" (Deut 6:14) Why would he want the competition of the rest of the Gods? If he could convince you They don't exist, or that They're evil demons, all the better for him.

paganpride »

Sun Feb 15, 2009 11:29 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

So, did all of pre-Christian society burn in hell simply because they never heard of the Christian god? Christianity just has too many loopholes for my taste. But that's not what this is about. I'm Pagan, not a Wiccan, but as the two are closely related I'd like to get a little involved in this.

First, like was pointed a dozen times or so, the bible was written by men, period. Sure, they were speaking for their god, but like all men, their own personal views and values surely influenced their writing, even if only a little.

We as Pagans do not deny the existance of your god. We just choose not to worship him. Personally, I see him as a judgemental and angry god. We instead choose to worship such Gods and Goddess that we feel the call/pull from. The Gods I choose to worship are ones that I can respect and love.

Furthermore, prophecy is a form of magick. But Christians, in the majority, highly oppose the use/existance of magick.

Religion doesn't have to based on prophecies from ages past. It should be lived and experienced. I do what is right because it is right, for my and my family honor, not for some fear of a God that will pass judgement on me. Heard the phrase, "All the right things for all the wrong reasons."?

Online4Him »

Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Irishcoyote,

The Koran may have one original language but again, my point is no other religion can be recognized for its historical and prophetic witness! What prophetic utterances does the Koran give us? The reason that you may feel that this prophecy in Daniel is not impressive is because you have not actually read them and have not read its counterpart in Revelation . . . as I said; there is more to the prophecy. It would be best to actually familiarize yourself with a written work before discrediting it. Question my friend: what grand prophecy does your religion declare, if it does so at all? This is not a challenge . . . I am just curious to know if your faith has anything similar. How could Daniel know that there would be 4 world empires and know that the 4th kingdom would be divided and also state that out of this ten-fold division another power (little horn) would rise and subdue three of the original ten? There is more but I will leave it at that for now.

Regarding the prophecies of the Messiah: name ONE other person in history who was a descendant of Abraham, of the tribe of Judah, of the house of King David, born in Bethlehem, taken to Egypt to avoid Herod killing the infants, anointed by the Holy Spirit, heralded by the John the Baptist as the Messiah, who preached the Kingdom of God, who ministered in Galilee, cleansed the temple, entered Jerusalem on a donkey, who was rejected by the Jews, accused by false witnesses, betrayed by a friend, sold for 30 pieces of silver, crucified without any of his bones being broken, prayed for his persecutors, buried in a rich mans tomb, tomb guarded by his enemies and their body never recovered?

You may want research the history of the Majority Text . . . you can see for yourself that the scriptures have been preserved to this day.

When I mention the Judeo-Christian faith . . . I am referring to the Old and New Testaments; sorry, should have clarified that. Which doctrines have been lost? God clearly stated that he would preserve his Word and indeed he has . . . as I mentioned earlier, you may want to do some research on the Majority Text.

irishcoyote »

Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

i mean you said "couldn't" as in could not

irishcoyote »

Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

A point about odds : you said "it could just happen" and that is a false statement. Its highly unlikely but entirely possible statistically speaking.
Its statistically improbable that life has survived all the harrowing near-escapes and major extinction events or millions and millions of years but it did happen and thus we are here to debate about it today. Its also unbelievably unlikely that a single child is born considering all the odds against it but it does happen, all the time.

Misspelled words, printing errors and punctuation errors can all cause major errors of translation, you are bolstering my point. Not to mention the political agendas of all the translators over the years as well as the bosses and sponsors the translators may have had.

"No doctrine of the Judeo-Christian faith has been lost through translation."

A. the doctrines of Judaism and the doctrines of Christianity are two entirely different things. Not only that but there are many multiple sects with each of those two major divisions. It is grossly assumptive to make as simplified a statement as you did in an attempt to blanket that entire concept.
B. there have also been lots of divergent doctrines that have been suppressed (lost on purpose) by the coin and also the sword when they became politically inconvenient or challenging to the authority of the catholic church.

irishcoyote »

Fri Feb 13, 2009 12:32 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

The number of years the bible predates the Koran was never in question but is totally immaterial to the point i made about its original language and structure being preserved through the history of the religion as opposed to the bible.

I'm not missing your "awe-inspiring revelation"...its just not that impressive. Every kingdom falls sooner or later (nothing impressive about predicting something that follows the natural course of entropy). Human organizations have lifespans just as individual organisms do. It would be just as unimpressive to say "Four important people will die in the next 50 years" of course they will, of course each successive kingdom will collapse. So vauge as to be certain to be able to be interpreted as true eventually.

Secondly if you want to be precise about the matter, the Roman kingdom actually fell in 509 B.C.E. when the monarchy was overthrown and the republic was established (almost 2 centuries BEFORE the Persian Empire collapsed in the 330's B.C.E. by the way). "Greece" was not a unified kingdom, but multiple autonomous city states, which all blossomed and wilted and grew in strength again all according to different timelines. Furthermore, EVERY kingdom that falls can be said to be divided into smaller parts since when any powerful, centralized authority is thrown down or collapses control inevitably gets divided up into more localized levels or smaller groupings. Not only that, you are impressed that a hebrew source predicted the fall of the babylonian empire? Of course one predicts the fall and ruin of their oppressors. This is a moral builder intended to keep your people from utter and complete despair. Babylon was swallowed eventually by Cyrus and the Persians not by the predictions of some hebrew tribesman their god.

Online4Him »

Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Oh, I forgot to mention that the Bible actually predates the the Koran by some 575 years . . .

Online4Him »

Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:26 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Irishcoyote,

(But empires such as all those you cited, inevitably fall as you rightly point out is noted in the objective cultural annals)

I think you are truly missing the awe-inspiring revelation here . . . Daniel was a captive in Babylon when God revealed to him the coming world powers in successive order. Daniel told the king of Babylon . . . after thee shall arise another kingdom . . . and then another . . . and then another; he went on to reveal that the fourth kingdom (Rome) would be divided into smaller kingdoms (Europe) etc. . . . . This amazing prophecy is actually repeated again in the book of Revelation with ADDITIONAL information that leads to the end of time. No one could have postulated these series of events if they tried . . . in fact; this prophecy was given BEFORE the fall of the Babylonian empire? This prophecy and those of the Messiahs are historically verifiable . . . Again; there is no other world religion that can be recognized for its historical and prophetic witness!

You also stated, (I or anyone else could point out a postulate the eventual existence of an individual with a set of predicted life-circumstances and in hundreds and hundreds of years time someone would eventually come along and fill those parameters)

I do not think so . . . for example, Dr. Peter Stoner, former chairman of the departments of mathematics, astronomy, and engineering at Pasadena College (California) worked with 600 students for several years applying the (principle of probability) to the prophecies of the Messiahs coming. They chose just EIGHT from the many available and finally decided the chances of all eight being fulfilled in on man in a lifetime is one in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000. What would the odds be on the more than 125 prophecies of the Messiah? It could not just happen!

(As to the translation issue, Latin to English, Greek to Latin, Hebrew to Latin, etc)

I see that you did not answer my question my friend . . . (have you done any research on the Majority Text)? Most of the translation errors are misspelled words, punctuation errors, and printing errors. No doctrine of the Judeo-Christian faith has been lost through translation. You are right . . . it is not 100% . . . it is more like 98%. As I mentioned earlier . . . the KJV bible can be traced all the way back to the Majority Text.

irishcoyote »

Thu Feb 12, 2009 9:41 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

the online aswer you offered up prophet was that "wiccan is a demon cult and wiccan is just an opinon" I don't see the leap in logic there if thats what you are pointing to. If its the supposed and self-proclaimed complete validity and truth of the bible then I've spoken to that as to why its lacking an objective absolute verification. I suppose I keep asking because I'm looking for a good answer but I sense none forthcoming.
I happen to be Wiccan, or a Witch if you prefer, (I utilize the terms interchangeably, though please understand that not all Wiccans do and the acceptance of the term 'Witch' varies from Wiccan to Wiccan) because when I discovered Wicca I suddenly had a name to call what I already intuitively sensed to have the ring of truth about it. What I as a Wiccan inderstand is that every woman and man have to walk their own path to wisdom and the source and although different paths resonate with wide swaths of people, no one belief or spiritual path or religion is right to be stamped on every single person in this wide, beautiful, magickal, world (universe/the whole of material existence really) cookie-cutter fashion. There's a key difference embeded in the divergent mythological frameworks of ours; I believe in peaceful coexistence and your religion sooner or later precludes a true cooperative and pluralistic society. THe theology of "I'm aboslutely right and everyone else is wrong and everyone else needs to be right like me" can be practiced begninly but in its ultimate iteration can lead to geonocide against religions, cultures, even peoples' very lives.
And thats just the tip of the iceburg.

Prophet »

Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I've already answered your question. Why keep asking? Why not just answer mine?

irishcoyote »

Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:46 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Understand that Im certainly no fan of islam, but this is one arena where they have it in spades over christianity; The koran is literally in the exact same language and the exact phraseology as when Mohammed penned it to paper, so to speak. I don't buy the Koran either but the translation issue isnt why.

irishcoyote »

Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:37 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Prophet, Christianity is just an opinion. So why are you a christian then? (btw the religion itself is Wicca, Wiccan is an adjective)

Online4him, predicting that 4 kingdoms in the mediterranean and middle east will fall at some indeterminant point in the future (given that civilizations have natural life spans; some longer, some shorter, but empires such as all those you cited, inevitably fall as you rightly point out is noted in the objective cultural annals.
Secondly, I or anyone else could point out a postulate the eventual existence of an individual with a set of predicted life-circumstances and in hundreds and hundreds of years time someone would eventually come along and fill those perameters. The rest, like with the legends and mythology wrapped about Yeshua bar Abba, can be borrowed from pre-existing and imported religio-mythological archetypes already present in the cultural conciousness: the diety who is born of an either divine or mortal virgin, the male god who sacrifices himself that the world or a group of people is renewed/saved/blessed etc.

As to the translation issue, Latin to English, Greek to Latin, Hebrew to Latin, etc, none of these languages have a precise and EXACT one to one word for word translation of every single word in each language and therefore by its very nature it cannot be 100% precise no matter how technically skilled a given translator may be, as well as the fact that highly likely that any given interpretation of one translator may be subtly different from another (you know that in plenty of circumstances the swapping of a word for another similar one or in some casese a single letter, can drastically and abruptly change the overall meaning of any sentence or phrase.

Also, even the best possible literal translation cannot account for each new language translation's intended audience's ignorance of many figures of speech and cultural idioms embedded in the language of the previous culture.

Online4Him »

Thu Feb 12, 2009 7:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

irishcoyote,

Hello again . . . I have been reading the discourse between prophet and yourself for a couple of days now and I wanted to respond to what you stated in your last post. You said, (Its (the bible) a historical / mythological text, no better or worse than the ancient texts of any major world religion)

I beg to differ . . . first, there is no other ancient text that accurately gives a verifiable prophetic witness apart from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. For example, the prophet Daniel specifically spoke of the rise and fall of four world kingdoms that would directly affect the people of God (see Daniel 2). Any history book will confirm that these kingdoms did indeed rise and fall accordingly (Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome). This prophecy of Daniel 2 is recounted again in Daniel 7 with additional prophetic insight which brings us to the present day. Second, the Old Testament prophets explicitly spoke with detailed accuracy of the life of the coming messiah hundreds of years before his arrival. No one other than Jesus fulfilled these prophecies . . . In fact there is no other world religion that can be recognized for its historical and prophetic witness.

Next, you said, (Translating a book from one language is never 100% accurate in the exact transfer of meaning). Again, I disagree, have you done any research on the Majority text? Our present day KJV actually matches the old Gothic manuscripts that are dated pre-A.D. 350 (See Cambridge History vol. 2, pp. 347, 355, 362) and the council of Nicea did not GIVE us the bible . . . rather, it CONFIRMED the identity of the canon which ALREADY EXISTED; even the RCC admits this.