Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Church warns pagan holiday spells trouble

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 27 January 2008
By Marc Horne
WITCHES, heathens, druids and wiccans from across the UK are set to spend a spell in a tiny north-east community.
The Pagan Federation is planning to hold its first summer camp in Inchberry near Fochabers. The three-day event, scheduled for July, will be a celebration of the ancient religion which is based on a respect for nature.

But the gathering has met
with a frosty reception from a Moray church, whose minister fears it may encourage dangerous dabbling in witchcraft.

The pagan summer camp will take place beside the Inchberry community hall between Friday, July 18 and Sunday, July 20. The event is open to "all witches, druids, shaman and other pagans of good". It will feature an "opening ritual" as well as a host of workshops and talks.

Moray resident Joanne Campbell, who is behind the event, said: "People like to sensationalise our gathering and speculate that we are up to all sorts of strange things.

"But the reality is that we really just want to get together and socialise with friends and like-minded people. There is nothing remotely sinister about it. In fact it is quite the opposite."

But Rev Graham Swanson, of Elgin Baptist Church, said: "I have grave concerns and reservations about this event taking place. As a Christian I believe the Bible warns us about dabbling in such things as witchcraft."

Last year the Pagan Federation held its Scottish conference at Edinburgh University. But the move enraged the Christian Union which accused the university of double standards after banning one its events which outlined the "dangers" of homosexuality.



Page 1 of 1

 
1

Ghost Of Scotland Past,

27/01/2008 00:40:09
Hocus Pocus and a plague upon all the houses of the ritualistically superstitious.
2

Clan-destine,

kyoto Japan 27/01/2008 01:23:00
Marc Horne..might be "Round the Horn" with hs first opening lines'Witches heathen driunds and wiccans" they are all heathens Marc according to the Church and witches and wiccans are the same folk..it's a bit like saying "Catholics and Christians.' Wica is legal and recognised as a religion and like Druidism was here long before the Christians arrived and they also lived in peace with each other the trouble only started with the arrival of Christianity.The church is a voice of the past nowadays and it's days are numbered ...I'm glad to opine.The quicker we get rid of them all the better. Witchcraft is not evil or of the devil it was given it's present negative press by the church {and Hollywood}who were and still are, scared of female power{this stems from the Jewish traditions that Christianity hijacked}Your article is hogswash and I can never understand why these so called "Men of the cloth" get so much media coverage..if some wee narrow minded misister or the "Archbishop of Nowhere" so much as breaks wind...which in this case means comment about something.. it's in the news. They and their stupid religion are DEAD! The only trouble is they're the last ones to know about it and acrry on as if they were still in power and had some influence on society.Nobody listens to them..they're history, ancient relics, of the past, irrelelvent and total failures. The old religions are coming back as they are more relevent, have more meaning and are much more peaceful and tolerant that anything Christianity as come up with so far. Merry meet and my your Gods bless you all.
3

Ross Fyffe,

Scotland 27/01/2008 02:14:01
hell awaits then .......... seems fair to me
4

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 27/01/2008 11:06:11
Hope they have a grand old knees up...Rev Swanson should keep his snout out....he has had his say...now move over and let the pagan celebrations commence....
5

Max Born,

Having lunch at the lazy Y. 27/01/2008 11:07:22
All these people taking herbal substances and dancing naked aroond fires ...............disgusting!

I,am away tae the Waverly to book my ticket
6

Finabobek,

Scotland 27/01/2008 11:41:40
I cannot see why Marc Horne chose to write this article? What was he hoping to achieve?

This is similar to a fictitious and sensationalised article in the Scotsman a while back about Tayside NHS appointing Pagan Hospital Chaplains, making sure they got a very 'anti' quote from the Christian community, and a positive, inclusive quote from the Muslim community. { I believe the purpose of that previous article could have been to help incite further hatred and suspicion of people of the Muslim faith?}

We are lucky enough to live in a multi-cultural, secular country, where Inter Faith groups actively promote Inclusion, and understanding and tolerance of all faiths.
We should all be 'grown up' enough to accept that there are many different faiths in the world, and try to live together in harmony.

Fundamentalism of all forms, whether political, religious or whatever is dangerous; causing rifts in communities, families & countries. Inciting and promoting hatred and wars.

I have many friends who are Pagans, and you couldn't meet a more genuine, caring bunch of people. The Principles they live their lives by include respecting the environment, being of a positive morality -living in harmony with their world and communities and harming none, and taking personal responsibility for their own actions. Is that not basically what the christian commandments were based on as well?

Lots of common-interest groups hold camping events where they get together and have fun amongst like-minded people. Goldwing Owners clubs, Canoeists, Goldfish breeders etc. so, what's so special about some Pagans getting together?

Would the Scotsman dare publish a similar article about a camping event planned by people of the Muslim, Bhuddist, Bahai or Jewish faith?

I know the Media likes to sensationalise things because they think it sells, but I thought there were Laws against inciting hatred / 'isms' of all kinds?
7

Reprobus,

Moray 27/01/2008 12:57:11
Why - exactly - does the fact that a religious group have organised a camp constitute 'news'? Has nothing more 'newsworthy' happened or is it possible the reporter is perhaps a zealot with a gripe? What does the reporter hope to achieve here? Incitement to religious intolerance is against the law, I believe. And whether the reporter likes it or not, Paganism is a recognised religion in Scotland.

The Rev Swanson's comments appear to do him no favours in a multi-faith society either. He is entitled to his beliefs, as are all members of ALL recognised religions. What does the Reverend really know about what Pagans believe or how they practice? Precious little, judging from the knee-jerk reaction quoted. The matter of Pagans holding a camp is actually none of his business - it is nothing to do with either him or his church, nor does it impinge on the same.
8

Thorr,

Scotland 27/01/2008 13:36:15
Democracy itself was a precious gift from a tolerant and Pagan Europe! The foundation for all the Western Sciences and medical ethics (Hipocrates) were laid in tolerant Pagan Europe.

Pagan Europe's mistake was to initially permit the worship of the intolerant Asian God on the cross. Even in Ancient Rome itself the worship of all gods was tolerated, if not welcomed. The worshipers of the intolerant Asian God on the cross would not respect the rights of others to worship whatever gods they so wished. It was at this point that they came into conflict with the Roman Authorities.

How many of our ancestors were murdered by adherents of the various Christian denominations that held power at the time. Our ancestors were frequently murdered by the Christians for heresy, questioning what they were forced to believe by the law that christians made to enforce a particular christian belief. Our ancestors worshiped our ancient Gods for centuries in secret now they still want to persecute us because we openly worship our ancient, tolerant dieties.
9

WL,

livingston 27/01/2008 18:55:13
If the event is open to "all withches, druids, shaman and other pagans of good" they will have no one to take part in the event. I hope that they don't get a subsidy from any local or other (government) institution!
10

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 27/01/2008 19:00:24
With a bit of luck they will.
11

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 27/01/2008 20:02:31
Hello All,

I must admit that while reading the pro-pagan posts above, I had to smile and almost chuckle: the rosy picture which Neo-Pagans draw of the Ancient Pagans and the 'tolerance' they all had for everyone and everything.

Ah yes, and pigs can fly and so there'll be no bangers for the mash, and certainly no bacon for the eggs.

Most Pagans at one time or another, were deeply involved in Human Sacrifice. When the Romans showed up in Northern Europe, they were appalled at the burning of people in Wicker Baskets, and so decided to stamp the Druids out of existence.

For all intents and purposes, the Roman succeeded.

Oh yes, that would be PAGAN Rome thank you very much, some 4 CENTURIES before Constantine was even born.

Human sacrifice was the NORM amongst Pagans of the Middle East, one need but study just a little bit of Phoenician History, and lo and behold, the sacrifice of children to Moloch become readily apparent.

Carthage, the North African Colony out of Lebanon, later became the major Rival of the Romans (3rd Punic War), after their home country of Phoenica was defeated during the first two Punic Wars.

Oh yes again, that would be one Pagan Culture attempting to stamp out another Pagan Culture.

Then of course we have the even more ancient Pagan wars between Persia and Greece; they even made a nifty little movie about it called '300'.

You Neo-Pagans need to get a grip. STOP lying about ancient Paganism and do a compare and contrast, illustrating the positive differences between the Ancient and the Modern.

STOP denigrating Christianity, as it was Pagans which did their best to wipe out Christianity-and with a vengeance I must add.

The doctrines of Christianity do NOT allow for what you state it does; you are for the most part, children who were raised as secular Christians. You rejected what you thought was Christianity (but wasn't) for something that you thought was 'real' Paganism (but isn't).

Get with the program will y
12

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 27/01/2008 20:30:29
11.....Wake up and smell the mistetoe ya bam....Just as 'Modern Christians' no longer burn people as witches...'Modern pagans' no longer sacrifice...so stop whingeing and 'get with the programme'....as for the rest of your christian propoganda...give us a break mate...I would have been drowned...throttled and then burnt a long time ago..

Nothing more entertaining than the great brainwashed...and please do not mirror my comment.. come up with something of your own.
13

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 27/01/2008 23:45:26
Hello Doreen,

No brain washing here my dear; that'd be YOUR department, considering that one need but look in any reliable history book, Antiquities Section, to verify my statements.

I must add that Christians didn't burn witches at all: and those professing to be Christians didn't do so until appx. 1200 years AFTER Rome Converted. Before that time, it was Pagans doing the burning thank you very much!

I never said modern Pagans burned anyone, or made human sacrifice in any manner: I commented on the Rose Colored Glasses version of Pagan history, that so many in this thread were presenting. Emotionally pleasing to them no doubt, but historically false.

I've not offered any Christian Propaganda as you accuse, just the verified historical facts: the FACT that you can't deal with it does not well serve you.

No doubt you'd be one of those Neo-Pagans who tries their best to deny the Crowley foundational influence through Gardner, whom Gardner employed to write his 'sacred' tome!

Now being a good Neo-Pagan, you know the religious bent of good ole Alistair don't you?

Cheers from the Rockies
14

Boy Wonder,

28/01/2008 00:02:17
"Paganism" is a catch-all word for many non-Christian nature worshippers. "Wicca", the invention of Gerald Gardner and Aleister Crowley is the result of a drunken afternoon by these two old men, and followed by many ... Americans. Christianity is a fusion of Judaism, Mithraism, The Vestal Virgins of Rome and the Cult of Isis. Islam is an Arabic offshoot of Early Christianity/Judaism, tinged with Elamitic and Babylonian/Akkadian beliefs and the leftovers of the Moon-cult at Ur of the Chaldees.

Superstition, superstition, superstition!! All of it!

15

Reaver,

Snowbound in the Cascades 28/01/2008 04:23:06
I have been to Ur in 2004. The Ziggarut is something else, local legend has it that they built it where a meteorite fell. Incedently, the moslems are not very supportive of Pagan-types, regardless of which old men (re) wrote the study guides... but don't let that get in the way of the "all inclusive" labeling that's going on!
16

weeshooie1,

Australia 28/01/2008 09:17:29
It's not a religion, it's a commune with nature. why can't the churches just let them enjoy themselves, it's their choice after all, to spend their time however they like wi'oot the church sticking their noses in. Are they perceived to be a threat to all the mumbo-jumbo? Lets face it, there is not much joy in the world these days so, let them be :o(
17

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 28/01/2008 09:58:48
13...You do not like it caveman but people are rejecting your mind control dogma that dictates how you think and live....Boy Wonder is right...it is all 'superstition' including the invention of Jesus Christ and his band of merry men...all guff swallowed by a gullible human race....

I am well aware of the background of Mr Crowley and co but it matter not one jot....the man was an erse as were many of his followers...however the world is full of erses and this has not stopped something that people obviously feel the need for...spouting the historical guff re the beginnings of Wicca is meaningless....have a look at the old testament dude...a tad embarrassing wont' you say?..in this day in age?...catch my drift?...

We all know the shameful history behind the church that worships your god and his boy wonder...come down of your high rock pal...take a look at the world around you...it doesnt work...great in theory but hey...we're only human!....

Pagans will never demand that their followers do not use condoms...they will never condemn vulnerable exploited people to certain death due to their culture...and there is the difference sweetie pie...the Catholic Church is STILL condemning people to death...

The pagans worship nature, in the form of gods/animals etc...that is their choice and it harms none...
18

Bella Donna,

28/01/2008 12:15:47
Sorry Neanderthal, but as a Pagan (and therefore I'd imagine with more Pagan friends/acquaintances/ information than you do), I can assure you that the majority of sensible Pagans do not have some rose-tinted view of Pagan history. They are very well aware of the atrocities and bloody histories of the past, but, here's the punchline, live in the 21stC and are 21stC Pagans with a 21stC outlook. Neo-Paganism isn't *just* about looking back, it's about living in the present and looking to the future.

As for the article, I am frankly horrified that it was considered "news". As has been pointed out Paganism is a recognised religion in Scotland, so why the need to write a report on a gathering of people who follow that religion? Why no sensationalist report of a gathering of Sikhs? Or of Buddhists?

And why oh why the need to contact a Christian minister for his viewpoint? Who the hell cares what his viewpoint is? Pagan gatherings go on all over the country, largely unnoticed and unmolested. Apart of course from the input of a few small minded groups of individuals who think it their business to poke their nose into other people's peaceable and law-abiding affairs. Like the reporter who wrote this piece of tripe.
19

Yewtree,

UK 28/01/2008 12:48:22
Pagan camps and conferences have been taking place in Scotland for at least the last twenty years. I attended a Pagan conference at Edinburgh University in 1994, 1995, and 1996, and as far as I know one has taken place there ever since, so that is hardly news. I have also attended several Pagan camps in various parts of Scotland.

I would like to thank The Scotsman for alerting its readers to a fresh outbreak of religious bigotry on the part of the Church, however I must protest at the biased reporting style and lack of contextual information or links.

As various other commenters have pointed out, we now live in a multifaith society, with a hard-won freedom of conscience and belief (which includes the freedom not to believe in anything).

As to the commenters who dismiss all religions as "mumbo-jumbo", please learn to distinguish between religions which are primarily experiential and values-based (such as Paganism) and those which require belief in the impossible (such as fundamentalist Christianity).

Furthermore, this kind of inflammatory article undermines the positive efforts at interfaith harmony and dialogue engaged in by most religions, including Paganism. Why doesn't The Scotsman report on the long-term interfaith dialogue in Scotland? That dialogue has resulted in some very positive developments, such as a booklet outlining the beliefs and practices of all the major faiths in Scotland, which was distributed to hospitals etc.
20

P.J.,

28/01/2008 14:43:35
One bunch of the superstitious doesn't like the other, what big news? Still, at least the pagans tend to be more fun!
21

TimW1234,

Ottawa, Canada 28/01/2008 16:49:59
Romish rituals all derive from Egyptian and Assyrian antecedants and are therefore intrinsically "pagam".

Therefore, the adoration of Pope Betty the Sixteenth is a form of devil worship.

Thought y'all should know this.
22

Venango,

northwestern PA 28/01/2008 22:59:02
"Wica is legal and recognised as a religion and like Druidism was here long before the Christians arrived" comment by clan-desire is a falsehood.
It has been admitted that a follower of A. Crowley (the Satanist) came up with the system called Wicca during the 1930's and 1940's and didn't come into general public knowledge until the 1950's.
23

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 28/01/2008 23:34:53
22....There are said to have been people practicing witchcraft long before Alistair Crowley polished his horns...who can prove this wrong?...there have always been herbalists and practitioners of healing arts who were discreet and people turned to for help....

Wicca is a legal and recognised religion...
24

Reprobus,

Moray 28/01/2008 23:47:07
#22 Wicca is but one form of many Paganisms in this country. Paganism IS a legally recognised religion in Scotland. But why let your ignorance of facts / life in another country interfere with your rant?
25

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 29/01/2008 09:33:26
Hello Doreen and Boy Wonder,

Doreen, you've really got your anti-Christian/anti-Jewish bigotry cranked up to 'high' don't you?

You've cranked it up so high, that you're allowing your own hatreds to overpower your ability to think.

The historical record is quite clear: there was in FACT, a Nazarene by the Name of Jesus, who ended up being condemned to death by the Roman Governor, Pilate. We know that He was executed by the form of Roman execution called 'Crucifixion', and that He did indeed, die on the Cross.

These are verifiable, historical, and secular FACTS.

No amount of emotive denial on your part will change those FACTS, no matter the level of vitriol you employ.

Lastly, contrary to your denial, it DOES matter that Crowley was one of the FOUNDING FATHERS of modern Wicca and the subsequent Neo-Pagainism. The impact of the second most important Satanist of the 20th century on what Wiccans believe, cannot so light be dismissed. His beliefs, biases, and pecadillos, are to be seen in Modern Wicca. Your vitriol and rejection of this FACT will not change the FACT itself Dorren, much no doubt, to your chagrin.

Boy Wonder, I'm not Catholic, so you can pump up the anti-Catholic bad mouthing all you want-no skin off my nose.
I have many disagreements with Catholic Doctrines, which is by and large, contra-biblical (Marian theology, praying to dead folks, graven images, etc.).

However, what cannot be denied, is that Western Civilization was BUILT upon Judeo-Christian doctrines, relying heavily upon the New Testament doctrines. You can be as angry as you like about that historical FACT, but your anger will NOT change the reality of the statement.

The Secular Rule of Law (obeying the authority of government) is found in both the Old and New Testaments. The Equal Treatment and Value of women with men is found in the New Testament, which was COUNTER to the prevailing cultures of EVERY 'nation' on Earth, when the documents of the NT were written.

Su
26

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 29/01/2008 09:35:37
Hello Doreen and Boy Wonder CONT.,

Supporting open, honest, and forthright debate of ALL issues important to humanity, rather than using 'might makes right' tactics, was also a NT doctrine which Christianity promulgated and supported; again, this concept was COUNTER to nearly all prevailing political, cultural, and societal norms.

Christianity was the key factor in making more CIVIL, the societies of Europe. When people BOTHERED to actually READ and FOLLOW the doctrines, rather than twisting them and invoking political needs ahead of Christian Doctrine.

So.....go ahead and believe as you wish; God gave you that right, as is evidenced through Free Will; another 'gift' which Judaism and Christianity illustrated to the world, while Pagan religions did not.

Cheers from the Rockies
27

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 29/01/2008 10:52:21
How dare you lay your belief system on me...'God' did not give me any right..because the only 'God' that exists is the concept in your head...nah dont buy it caveman...show me your evidence...a couple of dodgy moth eaten manuscripts and a book of fairy tales written a long time ago aint proof pal......just imagine...what if 'Harry Potter' had been written way back then eh?......

So you dont like Wicca or Paganism?...big deal not many religious nuts do...

Christianity is a travelling salesman....and you bought the full set....like many before you and many after you will....

Your sneering is typical of pious arrogance.
28

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 29/01/2008 19:26:14
Hello again Doreen,

Given your vitriol, you're the one spewing forth bigotry my dear, not I.
Hey, as a Pagan, your rejecting of the historical record is nothing new: those basing their beliefs on ignorance and fantasy usually do NOT like empirical evidence.
If you've the spine, take the time to study some Antiquities texts on this issue, and you'll find that what I stated concerning Jesus of Nazareth is accurate.

I must also point out concerning the texts of the New Testament, that no less a luminary than Professor Elaine Pagels, the noted Gnostic Scholar (and NOT a bible believing Christian at all), has confirmed what dozens of other scholars have confirmed: that ALL of the books of the New Testament, were written between 60AD-130AD.

What we have is first hand accounts and accounts by those who personally knew the Primaries of the New Testament.

What we have in Wicca and Neo-Paganism, is a lot of fantasy and hoopla, made up in the 20th Century, to alleviate the consciences of anti-Christian bigots, who wanted to live any old way they wanted to live, and still feel 'good' about themselves and their actions.

Lastly, the Druids were not wiped out by Christians or Jews: they were exterminated by their fellow Pagans, the Romans; so worshipers of Jupiter, Mars, Minerva, Juno, Janus, Vesta, etc., EXTERMINATED Druids.

The reason they wiped them out, was based upon two things:
1. Human Sacrifice
2. Druids burning Roman Legionaries alive in wicker baskets (see number 1.)

The Pagan Romans could be a very unforgiving bunch at times.

Cheers from the Rockies
29

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 29/01/2008 22:33:45
You dont like it when people disagree with you caveman, or refuse to believe your hocus pocus...I have no need to read any of this crap...I was forced to read enough at school and did not swallow one jot of it...'The immaculate conception'...aye right...she caught it off a toilet seat....'the resurrection'...aye right...three bags full...this guff belongs in the dark ages...it is not relevant to todays society...society is changeing...and if religion does not change with it...its going down the pan...except for the extremists and fundamentalists...there will always be the demented and gullible to fall prey to mind control propganda....

Those manuscripts were written in an age were people were simple, ignorant and still emerging from caves...I do not care who the authors are, because anyone can write a yarn to spin round a camp fire.....this is your proof?....you are having a laugh...

Wicca and Paganism is not 'made up' to alleviate the conscience of any bigots...do not flatter yourself...these people have chosen a different belief system which is their choice and their right to choose...it is just as hocus pocus as Catholicism, Christianity etc....why should they not feel good about themselves and their actions?...are you suggesting that this is not possible when one is not under the thumb of the bible bashers?....get a grip man..your like some John Knox up there screaming about the fires of hell and brimstone....it is the 21st century....snap out of it.
30

Bella Donna,

30/01/2008 07:36:32
Neanderthal, I think I'm missing your point here.

You seem to be saying that the pre-Christian peoples of the then-known-world, were blood-thirsty, ignorant, savages who gave nothing in terms of what we consider now to be important, but the Christians who came later were peaceable, knowledgeable, compassionate innovators? Is that right? (incidentally, can you tell me where you got your information about the wicker-man burnings of Roman Legionnaires? I mean in terms of historical repute, rather than the propoganda of the day).

So... the ideas of democracy - not Greek then I take it? The crusades and the many, many wars fought on the basis that Christianity is (allegedly) the "only" true way?

Sorry, I just seem to be missing the balance in your posts. I accept you're replying to Doreen, and I'm not about to debate Wicca and it's origins (I for one abhor the willingness of some to scream it's (ahem) "ancient" origins), but I am interested in why you seem so certain that Christianity = right, and neo-paganism = wrong...
31

Bella Donna,

30/01/2008 07:37:08
Neanderthal, I think I'm missing your point here.

You seem to be saying that the pre-Christian peoples of the then-known-world, were blood-thirsty, ignorant, savages who gave nothing in terms of what we consider now to be important, but the Christians who came later were peaceable, knowledgeable, compassionate innovators? Is that right? (incidentally, can you tell me where you got your information about the wicker-man burnings of Roman Legionnaires? I mean in terms of historical repute, rather than the propoganda of the day).

So... the ideas of democracy - not Greek then I take it? The crusades and the many, many wars fought on the basis that Christianity is (allegedly) the "only" true way?

Sorry, I just seem to be missing the balance in your posts. I accept you're replying to Doreen, and I'm not about to debate Wicca and it's origins (I for one abhor the willingness of some to scream it's (ahem) "ancient" origins), but I am interested in why you seem so certain that Christianity = right, and neo-paganism = wrong...
32

Bella Donna,

30/01/2008 07:37:28
Neanderthal, I think I'm missing your point here.

You seem to be saying that the pre-Christian peoples of the then-known-world, were blood-thirsty, ignorant, savages who gave nothing in terms of what we consider now to be important, but the Christians who came later were peaceable, knowledgeable, compassionate innovators? Is that right? (incidentally, can you tell me where you got your information about the wicker-man burnings of Roman Legionnaires? I mean in terms of historical repute, rather than the propoganda of the day).

So... the ideas of democracy - not Greek then I take it? The crusades and the many, many wars fought on the basis that Christianity is (allegedly) the "only" true way?

Sorry, I just seem to be missing the balance in your posts. I accept you're replying to Doreen, and I'm not about to debate Wicca and it's origins (I for one abhor the willingness of some to scream it's (ahem) "ancient" origins), but I am interested in why you seem so certain that Christianity = right, and neo-paganism = wrong...
33

Bella Donna,

30/01/2008 07:39:03
And apologies for the duplicate posts - I promise I wasn't trying to hammer a point home!

Grrr bl**dy computer... grrrr...
34

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 12:37:36
Hello Beautiful Lady,

You've implied a LOT which I neither meant nor wrote in my posts to Doreen. She is a poor judge of what is or is not true, in that she has admitted to be quite joyful in remaining willfully ignorant of historical facts.

First, allow me to note that I NEVER said nor implied that Pagans of any sort were simple minded, nor ignorant; to live in that world, 'ignorance' would have been a death sentence.

Were they savage and blood thirsty? Yup, one need but read Caesar's 'Civil War' or his tomes relating to his subjugation of Gaul and Spain, to understand just how savage and blood thirsty were the peoples of that time.

One need but pick up the '12 Ceasars' by Suetonius to understand that one not need go to the 'hinterlands' to find what we today would call outrageous brutality, savagery, merciless killing, and political murder, all of which occurred on a regular basis.

Juxtaposed to all this blood letting, killing, and savagery, was a superb core of civilization, from the very same Romans and Greeks.

Referencing the Greeks, where in the world did you get the idea that I would hold that democracy did not start with the Greeks? They were the progenitors of the democratic concept, while the Romans codified and 'mass produced' democracy (within the Roman Republic, not so much during the Caesarean Imperium).

Christianity, contextually and doctrinally, was indeed the progenitors of peace, understanding, women's rights, equality of women, and debating issues passionately-but without killing your opponent! These concepts were NOT part and parcel of the Ancient World (yes, you can find temporary exceptions, but predominantly women were considered property), until Christianity came into the world through Christ.

Concerning sourcing for the burnings, read Caesar's accounts of his campaigns in Gaul and against the Germans; he describes what he found there amongst the Druidic believing peoples. He was not pleased.

Bringing up the Crusade
35

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 12:41:32
Bella Donna cont.

Bringing up the Crusades just doesn't cut it my dear. You won't be able to find a SINGLE verse, or a paragraph, or chapter, or anywhere in the entire New Testament, which gave the Crusaders the doctrinal right to head off to Palestine and assault the Jihadists.

The Crusades were the result of the problems arising from Primogeniture; first son gets all the goodies and the rest of the siblings (those that survived childhood and castle intrigue) got squat. What to do? Send them off to fight the Muslims, giving them the chance to gain 'glory and gold' for their very own.

On the other hand, you CAN open up the Noble Quran and find many passages where Muslims are commanded by Allah to use war, killing, threat of death, intrigue, lies, bribery, and any other tool available to the 'good and faithful Muslim' in trying to conquer non-Muslims.

Look up the word 'Taquiyyah' for a mind blowing doctrine; it allows Muslims to lie to non-Muslims but such lies are NOT considered sins.

Nifty eh?

Lastly, regarding the exclusivity of Christianity, I'll plead guilty to that charge: "I am the Way, the Truth....no one goes to the Father, except through Me." John 14:6.

Should you have a beef with that concept, tell the Lord, cause He's the One Who made the statement.

I must also remind you that both Judaism and Islam, are also Exclusivist Faiths: it's an 'all or nothing' proposition, doctrinally speaking.

Lastly, I honestly do not know how any informed or reasonably read person could ever come to the conclusion that people's of Ancient Rome, Greece, or the Middle East, were ignorant.

One need but look to the great works of that Age, to know that high intelligence was no less present then, as it occasionally is today: the Iliad and the Odyssey, Plato's Republic, as well as the other works of Xenophon, Plato, Aristotle, and Aristophenes.

Later of course, we have others of equal merit; both Plinys (Elder and Younger), Cicero, Horace, Livy, Ov
36

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 30/01/2008 12:43:56
Bella Donna cont.

Later of course, we have others of equal merit; both Plinys (Elder and Younger), Cicero, Horace, Livy, Ovid, Tacitus, and many others, including the aforementioned Suetonius.

The mistake far too many people make, particularly folks like Doreen, is to ascribe a lack of education, or intelligence, or understanding, or humanity, to peoples of Antiquity. The truth of the matter is that neither human nature nor human intelligence, has really changed in some 40,000 years; it's the advent of greater understanding of philosophy (secularly speaking) and the advent of Judaism and Christianity, which allowed for a 'more gentle human' to come to the fore.

I would also point out, that with great technology has come the opportunity for greater humanity, but NOT without the civilizing factors of Judaism and Christianity.

Cheers from the Rockies
37

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 30/01/2008 17:53:01
36....That is your opinion...perhaps humanity is developing at its own pace...regardless of any religious nonsense...people of antiquity believed in all kinds of gods, myths and legends...and behaved accordingly to their beliefs...it is the advent of greater understanding of humanity and how wicked it still remains that is allowing us to make better choices in life....God need not come into it...your 'civilizing factors' persecuted, tortured and burned people for disagreeing with their faith, being heretics or witches...with the good also came poison...and the intolerance...

Show me your God.
38

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 31/01/2008 11:43:41
Hello Doreen,

The Natural World is the Proof of His Existence.

Mathematically speaking, ZERO life should exist on this ball of dirt we call the Earth. The level, degree, and the complexity of life on our little ball of dirt, quite literally should NEVER be able to exist.

The interactions of how our planet works, how all life is interconnected, is proof of his existence, because NONE of it should exist, mathematically speaking (we are WELL beyond the odds of credulity or possibility):

yet, here we are.

No natural set of events could ever come to pass (regardless of what the Big Bang folks try and foist on us; all they have is theories and no real evidence), which would all our little world to exist, much less the entire universe as it exists.

You've said you're not much on reading, but if you would take the time to read the prophecies in the Old Testament (Psalm 22 for instance), you'd find that those prophecies made hundreds of year prior to the events (particularly pertaining to the Person of Christ-town in which He was born, His Mission, His lineage, how the Romans tried Him, how the Romans executed Him, the price of Judas' betrayal and in what form it came, and many more).

The veracity of the Bible is quite confirmable by anyone willing, interested, and honest, to see if the Bible is what it is said to be: the Word of God.

Lastly Doreen, 'intolerance' is a human trait, not the trait of followers of one religion or another. I would also note that just because a person says that he/she is 'x' does not necessarily mean they are indeed 'x'.

How do you tell? It's easy in the case of Christians: check the Rule Book (the Bible), you'll be able to note, IN CONTEXT, the parameters of a Christian, and whether or not person 'x' is following or trying to follow, those doctrines.

Hope this helped.

Cheers from the Rockies
39

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 31/01/2008 20:54:26
"His" existance?..........

ok caveman..who made your God and why?....
40

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 02/02/2008 12:00:44
Hello Doreen,

I take it you don't understand your own mother tongue?

"Everlasting," "Eternal," "No Beginning and No End," "King of the Universe,"

such are some the descriptions pertaining to the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, the 'Great I AM.'

He had no beginning, because He has always exsited: you and I are finite, He is Infinite.

The mathematical symbol of the Moebius Continuum would be the best finite way to explain the Infinite: it doesn't really do it, but it at least gives us the flavor of the Infinite.

Again, please be so kind as to engage brain on these issues, rather than mere dogmatic biases and hatreds.

Thank you and....

Cheers from the Rockies
41

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 02/02/2008 13:01:34
Your pious arrogance in your theories is touching...I realise that you are devout and like being challenged..gives you the occasion to deride people who do not believe or who are part of a different belief system...however theories they are...what does the Möbius Continuum have to do with the concept of God?...you, as a human, apply it because it fits the theories behind your religion...no need for hard evidence, no.. faith is what you need, indeed all you need....still banging on about historical stories we are meant to take for granted eh?....just as the Greeks and the Romans did...and anyone who could scratch a scene on a cave wall...

Why do you insist on referring to your God in the masculine?....surely such a being..this intelligent vapour, would be gender free? or do you prefer to think of him standing when he takes a tinkle?...weeping sad masculine tears at the thought of the evils of his human children?...the assaults by his human children on his 'Immaculate conception?'...

Such sarcasm for a 'Holy Willie' as we say here in Scotland...tell me caveman, have you ever allowed yourself to imagine for one moment that there is nothing waiting for you on the other side?...I dont think so...I think that would be totally unacceptable for a man so sure in his boots...because this would raise too many fears and issues for you...like who you really are....should there be no God who are you?....

Care to engage your brain?...rather than mere dogma biases and sarcasm...theology and mind control?.....

Still whatever gets you through the night caveman...

Infinity....the circle around the pentagram that makes the pentacle..the pentacle represents infinity....the pentagram humanity...= hope.......each to their own.

Peace be with you from the Cyber Shebeen
42

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 02/02/2008 16:17:33
Hello Again Doreen,

Have I debated, internally, as to the 'Existence of God', the 'Existence of an Afterlife', 'Heaven', 'Hell', '..and everything else..' (to paraphrase Douglas Adams' 'Hitchhiker')?

Yup, guilty as charged.

I've always been a pragmatist, even as a kid. Contrarian as well as Utilitarian too!

Were I to believe in no Afterlife, there would be NOTHING to 'fear' as you put it. Why would I or any other human have any fear of any consequences from our actions (or inactions), should no Afterlife exist?

We could do whatever we wanted in this life, because 'this life' being all the 'life/existence' there is to be had.

Like the twit phraseology from John Lennon's lyrics "..No heaven....no hell..": thus implying that if there were no eternal consequences to our actions, life would be hunky-dory here on Earth!!!

Somehow in Lennon's drug abused mind, stripping the human conscience of any semblance of eternal effects from mortal actions, would transform humans into becoming more 'humane' beings.

This secular humanist mindset has been tried twice, during the 20th century: in Russia (c um USSR) and China (c um People's Republic of). The result of those two 'whimsical' secular humanist societies, was 47-53 MILLION men, women, and children being exterminated in the USSR, and so far, Sinologists and Demographers believe that 60-100 MILLION men, women, and children, were wiped from the face of the Earth, by the time Mao Zheong left this mortal coil.

One of the key telling differences between those beliving in the Judeo-Christian religions and Secular Humanists, is the belief and denial (former and latter above) in Absolutes.

So.....it makes absolutely zero sense for any human, to 'fear' the non-existence of an Afterlife.

Secondly, allow me to highly recommend the Book of Hebrews to you, from the New Testament. This is a treatise from a superbly educated Roman Citizen and Elite Pharisee, to his fellow Pharisees/Jews (the Sadducees woul
43

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 02/02/2008 16:18:28
Hello Doreen CONT,

Secondly, allow me to highly recommend the Book of Hebrews to you, from the New Testament. This is a treatise from a superbly educated Roman Citizen and Elite Pharisee, to his fellow Pharisees/Jews (the Sadducees would not have been too thrilled with him on a number of accounts, centrally however, on the doctrine of Resurrection), concerning the doctrinal and historical foundations of Jesus being Messias (Messiah).

Saul/Paul was directly or indirectly involved in the religious executions of up to 5000 Christians (before his Damascene Conversion), and was so involved because of his understanding of Mosaic (Levitical) Law.

Paul was very much a Contrarian, in fact, from an American point of view, he could have been from Missouri (the "Show Me" state): he had to have EVERYTHING PROVEN to him on issues, logically, doctrinally, empirically.

This is why throughout his monographs to Christians across the Empire (Roman of course), Paul time and again COMMANDS Christians to question EVERYTHING which is presented to them, particularly of a spiritual nature.

Paul even goes so far as to state that even if an Angel appears to them in a blaze of supernatural glory, Christians MUST compare what is told them by such a Supernatural Agent, to what is written in the Old Testament (from a Jews' point of view, the Septuagint in Greek or Greater and Lesser Prophets along with the Pentateuch in the Hebrew) and what is written by Peter, Paul, and the other Apostles.

This is the type of non-conformity which Christians were taught then, and which should be the norm for Christians today. Unfortunately, far too many Christians have gone the way of Catholic Teachings, which is to hang on every word from his/her Priest (Reverend/Pastor/Preacher in the Protestant Tradition), abandoning their individual obligation/right of Free Will and Determination.

Lastly, '..each to their own..' doesn't cut Doreen: either you Pagans/Wiccans are correct or you are not; whi
44

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 02/02/2008 16:19:18
Hello Again Doreen CONT,

Lastly, '..each to their own..' doesn't cut Doreen: either you Pagans/Wiccans are correct or you are not; which holds true for Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc.

Christianity and Judaism, along with Islam, are Exclusivist Religions: their doctrines are laid in concrete, and thus, can be argued using logic and empirical evidence. These religions CANNOT by definition, be correct doctrinally speaking, if Buddhism, Hinduism, Wicca, Paganism, etc., are correct.

This further devolves into issues between The Big 3, but for the purposes of our debate, they can remain under the Exclusivist banner, while Paganism/Wiccan rests under the Inclusivist banner.

The two terms tell the tale: Exclusivist vs Inclusivist, the two cannot, by their very definitions, both be 'true'. One is true and the other is false.

Thus, either you are right or I am right, not because of our personal beliefs, rather, the verity between the Faiths is based on the tenets and doctrines each incorporates.

Again, I hope this has helped better clarify the debate.

Cheers from the Rockies
45

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 03/02/2008 22:09:12
Sad day when we have to fear about the consequences of our actions...with respect to paying for them when we snuff it. Lennon was singing about a better human race...his words are very simple and very sweet...I can see why you would not like them...too simplistic for someone entrenched in dogma and theology...

Why can we not treat our fellow humans and animals with kindness and compassion?...in the name of....humanity?.....too many gods on this planet...too many different religions and each one fierce in their condemnation of the other...

So much time wasted.
46

Doreen,

The Cyber Shebeen 03/02/2008 22:16:49
Communism is just another religion at the end of the day...great in theory but never works...

Of course people fear death..the religious and the non believers....just as there are those that hold no fear...religious and non believers

It is the non existance of any life after death that many people fear...which is why they began inventing it, in their caves, all those centuries ago...creating gods...angels and demons....every culture had its afterlife or underworld because the idea that it ends when our heart stops...is just too incomprehensible and inconceivable..
47

Bella Donna,

04/02/2008 07:31:58
At the end of the day Neanderthal, you're talking about placing all one's faith and ultimately one's soul based on what is written in a book. You believe the book to be the word of a god, I believe it to be the works of many men experiencing deity and writing about it. And then of course a group of men getting together many centuries later and deciding what books fitted in best with the time and picking the books accordingly. Oh, and voting on whether Jesus was in fact a deity. Doesn't make the Bible any less relevant to Christians for that, but since I could write about my experiences with deity but you'd be entitled to decide whether you accepted those experiences as true words of deity or of my own experience and therefore flawed.

So I have to tell you that quoting verses from the Bible isn't going to make me, or for that matter, any other non-Christian suddenly decide that actually, yes, it's written down so it must be true, and convert. Sorry. :-)

When it comes to religion, no-one is right. Pagan, Jew, Christian, Muslim. Everyone experiences belief and the gods in their own way and there is no absolute "proof" that should tell someone that their own experience is wrong.

I'm absolutely delighted for you that you are 100% committed Christian, please allow though for the fact just as you cannot dictate to anyone who they fall in love with, what art or music moves them etc, so you cannot simply tell someone to believe in what you believe.

48

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 04/02/2008 22:09:53
Hello Bella Donna,

Thanks for the great reply, as well as the tenor of it!

First, allow me to say that I'm NOT trying to force someone to believe what I do, or what anyone else does; all I'm doing is offering up a legitimate and rational way of thinking, based on history, hermeneutics, logic, and rational thought.

The argument I am making is three-fold:

1. It doesn't matter what I WANT to believe: empirical evidence dictates the verity of what to believe or not to believe. Empirical evidence (archeological evidence as to the existence of the human named Jesus, which does prove He existed), historical evidence (historian Josephus, NT documents from 60-130AD verified by non-Christian secular academic experts, eg, Elaine Pagels), and contextual comparatives of the documents.

2. Personal belief (which is subjective) as a RESULT of the objective evidence (point 1).

3. The Contextual Fact that the doctrines written within the pages of Buddhism do NOT agree with the doctrines written with the pages of the Old Testament (Pentateuch, Major and Minor Prophets), New Testament, and the Noble Quran, Wiccan Texts, Neo-Pagan Texts, as well as other sacred texts (Zoroastrianism, Shinto, LDS, Watchtower, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc.).

In short, they ALL can't be right, because of the contradictory nature of the doctrines within each religion's sacred texts.

Lastly, I'm not trying to dictate anything to anyone: I'm offering rational debate concerning issues which are very closely held by most folks on the planet.

Cheers from the Rockies
49

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 04/02/2008 22:18:44
Hello Doreen,

'Sad day when we have to fear about the consequences of our actions..'

My dear, ALL humans fear the consequences of their actions, most certainly temporally, and for the majority of people, spiritually as well.

I don't know how old you are, but the word 'regret' has a great deal more and deeper meaning, with each passing year, to most folks older than 40 (mid-30's at a minimum, I would suggest).

I have NEVER met anyone in either Europe or the Americas, whom didn't have 'regrets': they were 'sad' concerning the 'consequences of their actions.'

Take this same temporal concept and extrapolate it to the spiritual plane: Buddhists believe that our actions as humans DO have spiritual consequences, within the Buddhist paradigm of Reincarnation; moving up or down in the Great Wheel of Life.

Mind you Doreen, Buddhism is an Inclusivist Belief System, compared to that of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam, so even those orange robed, smiling, amenable, and compassionate priests, understand the concept which I have here presented.

I wonder that you apparently, do not.

Cheers from the Rockies
50

The Banished Innocent,

Australia 05/02/2008 04:42:29
Doreen and Neanderthal

Okay, before you read any of this, I hope you will understand, my intent is not to offend. I am not of an age to be declaring wither of you wrong or right in your beliefs, as I am only 17. I hope you will understand my intent as only one of contemplatation, and not criticism.

The bible was written by men for men (and I hold women inclusive in the term man, as a bitch is held inclusive in the term dog). Jesus himself was a man. The people who follow the ways of the bible are simply human. The entire system of such a religion revolves around one particular word, be it placed in the company of any other assortment of brethren. That word is “faith”. Such a word should not now, nor at any other time be placed in the steed of its fellow “fact”.

To believe in the word of the bible, is to trust whole-heartedly that there is a heaven and a hell, and that one’s actions now will (as has already been said), condemn one’s admittance to either of the two gates. However, the condonable actions for one’s lifestyle are not made right or wrong by the simple scrawl of one man, who believes his word to be holy. Indeed our justice system does hold our society together, and it was written in the ink of man, but it seems, (unlike the “word of god”) to rely on the facts of society, and what makes a society work. Thus law is held exclusive to the divine faith which makes such errors in the governing of the human mind.

It is not your God’s place to tell me what to believe in, and it is not my God’s place to tell you the path we must walk. I have often been told that the Christian God knows what I shall do before I do it. Therefore it is his choice to allow it to happen, and if he chooses not to sway me to his side, why should I then be swayed by the minds and mouths of more gullible minds? Does it not make more sense us all to make up our own minds without persecution? Even the law feels that persecution of groups such as “homosexuals” is needed amongst
51

The Banished Innocent,

Australia 05/02/2008 04:46:11
50 Cont.

is needed amongst society, so is it not then to say that the mouth of faith, devout of all fact, might make a declaration concerning those of Wiccan belief? I believe that Doreen has every right to be who she is, without making front page news when she does something that any Christian could do without a touch of controversy. This does not make a Wiccan group any more holy however. With influences of Crowley and other such barbarians upon a religion, how could they call themselves pure?

No religion is pure so long as human minds may hold influence on its regulations and divinity. Like Jesus, Crowley was just a man. Perhaps each was of different intent, but as Neanderthal states, Jesus’ had a body which had to be buried. I neither despise nor love the preaching of the bible, nor do I pretend to hold any adoration or hatred for those who chose to participate in the Wiccan way. It can be seen that each has had a someway violent history, and a somewhat negative impact on the world in which we have lived. It would be prudent to note here, however that both have done a lot of good as well. They give people hope, something to “believe” in, and guide many men and women through a good life of contentment and good will. It does not make one more right than the other. Perhaps if more people could see the good in other religions, and not the bad as you both seem so eager to point out, the world would be a better place.

I don’t mean to rave on, but it’s just something for the two of you to consider. Acceptance is what prevents wars, and open mindedness, what helps to make a life whole.

I remain sincere and stand toward the world with an open heart,

The banished innocent
52

Bella Donna,

05/02/2008 07:41:47
Neanderthal

Have to say it's a delight to have intelligent and reasoned discussion on a very thorny and emotive subject. :-)

I'm putting your statements in quotes and my own responses afterwards - let's see how we get on with these! :-)

"all I'm doing is offering up a legitimate and rational way of thinking, based on history, hermeneutics, logic, and rational thought."

Which is absolutely laudable, but we're talking about belief and faith here, not necessarily umpirical evidence as I'll waffle on about in a sec...

"1. It doesn't matter what I WANT to believe: empirical evidence dictates the verity of what to believe or not to believe. Empirical evidence (archeological evidence as to the existence of the human named Jesus, which does prove He existed), historical evidence (historian Josephus, NT documents from 60-130AD verified by non-Christian secular academic experts, eg, Elaine Pagels), and contextual comparatives of the documents."

You don't get any argument from me here. I am not in any dispute with you about the evidence of a man called Jesus and the respect he had as a holy man of principle.


2. Personal belief (which is subjective) as a RESULT of the objective evidence (point 1).

Right. But... A couple of points. While I have stated my lack of contention as to the existance of a man called Jesus, I do not see how this points to him being (a ) the son of a god (no disrespect to your beliefs with the "a god" - I'm a polytheist and believe in many including, believe it or not, your Jehovah - more on that later probably!). Yes, back to the (a) - I have seen no evidence to irrefutably state that Jesus was the son of a deity or that the resurrection took place. There are texts written by men (poor flawed humans that we are) of their visions and their interpretations of events. But that doesn't, in my view, provide absolute proof. To me, anyway.

To be fair, equally there's no irrefutable proof of the antics of the Graeco-Rom
53

Bella Donna,

05/02/2008 07:42:19
.../ cont.

To be fair, equally there's no irrefutable proof of the antics of the Graeco-Romana deities, and the stories written about them were written by men. Which is kind of my argument about the Bible. Yes, there are historical events recorded in the Bible, and yes, there are historical events recorded in the myths, but history does not convince of the existence of god(s).

Now, you're going to argue that at least there's actual historical evidence of a man called Jesus, but the belief that he was a son of a god is just as open to debate as my belief in the Roman deities. It's all about personal belief - or at least, it should be.

(One of my pet beefs about some (note, "some") Christians is their blind acceptance of what is written down, simply because it is written down. I feel like pointing them to the Romance section of a bookstore and telling them everything written there is absolutely true - because it's written. I'd far rather discuss the similarities and discrepancies between Christianity and Paganism when the other person has at least striven to find out about their beliefs, to examine them, try to understand other religions, read their texts, look deep into their soul and talk to their god and THEN argue with me. Which is why this discussion is so refreshing! :-) )

3. The Contextual Fact that the doctrines written within the pages of Buddhism do NOT agree with the doctrines written with the pages of the Old Testament (Pentateuch, Major and Minor Prophets), New Testament, and the Noble Quran, Wiccan Texts, Neo-Pagan Texts, as well as other sacred texts (Zoroastrianism, Shinto, LDS, Watchtower, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc.).

So... what makes the bible "right" and all the others "wrong"? You can't tell me it's because the Bible is historically accurate and basically a text book - there's so much allegory there that it surely must allow for the allegorical content of other texts - and therefore admit them to be equally valid? So does
54

Bella Donna,

05/02/2008 07:42:52
.../cont (again!)

So does it boil down (as I suspect it does) to personal belief?

I think it does.

Which brings me back to my "no religion has the monopoly on being "right""

In short, they ALL can't be right, because of the contradictory nature of the doctrines within each religion's sacred texts.

"Lastly, I'm not trying to dictate anything to anyone: I'm offering rational debate concerning issues which are very closely held by most folks on the planet."

Yep, likewise. Which is why I get quite angry when MY beliefs are seen fit to be questioned and dismissed by The Church, when people like me can't even get together for a weekend's camping (no skinny-dippng, no naked orgies - it's Scotland - it's too damn cold), just getting together and socialising, without it being a matter of concern to "The Church". Other religious groups are allowed to congregate peaceably, why not mine? I've been to events with other Pagans - listening to talks and lectures of all things - shocking! - where Church folk felt it their duty to break into the hall with placards and shout. I'd never dream of marching into a Church to do that - why is my religion fair game?

Herewith ended the rant!

Health and peace from Scotland. :-)
55

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 05/02/2008 16:36:07
Hello again Beautiful Lady,

I appreciate the 'tone' of our debate as well, and YES, it IS refreshing to be able to agree to disagree within the context of the debate: you are NOT a 'bad gal' for believing as you do, nor am I a 'bad guy' for believing as I do.

I'll answer your posts as you did mine, using quotes. Bye the bye, do you know of a website for debate, where we are NOT so encumbered with the Character Number Limits? I would hope that Doreen, the Banished Innocent, you and I, might thereto travel and so enlarge the debate by 86ing the CNL?

Just a thought.

I start firstly, with this quote from your posts, as I believe you may not be clear on a very important point, because I obviously have not been making it clear enough. You wrote:

"So... what makes the bible "right" and all the others "wrong"? You can't tell me it's because the Bible is historically accurate and basically a text book - there's so much allegory there that it surely must allow for the allegorical content of other texts - and therefore admit them to be equally valid? So does.."

You've got the cart before the horse on this one aspect B.L.: the underlying point I'm trying to make here is NOT solely limited to the Word of God (the Bible) 'being right' (that is an argument at a point down the road, as it were, when we get to the veracity of doctrinal truths; one doctrine being right and thus worthy of belief, while doctrines of other beliefs are wrong and thus fall by the wayside).

My point at this juncture is simply this:

Imagine a long table (Claro Walnut if you will, as I'm rather partial to that wood) and in the middle of that long table rests a copy of each sacred text from each religion on our planet.

Hovering over each sacred text is a 3D hologram of all the thematic doctrines of each; we can simply reach out, and scroll down,up, and even turn pages, so that we can read through ALL of the doctrines of each sacred text.

We walk down the long table, COMPARING the
56

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 05/02/2008 16:38:57
Beautiful Lady Cont 1

We walk down the long table, COMPARING the MAIN doctrines of each sacred text, which are related to 'salvation' (as each religion defines that term) of the 'soul' (for lack of a more definitive term).

Example: Buddhism dictates that human actions on Earth, coupled with the continuous search for 'Englightenment', may/will at one point, allow a person to attain 'Buddha-hood' (for lack of a better term), aka, the State of Englightenment, which allows for a return to Nirvana, a cessation of existence and understanding of external inputs, oblivion as it were (being oblivious to all external existence).

Right along side the Buddhist texts is the Bible and next to the Bible is the Pentateuch/M-Mnr Prophets, and next to that, is the Noble Quran.

The writings of each of the "Big Three", stipulate that to attain 'heaven' and an eternal relationship with God, certain criteria must be met. The criteria within Christianity dictates that unless sin is permanently washed from a person's soul, that soul, upon death, will find itself (or taken to) in Hell; a place of torment where unrepentant souls are burned in fire until the Day of Judgement. The Source of 'salvation' within the Bible is found in the Person of Jesus Christ: His Role of Perfect Sacrifice is the Mechanism which allows for this Reconciliation between man and God.

Judaism is also predicated upon the shedding of blood for the remission of human sins, though in the Levitical Law, the sacrifices are temporal, imperfect, and must be performed on a repeated basis, for sins to be forgiven, for Reconciliation between man and God can take place.

Islam dictates that belief in the Prophet Muhammad as the Last and Best Prophet of Allah is necessary, inclusive of completing the 5 Pillars of Islam (Shahadah, Salah, Zakat, Sawm, Hajj):

http://www.teachingideas.co.uk/re/fivepillars.htm

What we find, after reading each of doctrines of each sacred text is this (and this was/is my main poi
57

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 05/02/2008 16:40:38
Beautiful Lady CONT 2

What we find, after reading each of doctrines of each sacred text is this (and this was/is my main point concerning the differentiation between the texts and doctrines):

That the methodologies necessary to secure 'salvation' of one's soul, are ALL contradictory from one religion to another.

Towit:

Buddhism rejects the necessary belief in Christ as Saviour. Buddhism rejects the whole concept of monotheism or for that matter, polytheism. Buddhism rejects the existence of the Judeo-Christian Heaven or Hell.

Islam rejects that Christ is the Saviour. Islam rejects the concept of His being the Son of God, that He was crucified, that He can forgive the sins of the human soul, that He was/is God in the Flesh, that His mother Mary gave birth as a virgin, and they reject that He can keep human souls out of Hell.

Christianity rejects the Prophet Muhammad as a legitimate prophet of God, Christianity rejects the 5 Pillars, Christianity rejects the Quranic dictate of Forced Conversion, Christianity rejects the Quranic definition of Jews and Christians as 'apes' and 'pigs', etc.

Judaism rejects Christianity as legitimate, because they reject the Person of Christ as Messias (Messiah, the Anointed One Who will lead the Faithful to Salvation). Judaism rejects Islam for much the same reasons as Christianity, sans the person of Christ: ie, no 5 Pillars, rejection of Muhammad, no Forced Conversion, etc.

Shinto rejects all of the above, because none of them accept the Amaterasu-omi-kami and the polythesistic nature of Shinto, which primarily were animistic in nature:

http://www.usao.edu/~usao-ids3313/ids/html/shinto_.html

What we find is that all of the above religions (which are just 'taste' of those which are available) are CONTRADICTORY, one to another:

Judaism cannot be the 'true' way to Salvation because it contradicts directly, the Islamic doctrines of salvation, which also contradict the Road to Salvation as enunciated within
58

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 05/02/2008 16:41:42
Beautiful Lady CONT 3

Judaism cannot be the 'true' way to Salvation because it contradicts directly, the Islamic doctrines of salvation, which also contradict the Road to Salvation as enunciated within the doctrines of Christianity, which directly contradict the Path to Enlightenment of Buddhism, and so on and so on........

This was my main point: given the comparatives of the doctrines, the Exclusivist Nature of how each religion defines Salvation and how to obtain said salvation:

By the very DEFINITION of Salvation, ONE RELIGION MUST be 'true/correct/right' and ALL the others MUST be WRONG.

Again, NOT because I as a Christian say they must be wrong, rather, because the very definitions of Salvation and the Road to that Divine State of each religion, DECLARE that only ONE is right and all the others are wrong!!!!

Each religion's concept of salvation is contradictory to its counterpart, thus, the various religions are NOT compatible with one another, they are necessarily exclusionary of one another:

If Buddhism is correct about Enlightenment and Nirvana, then Judaism and Christianity have that 'Saviour/Anointed/Heaven/Hell' thing all WRONG and are 'False Beliefs/Religions.'

Same for Islam: if the Prophet Muhammad and the 5 Pillars are true/valid/right, then Muslims win hands down, but if Christian and Jewish doctrines are valid/correct/true, then Muslims are in for a world of eternal hurt; as are the Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Sikhs, and Shinto, et al.

My point here, for the sake of our debate, is NOT that Christianity is correct and all the others are wrong, my point is that just based upon the doctrines of each religion, the religions THEMSELVES dictate that One of them MUST be correct/valid/true and all the others MUST be incorrect/invalid/false.

I hope this has helped clarify my initial point and that it has brought along the discussion.

I was going to go on to a couple other points, however, I seem to have written a complete
59

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 05/02/2008 16:43:25
Hello Finally Beautiful Lady,

I was going to go on to a couple other points, however, I seem to have written a complete tome in clarifying myself, so shall wait upon your response (and hopefully a site where we can all go to continue the debate) before writing further.

I look forward to your reply, as well to those of the Banished Innocent and Doreen.

Cheers from the Rockies
60

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 05/02/2008 17:04:19
Hello Banished Innocent,

My dear, you have not offended in any way, shape, or form, myself, or I would argue, Bella Donna or Doreen (though I may be presumptive speaking out of turn), because you've here written your opinion (which is what this site is for).

I would only offer up a couple of points, as I've just completed a tome to the Beautiful Lady (Bella Donna) in clarifying my main point, but will get back to you on the other points of your posts.

The necessarily implication of your main point is that NO RELIGION is legitimate, because ALL religions were invented by humans, and the subjective rational for defining the validity of a religion is predicated solely upon an individual's 'faith.'

There are major stumbling blocks held tightly within your construct:

1. No Supernatural State beyond mortal life exists
2. No Deity(ies) exist.
3. There are no metaphysical truths.

I have argued and continue to argue, that a superb starting point for determining the validity of any religion, is to start from the point of historical veracity: is there an objective, rational, and empirical basis for what is written in any given sacred text?

Is there concrete, provable and verifiable evidence within sacred texts, using historical, anthropological, and archeological 'checkpoints' (as it were), to determine the veracity of that which is written within a given sacred text?

Example: there are numerous accounts within the Bible, of peoples, towns, cities, coinages, battles, wars, kings, queens, etc.

Using the science of archeology, we must ask: are the descriptions of such places, events, peoples, and names, etc., by the scribes of the Bible, confirmed from the secular science of archeology?

Should such descriptions by the various scribes (Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, et al) be found to be accurate (and they have been) from an archeological standpoint, are there any further scientific proofs as to the veracity of the biblical texts, from an historical po
61

Neanderthal75,

Rocky Mountains USA 05/02/2008 17:05:45
Banished Innocent CONT 1

Should such descriptions by the various scribes (Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, et al) be found to be accurate (and they have been) from an archeological standpoint, are there any further scientific proofs as to the veracity of the biblical texts, from an historical point of view?

The point is this: if the texts within the Bible can be proven or disproven as reliable or unreliable, from an historical/archeological point of view, then we may treat what the scribes say about other matters with greater surety: they did not lie about scientifically provable data, so they may be reliable concerning spiritual data (ie, they didn't lie about easily provable matters, so they will probably not lie about spiritual matters, particularly given the religious criteria concerning what happens to liars, within the religious laws to which the scribes adhere).

I'll await your response, prior to writing more: a little bit goes a long way when discussing such topics as religion. I look forward to reading your post.

Cheers from the Rockies
62

Bard Of Avebury,

Isle of The Mighty 05/02/2008 22:22:15
IF the Rev was not so busy frothing at the mouth he would realise that the bible refers to practitioners of the middle east who dabbled in necromancy and other dubious acts. It bears no relation to the peaceful traditions of NW Europe that local pagans follow. It is the Christian Church's drive through Europe that tarred all the people it killed with that brush. MAybe he should learn by attending.
63

Bella Donna,

06/02/2008 09:33:53
Dear Neanderthal,

I had a wee think about a website – I would have recommended the one I help run but I’m not convinced it would be conducive to an interfaith conversation of any merit – you find me (I hope) and would find many others there, capable of discussing rationally and subjectively matters such as we are discussing here, but it’s a big site and there are a vocal few who have had, frankly, horrendous experiences with Christians so I couldn’t guarantee a cordial reception, and I don’t want you to think that all Pagans are bigots. Because we’re not. But if I tell you that some on the site have had social services involved to try and see if their children are being abused by witchcraft, of husbands/wives walking out because of their spouse’s new-found pagan beliefs, of grandparents who go to court to stop their own (pagan) children looking after *their* children, or of beatings by ultra-Christian parents for bringing home a book on Wicca, or of schools who ostracise pupils of Pagan parents, you will understand, I hope, why there can be bitterness towards people of your faith. So on reflection, it’s not the site for you.

However, I can recommend a site called Paganoutreach.com which has been set up specifically for Christian/Pagan conversation, and, though it’s a fledgling site with as yet a fairly small membership, has a good cross-section of Pagans, Christians, Americans and Brits and a good amount of intelligent and lively discussion. If you join, I’ll make myself known to you (I’m under a different name there – privacy prevents me saying what it is on this site). I hope I’ll see you there – I’ll keep an eye out.

Right, back to the topic here:

”By the very DEFINITION of Salvation, ONE RELIGION MUST be 'true/correct/right' and ALL the others MUST be WRONG.”

Okaaaayyy…

(and I don’t think it’s the way you’re putting it across, I think it’s my lack of understanding that leads me to say…) I both agree and disagree with you.
64

Bella Donna,

06/02/2008 09:34:09
Let’s look at Salvation first of all. It’s an ancient concept, certainly pre-dating the monotheist religions, stating that the ultimate aim of the human soul is to be saved. From… whatever… hell, eternal reincarnation, purgatory, etc. Personally, I believe that the concept of Salvation evolved, developed and has been adapted over the centuries out of an innate human desire to “be good” and be rewarded for it. And from that to encourage others to strive to be good. (ooooh, can I be very naughty here and chalk up a point for a pre-Christian example of morality that the concept of “salvation” existed BC?! ;-p ) So pretty much all regions have it in one form or another, they all have a different idea of what that Salvation is, or how to attain it, but the main thrust of the point is the same: be a good and honourable person, honour your gods, and *you will be rewarded*.

I don’t think though that that means that the “definition” of Salvation indicates the superiority of one religion above another. What you’ve described is each religion’s definition of their Salvation and the route to it.

As for the ALL the others MUST be WRONG – well, yes, naturally: stray off the ordained path to the defined Salvation: do evil deeds, dishonour your gods, and suffer the consequences. Of COURSE the implication is “this one is right and all the others are wrong”. As you said:

“My point here, for the sake of our debate, is NOT that Christianity is correct and all the others are wrong, my point is that just based upon the doctrines of each religion, the religions THEMSELVES dictate that One of them MUST be correct/valid/true and all the others MUST be incorrect/invalid/false.”

Which is kind of the debate-stopper! LOL! And unfortunately has become the main sticking point of any conversation I’ve attempted to have with Christians about my own beliefs. I begin, through your postings above, to see that Christians (sweeping generalisation coming up)
65

Bella Donna,

08/02/2008 12:20:25
../ continued (finally!)

to see that Christians (sweeping generalisation coming up) are pretty much commanded NOT to entertain the notion that there are other truths. Khalil Gibram said “say not that I have found The Truth, say rather that I have found “A” Truth” and when it comes to faith and belief, I hold very firmly to that concept.


Anyway, I must go at the moment, - I look forward very much to your reply either here, or to seeing you on the site I mentioned above.

Vale!

66

Laura Lee,

Canada 13/02/2008 16:14:31
Ok, in reality, it no longer matters what Pagans or Christians did in the past. Leave the past in the past and let's focus on the present and the future. We should not be fighting with each other. We should be learning from each other and respecting each other. When it comes down to Paganism, there are only a few things needs to be understood. Pagans are not devil worshippers. Pagans don't want to force someone into their religion. They only wish to educate. Pagans are a non-violent religion that worships Mother Nature, The Mother Goddess and The Sun God. Some decide to worship other gods and goddesses as well. Pagans want peace and tolerance. We have rules (commandments as the Christians call it) that we must follow as well to keep the peace in the world. There is no need to bad mouth Pagans or Christian. We should be getting together to remove the ignorance and gain respect for one another.

Blessed Be to all Pagans and Christians
67

The Banished Innocent,

Australia 17/02/2008 01:45:07
Neanderthal :)

No man can write about something and leave his out his own opinion. Cannot this be said true of religious texts such as the bible and the Karen? What I mean to say, even if the events which happen in the bible have been proven to be true, will they not have been biased in some way shape or form, that leaves the supernatural/spiritual messages under a certain amount of doubt. It’s happened in history before. One man claims he knows something other people only know in part. Based on this real evidence, he can claim he knows any number of things that aren’t true. Alan Gardiner, who obviously didn’t impact religion, did impact people’s perceptions after writing about the Egyptian “King” Hatshepsut. He claimed any number of things about her reign that were believed for any number of years, based upon his own personal beliefs about women. He was able to use real pieces of evidence, from her tombs, and written records, in order to “prove” points that were wrong. At the time, the general public, who didn’t know any better, had only his word to go on, and believed him willingly. Could not the same be said for the ways of the bible? Men/women who have their own ideas about why the world is, use the information around them to prove a point that may hold no authenticity? The only point that seems to hold these texts together is that they cannot be disproven, thus the concept of “faith”.

Yay!!! to Laura Lee. Maybe there is some hope for us all yet.

The Banished Innocent

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.