Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Sriram on August 01, 2015, 10:17:25 AM
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a link about a Satan statue erected by the Satanic Temple in Detroit.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33682878
**********************************************************************
A controversial statue unveiled by the Satanic Temple at a secret ceremony in Detroit has attracted protests. But who is the goat-headed figure? And what do the elements of the statue symbolise?
The bronze statue is nearly 9ft tall and depicts a winged hermaphrodite known as Baphomet, flanked by two smiling children. It cost $100,000 (£64,000) to make and hundreds of Satanists turned out to see it unveiled.
Long term, the Satanic Temple wants to move the piece 900 miles (1,450km) south-west and erect it opposite a Ten Commandments monument outside Oklahoma City's Capitol Building.
The Baphomet will "complement and contrast" the Christian commandments which include "unconstitutional prohibitions against free speech and free exercise of religion," according to the organisation.
"Our statue will serve as a beacon calling for compassion and empathy among all living creatures," says Lucien Greaves, the group's co-founder.
He hopes people of all ages will "sit on the lap of Satan for inspiration and contemplation... It's a nice little tourist attraction. People would travel a great distance to see it."
**********************************************************************
Any views?
Sriram
-
Seems like a good example of freedom of religion in action as far as I can see. If you can have Christian crosses and Islamic crescents all over the place, Satanists have to be catered for as well.
All or none. I'd rather it was none, but in the meantime, all will do.
-
Dear Sriram,
Boy!! That blokes got the lot, horns, wings and he looks like he works out, is gym membership included when you join this religion.
Gonnagle.
-
I like it, but they should have kept the breasts.
Symbolism that may provide some "balance" in that "out of balance" nation.
-
Good grief! What fools some people are. ;D
-
Come on Len! Wouldn't you like a version in your front garden? Cool or wot? ;D
-
Come on Len! Wouldn't you like a version in your front garden? Cool or wot? ;D
Good grief no! I've never been one for garden gnomes and such, preferring to see stuff growing naturally.
But if it attracts tourists and makes some money out of them, it has its uses. :)
-
The only thing that annoys me is it will attract lots of comments about the evils of paganism from muppet Christian fundies.
-
Sriram, it's a reflection of the society/world that we live in, and the two children gazing up at it is quite nauseating.
-
Sriram, it's a reflection of the society/world that we live in
Equality for all religious beliefs, you mean. (That's all of them, not just yours, which is only one amongst many). Yes, it is.
-
Hi everyone,
Here is a link about a Satan statue erected by the Satanic Temple in Detroit.
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33682878
**********************************************************************
A controversial statue unveiled by the Satanic Temple at a secret ceremony in Detroit has attracted protests. But who is the goat-headed figure? And what do the elements of the statue symbolise?
The bronze statue is nearly 9ft tall and depicts a winged hermaphrodite known as Baphomet, flanked by two smiling children. It cost $100,000 (£64,000) to make and hundreds of Satanists turned out to see it unveiled.
Long term, the Satanic Temple wants to move the piece 900 miles (1,450km) south-west and erect it opposite a Ten Commandments monument outside Oklahoma City's Capitol Building.
The Baphomet will "complement and contrast" the Christian commandments which include "unconstitutional prohibitions against free speech and free exercise of religion," according to the organisation.
"Our statue will serve as a beacon calling for compassion and empathy among all living creatures," says Lucien Greaves, the group's co-founder.
He hopes people of all ages will "sit on the lap of Satan for inspiration and contemplation... It's a nice little tourist attraction. People would travel a great distance to see it."
**********************************************************************
Any views?
Sriram
What controversy Siriram? All it is is just another bunch of nutters, humour them.
ippy
-
Sriram, it's a reflection of the society/world that we live in
Equality for all religious beliefs, you mean. (That's all of them, not just yours, which is only one amongst many). Yes, it is.
Well, I guess you being an atheist will see it like that.
-
If you can have statues of Jesus, why not one of dear sweet Satan? ;D
-
Sriram, it's a reflection of the society/world that we live in
Equality for all religious beliefs, you mean. (That's all of them, not just yours, which is only one amongst many). Yes, it is.
Well, I guess you being an atheist will see it like that.
What other way of seeing it is there? The last I heard quite a lot of religious folk are quite keen on the idea of religious freedom as well, given that fairness demands equal treatment for all religions and the freedom by which they practice their faith is the same extended to others.
-
If you can have statues of Jesus, why not one of dear sweet Satan? ;D
Or why not even nasty Satan?
In Bali there are demons on almost every street corner.
-
Rhi,
I've never heard that before. A MUPPET CHRISTIAN FUNDIE!! Great screaming ghosts, you're a HOOT! And very muppet acting yourself when it has to do with Christianity, I must tell ya.
-
Rhi,
I've never heard that before. A MUPPET CHRISTIAN FUNDIE!! Great screaming ghosts, you're a HOOT! And very muppet acting yourself when it has to do with Christianity, I must tell ya.
Why? That's not offensive to Christians. The vast majority are intelligent enough to understand there is no link between paganism and satanism.
-
Seems like a good example of freedom of religion in action as far as I can see. If you can have Christian crosses and Islamic crescents all over the place, Satanists have to be catered for as well.
All or none. I'd rather it was none, but in the meantime, all will do.
Well spoken in error on the part of the ignorant atheist who sees both as false...
The wise err in caution when such a thing h"It contains all these binary opposites -
Some scholars believe "Baphometh" was simply a corruption of "Mahomet" - the Prophet Muhammad.
"It contains all these binary opposites - above and below, part animal, part human. Male and female," says Greaves.
The forces of nature binary opposites... but life and death how does it represent those...
God is life and Satan is death.
King James
Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
What do you think Shaker.... could you be easily coaxed into believing the false things.
-
I haven't the faintest idea what on earth you're babbling about. Try it again, only this time in English.
-
The only thing that annoys me is it will attract lots of comments about the evils of paganism from muppet Christian fundies.
Grow up. You already know that even some atheist view paganism as being bizarre to say the least when it comes to it's foundations and history. The Christians come under far more attack than paganism. Fundies are no more of a muppet than pagans,atheists and satanist.
It is bloody UGLY that is the truth. It comes to something when a human being thinks Satan looks like a bloody goat and even worse when they build him looking so...
The outward appearance of a statue is like children playing house. The real power of black magic is not found in such foolish public displays of here we are look at us.
They obviously find Christianity a threat as they want to place it facing the 10 commandments... Bit like using a chocolate fire guard... It melts and reveals how futile it really was to place such belief it could be useful....
-
Sriram, it's a reflection of the society/world that we live in, and the two children gazing up at it is quite nauseating.
I guess those being lost won't think it anything but harmless..
-
The Christians come under far more attack than paganism.
Deservedly so, since there are very good reasons for that.
-
Rhi,
I've never heard that before. A MUPPET CHRISTIAN FUNDIE!! Great screaming ghosts, you're a HOOT! And very muppet acting yourself when it has to do with Christianity, I must tell ya.
Why? That's not offensive to Christians. The vast majority are intelligent enough to understand there is no link between paganism and satanism.
YOU are wrong... Paganism tried to remove the link some years ago.The intelligent know that your denial is basically sticking your fingers in yours ear and denying it to yourself.
Wicker is a good place to start....
Wicker sacrificed to sun god... sun god also called Satan. Lucifer babylonian sun God.
Because the pagans tried to remove the attachment it is still true they were associated...
Nothing to do with intelligence just history.
-
I haven't the faintest idea what on earth you're babbling about. Try it again, only this time in English.
There it is... Shaker knows absolutely NOTHING about the bible end time teachings... TUT TUT TUT
-
Rhi,
I've never heard that before. A MUPPET CHRISTIAN FUNDIE!! Great screaming ghosts, you're a HOOT! And very muppet acting yourself when it has to do with Christianity, I must tell ya.
Why? That's not offensive to Christians. The vast majority are intelligent enough to understand there is no link between paganism and satanism.
YOU are wrong... Paganism tried to remove the link some years ago.The intelligent know that your denial is basically sticking your fingers in yours ear and denying it to yourself.
Wicker is a good place to start....
Wicker sacrificed to sun god... sun god also called Satan. Lucifer babylonian sun God.
Because the pagans tried to remove the attachment it is still true they were associated...
Nothing to do with intelligence just history.
Your post as usual has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence - the word is Wicca, not wicker ::)
-
There it is... Shaker knows absolutely NOTHING about the bible end time teachings... TUT TUT TUT
Shaker doesn't give a shit about such puerile twaddle, but does care very deeply and passionately about the English language and rational thought, to both of which you are as Stephen Hawking is to ballroom dancing.
-
The only thing that annoys me is it will attract lots of comments about the evils of paganism from muppet Christian fundies.
Too right it will - but thank the Goddess it is in the US where such fundamentalist stupidity is endemic!
-
Sriram, it's a reflection of the society/world that we live in, and the two children gazing up at it is quite nauseating.
Quote - the two children gazing up at it is quite nauseating. - Unquote
Why so?
-
Sriram, it's a reflection of the society/world that we live in
Equality for all religious beliefs, you mean. (That's all of them, not just yours, which is only one amongst many). Yes, it is.
Well, I guess you being an atheist will see it like that.
I'm a Pagan and I see it exactly like that - I cannot see why Christians seem to think that equality is only for them.
-
I suppose because it's not two children gazing adoringly up at an ancient Jewish handyman, which would be just adorable .
-
I haven't the faintest idea what on earth you're babbling about. Try it again, only this time in English.
There it is... Shaker knows absolutely NOTHING about the bible end time teachings... TUT TUT TUT
More total garbage from Sass, but I suppose one can't expect anything else from her! ::)
-
Rhi,
I've never heard that before. A MUPPET CHRISTIAN FUNDIE!! Great screaming ghosts, you're a HOOT! And very muppet acting yourself when it has to do with Christianity, I must tell ya.
Why? That's not offensive to Christians. The vast majority are intelligent enough to understand there is no link between paganism and satanism.
And those who aren't part of "the vast majority [that] are intelligent enough to understand there is no link between paganism and satanism" aren't worth bothering about.
-
The only thing that annoys me is it will attract lots of comments about the evils of paganism from muppet Christian fundies.
Grow up. You already know that even some atheist view paganism as being bizarre to say the least when it comes to it's foundations and history. The Christians come under far more attack than paganism. Fundies are no more of a muppet than pagans,atheists and satanist.
It is bloody UGLY that is the truth. It comes to something when a human being thinks Satan looks like a bloody goat and even worse when they build him looking so...
The outward appearance of a statue is like children playing house. The real power of black magic is not found in such foolish public displays of here we are look at us.
They obviously find Christianity a threat as they want to place it facing the 10 commandments... Bit like using a chocolate fire guard... It melts and reveals how futile it really was to place such belief it could be useful....
What a load of bigoted tosh!
-
Rhi,
I've never heard that before. A MUPPET CHRISTIAN FUNDIE!! Great screaming ghosts, you're a HOOT! And very muppet acting yourself when it has to do with Christianity, I must tell ya.
Why? That's not offensive to Christians. The vast majority are intelligent enough to understand there is no link between paganism and satanism.
YOU are wrong... Paganism tried to remove the link some years ago.The intelligent know that your denial is basically sticking your fingers in yours ear and denying it to yourself.
Wicker is a good place to start....
Wicker sacrificed to sun god... sun god also called Satan. Lucifer babylonian sun God.
Because the pagans tried to remove the attachment it is still true they were associated...
Nothing to do with intelligence just history.
More tosh, bigoted and ignorant - what you know about paganism could be written on a flea's arse with a baseball bat dipped in tar!
Stick to what you know - quote mining from the Bible.
-
I'm keeping that one :D
-
Rhi,
I've never heard that before. A MUPPET CHRISTIAN FUNDIE!! Great screaming ghosts, you're a HOOT! And very muppet acting yourself when it has to do with Christianity, I must tell ya.
Why? That's not offensive to Christians. The vast majority are intelligent enough to understand there is no link between paganism and satanism.
YOU are wrong... Paganism tried to remove the link some years ago.The intelligent know that your denial is basically sticking your fingers in yours ear and denying it to yourself.
Wicker is a good place to start....
Wicker sacrificed to sun god... sun god also called Satan. Lucifer babylonian sun God.
Because the pagans tried to remove the attachment it is still true they were associated...
Nothing to do with intelligence just history.
Your post as usual has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence - the word is Wicca, not wicker ::)
You beat me to that one, Shaker.
-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/64/1f/af/641faf28aa905a4286dfb4c084cc697c.jpg
-
And what?
-
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/64/1f/af/641faf28aa905a4286dfb4c084cc697c.jpg
OK - so some idiot has sculpted a statue of my mother-in-law!
So what is your point because, as far as I can see, the statue has no connection whatsoever with Paganism, Satanism or Christianity.
-
Thought you can't be bothered with my links dearest Matty. Thought your wife left you, which means you have no mother in law. Thought you would take the hint and actually think before you post.
-
Thought you can't be bothered with my links dearest Matty. Thought your wife left you, which means you have no mother in law. Thought you would take the hint and actually think before you post.
You are a bigger foo, that evewn I took you for.
My wife did NOT leave me - she divorced me and I happily walked out of the house feeling like a twenty ton weight had been lifted fom my shoulders.
The above does not change the fact that her mother is, or was, my mother-in-law.
What hint?
Why should I think before I post a response to someone who never, ever, thinks before he posts! Which is, of course, why he posts such cr . . ., nonsense.
Now, will you please explain just what your linked photograph was supposed to convey?
-
Rhi,
I've never heard that before. A MUPPET CHRISTIAN FUNDIE!! Great screaming ghosts, you're a HOOT! And very muppet acting yourself when it has to do with Christianity, I must tell ya.
Why? That's not offensive to Christians. The vast majority are intelligent enough to understand there is no link between paganism and satanism.
YOU are wrong... Paganism tried to remove the link some years ago.The intelligent know that your denial is basically sticking your fingers in yours ear and denying it to yourself.
Wicker is a good place to start....
Wicker sacrificed to sun god... sun god also called Satan. Lucifer babylonian sun God.
Because the pagans tried to remove the attachment it is still true they were associated...
Nothing to do with intelligence just history.
Your post as usual has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence - the word is Wicca, not wicker ::)
Does she mean the Wicker Man? You know, Edward Woodward and all that?
It's possible the ancient Celts did something like that. But they weren't sacrificing to a Babylonian sun god.
-
Wicker man.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicker_man
Naughty fibbers, those Romans.
-
Seems like a good example of freedom of religion in action as far as I can see. If you can have Christian crosses and Islamic crescents all over the place, Satanists have to be catered for as well.
All or none. I'd rather it was none, but in the meantime, all will do.
But how do we know that this is what Satan looks like?
-
If you can have statues of Jesus, why not one of dear sweet Satan? ;D
Doesn't the Bible speak against statues of God?
-
Rhi,
I've never heard that before. A MUPPET CHRISTIAN FUNDIE!! Great screaming ghosts, you're a HOOT! And very muppet acting yourself when it has to do with Christianity, I must tell ya.
Why? That's not offensive to Christians. The vast majority are intelligent enough to understand there is no link between paganism and satanism.
YOU are wrong... Paganism tried to remove the link some years ago.The intelligent know that your denial is basically sticking your fingers in yours ear and denying it to yourself.
Wicker is a good place to start....
Wicker sacrificed to sun god... sun god also called Satan. Lucifer babylonian sun God.
Because the pagans tried to remove the attachment it is still true they were associated...
Nothing to do with intelligence just history.
Your post as usual has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence - the word is Wicca, not wicker ::)
Does she mean the Wicker Man? You know, Edward Woodward and all that?
It's possible the ancient Celts did something like that. But they weren't sacrificing to a Babylonian sun god.
Probably.
This is another hang-over from the late and unlamented Margaret Murray who posited that the Kings of England from pre-Christian times when each king was sacrificed to whichever Pagan god was relevant to the local area.
As kings everywhere prefer to remain alive and on their thrones, Murray theorised that they changed the rules so that a member of their tribe took their place inside the Wicker Man.
Rhi, both you and I know that this is a load of rubbish believed only by Murrayite anthropologists (of whom very few, thank the Goddess, remain) and Pagan-baiting, Pagan-history ignorant Christians.
-
If you can have statues of Jesus, why not one of dear sweet Satan? ;D
Doesn't the Bible speak against statues of God?
That just about says it all considering the number of statues of Christ in the Christian churches.
And, before someone says that they are of Christ and not of God, I seem to remember posts on here stating, on good Christian authority (the Bible) that Christ IS God and God IS Christ.
-
That just about says it all considering the number of statues of Christ in the Christian churches.
And, before someone says that they are of Christ and not of God, I seem to remember posts on here stating, on good Christian authority (the Bible) that Christ IS God and God IS Christ.
It is partly why I used the term God, Matt; God and Jesus are synonymous. It is also why I don't believe that crucifixes are a good thing, though one would also have to ask thoise people who attend such churches whether they are worshipping the stone/wood/metal item that is affixed to the cross, or whether it is there as an aide memoire. The same would have to be asked about this statue of Satan.
-
... and Pagan-baiting, Pagan-history ignorant Christians.
I doubt whether many Christians even bother to think about Pagans and Paganism, Matt. Let alone bait them. The only baiting of Pagans I've ever known is that which comes as a result of comments like yours. ;)
-
I suppose because it's not two children gazing adoringly up at an ancient Jewish handyman, which would be just adorable .
One thing's certain: no two people will ever gaze adoringly up at your statue in years to come!
-
Nor would I wish them to.
-
Nor would I wish them to.
No bother there: they won't.
-
Excellent. Everybody's happy then.
-
Excellent. Everybody's ha...
I am. You're not: that's why you are still blathering on here!
-
I'm still responding to illogic and irrationality on here.
-
I'm still responding to illogic and irrationality on here.
It's time you gave up if after all these years you are still not satisfied.
-
No, there's always more.
-
... and Pagan-baiting, Pagan-history ignorant Christians.
I doubt whether many Christians even bother to think about Pagans and Paganism, Matt. Let alone bait them. The only baiting of Pagans I've ever known is that which comes as a result of comments like yours. ;)
Please note, Hope, that my comments to which you refer as attracting the Pagan-baiting and Pagan-history ignorant were, if you bother to read the preceding posts in response to such comments by a Christian who clearly had absolutely no idea what he was taliing about!
-
No, there's always more.
Clearly, you have too much time on your hands. Why not take up a hobby? Since you've already completed reading the world's books, I suggest, staring into space with your mouth open! :)
-
Come on Len! Wouldn't you like a version in your front garden? Cool or wot? ;D
Do you think if I put it in my front garden it might scare off the Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons ?
😜🌹
It's definitely worth a try!
Nothing I have tried seems to work.
An elderly lady of my aqauintance, now in the Summerlands, couls see anyone who appraoched her home from her living room windows. When the people from the JW approached and knocked at her door she would call out in a clear loud voice, "I will be with you directly, but I should warn you that I am wearing nothing but a Star of David and a broad smile!"
She found that when, fully clothed but wearing her Star, she opened the door there was never anyone there.
-
If you can have statues of Jesus, why not one of dear sweet Satan? ;D
Doesn't the Bible speak against statues of God?
It's like with Hinduism, which both Christianity & Islam don't 'get', the images are there for focus NOT as objects of worship in themselves.
Having said that... as ALL things ARE technically God anyway, ANYTHING can be used to focus worship. 8)
Nick
-
If you can have statues of Jesus, why not one of dear sweet Satan? ;D
Doesn't the Bible speak against statues of God?
ALL things ARE technically God anyway, ANYTHING can be used to focus worship.
Nick
A very concise statement of Pagan (well, some Pagans, anayway) belief.
-
Yes It often begs the question - Can anything exist outside God & it's obviously NO. IF God is ALL there is anyway !!!
-
Yes It often begs the question - Can anything exist outside God & it's obviously NO. IF God is ALL there is anyway !!!
That's pantheism, though, surely, which is functionally equivalent to atheism (and an almighty linguistic redundancy to boot).
-
Can God BE God if He's NOT ALL things ????
-
Yes It often begs the question - Can anything exist outside God & it's obviously NO. IF God is ALL there is anyway !!!
Sorry, in my belief everything exists outside the Gods. The Gods/deities are in everything.
-
Yes It often begs the question - Can anything exist outside God & it's obviously NO. IF God is ALL there is anyway !!!
That's pantheism, though, surely, which is functionally equivalent to atheism (and an almighty linguistic redundancy to boot).
I am a polytheist not a pantheist.
-
OOHHH Interesting.
Would you please elaborate???
-
Yes It often begs the question - Can anything exist outside God & it's obviously NO. IF God is ALL there is anyway !!!
That's pantheism, though, surely, which is functionally equivalent to atheism (and an almighty linguistic redundancy to boot).
I am a polytheist not a pantheist.
Sure - I was just pointing out that the belief that God is everything (literally) is pantheism, and as such is equivalent to atheism.
-
Come on Len! Wouldn't you like a version in your front garden? Cool or wot? ;D
Do you think if I put it in my front garden it might scare off the Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons ?
😜🌹
I know someone who tried telling them she was a pagan to make them go away. The next day she opened her curtains to find a group trying to exorcise her from the front lawn.
-
Howdya work THAT one out then??????
Atheism is a belief in NO god but pantheism believes many, no?
-
Yes It often begs the question - Can anything exist outside God & it's obviously NO. IF God is ALL there is anyway !!!
That's pantheism, though, surely, which is functionally equivalent to atheism (and an almighty linguistic redundancy to boot).
I am a polytheist not a pantheist.
I'm both.
-
Howdya work THAT one out then??????
Atheism is a belief in NO god but pantheism believes many, no?
Atheism is NOT a belief in no gods!
Why is this mistake so often made?
-
Howdya work THAT one out then??????
Atheism is a belief in NO god but pantheism believes many, no?
Pantheism is 'all is God'. If you don't have any supernatural ideas about what God is but still maintain a pantheistic belief you can be an atheist. I think it's how many Buddhists approach the idea of God, especially in the West; they believe in one-ness but are also atheist, hence they tend towards atheist pantheism.
-
A-theism
Against theism ie god(s)
-
A-theism
Against theism ie god(s)
Its about belief.
Atheism is a LACK of belief NOT a belief!
-
A-theism
Against theism ie god(s)
Its about belief.
Atheism is a LACK of belief NOT a belief!
It varies, doesn't it? For some it is an absence of belief, but for others it is a specific declaration that gods do not exist.
-
A-theism
Against theism ie god(s)
Its about belief.
Atheism is a LACK of belief NOT a belief!
It varies, doesn't it? For some it is an absence of belief, but for others it is a specific declaration that gods do not exist.
No, it doesn't vary. All have an absence of belief in gods, just not all declare gods don't exist.
-
A-theism
Against theism ie god(s)
Its about belief.
Atheism is a LACK of belief NOT a belief!
It varies, doesn't it? For some it is an absence of belief, but for others it is a specific declaration that gods do not exist.
No, it doesn't vary. All have an absence of belief in gods, just not all declare gods don't exist.
After all the years of "debate," you guys still can't decide exactly what an atheist is!
-
OOHHH Interesting.
Would you please elaborate???
If you were referring to my comment, certainly.
I believe that there are multiple deities. I do not believe in one almighty deity who is responsible for everything that exists.
I believe that deity is present in all things but not a single deity.
I do not believe that all nature, that the whole universe is deity, a single deity.
-
Come on Len! Wouldn't you like a version in your front garden? Cool or wot? ;D
Do you think if I put it in my front garden it might scare off the Jehovah's witnesses and Mormons ?
😜🌹
Bloody typical!
I know someone who tried telling them she was a pagan to make them go away. The next day she opened her curtains to find a group trying to exorcise her from the front lawn.
-
Howdya work THAT one out then??????
Atheism is a belief in NO god but pantheism believes many, no?
No! Pantheism believes the the entire universe, all nature IS God.
Many gods is polytheiism!
-
OOHHH Interesting.
Would you please elaborate???
If you were referring to my comment, certainly.
I believe that there are multiple deities. I do not believe in one almighty deity who is responsible for everything that exists.
I believe that deity is present in all things but not a single deity.
I do not believe that all nature, that the whole universe is deity, a single deity.
What precisely do you mean by "deity?"
-
OOHHH Interesting.
Would you please elaborate???
If you were referring to my comment, certainly.
I believe that there are multiple deities. I do not believe in one almighty deity who is responsible for everything that exists.
I believe that deity is present in all things but not a single deity.
I do not believe that all nature, that the whole universe is deity, a single deity.
What precisely do you mean by "deity?"
One or more of the Gods and Goddesses that make up my personal pantheon of deities.
-
OOHHH Interesting.
Would you please elaborate???
If you were referring to my comment, certainly.
I believe that there are multiple deities. I do not believe in one almighty deity who is responsible for everything that exists.
I believe that deity is present in all things but not a single deity.
I do not believe that all nature, that the whole universe is deity, a single deity.
What precisely do you mean by "deity?"
One or more of the Gods and Goddesses that make up my personal pantheon of deities.
Help me here. Do you see these gods as "beings," or spirits, or what?
-
OOHHH Interesting.
Would you please elaborate???
If you were referring to my comment, certainly.
I believe that there are multiple deities. I do not believe in one almighty deity who is responsible for everything that exists.
I believe that deity is present in all things but not a single deity.
I do not believe that all nature, that the whole universe is deity, a single deity.
What precisely do you mean by "deity?"
One or more of the Gods and Goddesses that make up my personal pantheon of deities.
Help me here. Do you see these gods as "beings," or spirits, or what?
No, they are entities, like yours, there, but invisible most of the time - usually until you call upon them. Rather like yours.
-
OOHHH Interesting.
Would you please elaborate???
If you were referring to my comment, certainly.
I believe that there are multiple deities. I do not believe in one almighty deity who is responsible for everything that exists.
I believe that deity is present in all things but not a single deity.
I do not believe that all nature, that the whole universe is deity, a single deity.
What precisely do you mean by "deity?"
One or more of the Gods and Goddesses that make up my personal pantheon of deities.
Help me here. Do you see these gods as "beings," or spirits, or what?
No, they are entities, like yours, there, but invisible most of the time - usually until you call upon them. Rather like yours.
So, correct me if I'm wrong: your "entity" could be the self-same as mine, just perceived in a slightly different manner?
-
Howdya work THAT one out then??????
Atheism is a belief in NO god but pantheism believes many, no?
No, you're mixing it up with polytheism - that's the belief in many gods.
-
A-theism
Against theism ie god(s)
Its about belief.
Atheism is a LACK of belief NOT a belief!
It varies, doesn't it? For some it is an absence of belief, but for others it is a specific declaration that gods do not exist.
No, it doesn't vary. All have an absence of belief in gods, just not all declare gods don't exist.
Well that's two variants. Those who declare no gods exist are stating a definite position, no?
-
Regardless of how a deity looks...I think the morals and behaviour patterns encouraged by the group is more important IMO.
If the deity looks nice, gentle and handsome...but if the group encourages divisiveness, pride, selfishness, condemnation of others, violence and so on...then the deity is demonic.
If a deity looks ugly and harsh.... but the group encourages inclusiveness, selflessness, humility, tolerance, peace and nonviolence...then the deity is godly.
-
Hi Rose,
There is a certain veiw that bad luck can't happen on its own and someone else is always at fault,
Really? Seriously? ;D
So who is at fault if lightning strikes you?
-
Howdya work THAT one out then??????
Atheism is a belief in NO god but pantheism believes many, no?
No! Pantheism believes the the entire universe, all nature IS God.
Many gods is polytheiism!
Sorry, YES, THAT'S what I meant, thanks...
-
If a deity looks ugly and harsh.... but the group encourages inclusiveness, selflessness, humility, tolerance, peace and nonviolence...then the deity is godly.
I suppose it depends on what is included within inclusiveness.
By the way, Sriram, from what I have read of world belief systems, Christianity is the only one that was for the whole of humanity from its very inception.
-
If a deity looks ugly and harsh.... but the group encourages inclusiveness, selflessness, humility, tolerance, peace and nonviolence...then the deity is godly.
I suppose it depends on what is included within inclusiveness.
By the way, Sriram, from what I have read of world belief systems, Christianity is the only one that was for the whole of humanity from its very inception.
And it so very kindly tried to FORCE itself on everybody whether they liked it or not.
Just wanting to save their poor damned souls, eh????
-
Howdya work THAT one out then??????
Atheism is a belief in NO god but pantheism believes many, no?
No, pantheism is the belief that everything is God, in effect, the Universe and God are the same thing.
-
A-theism
Against theism ie god(s)
The "a" means without, not against.
-
Hi Rose,
There is a certain veiw that bad luck can't happen on its own and someone else is always at fault,
Really? Seriously? ;D
So who is at fault if lightning strikes you?
Well according to his card, your neighbour might be holding a grudge and have performed some evil magics.
Hexes.
He was offering to cleanse you of them, as his card/ leaflet suggested a run of bad luck was caused by bad vibes from neighbours etc
Oh dearie me, what rot!
Sadly, the saying goes that there is one born every minute! :(
-
Rhi,
I've never heard that before. A MUPPET CHRISTIAN FUNDIE!! Great screaming ghosts, you're a HOOT! And very muppet acting yourself when it has to do with Christianity, I must tell ya.
Why? That's not offensive to Christians. The vast majority are intelligent enough to understand there is no link between paganism and satanism.
YOU are wrong... Paganism tried to remove the link some years ago.The intelligent know that your denial is basically sticking your fingers in yours ear and denying it to yourself.
Wicker is a good place to start....
Wicker sacrificed to sun god... sun god also called Satan. Lucifer babylonian sun God.
Because the pagans tried to remove the attachment it is still true they were associated...
Nothing to do with intelligence just history.
Your post as usual has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence - the word is Wicca, not wicker ::)
I know... It was simply a gliche I had been reading something previously. Just like when speaking we say a wrong word because we are thinking of something else.
I am caring for two people at present and not getting much sleep. So I am entitled to make errors.
But what is your excuse... Why reply to a spelling mistake and not the contents.
I know what I would rather be seen to have done... the spelling error rather than the inability to reply to the content... ::)
It also proves I was speaking from myself not copying from a site/s doesn't it.
Which you do when it comes to Christianity. My excuse is exhaustion what is yours for not being able to produce an argument for the post?
Admit it.. you knew I was right... and you had nothing to come back with because it was true. The same reason you never corrected the other person yourself. Not in your best interest was it to show that atheists and pagans are selective in what they accept as truth... Still want to make comments on a spelling error amounting to lack of intelligence.. I would question your intelligence to suggest spelling errors are a reflection of anything but a simple mistake...
-
Watch out, Shakes! You have needled Sass! :)
-
OOHHH Interesting.
Would you please elaborate???
If you were referring to my comment, certainly.
I believe that there are multiple deities. I do not believe in one almighty deity who is responsible for everything that exists.
I believe that deity is present in all things but not a single deity.
I do not believe that all nature, that the whole universe is deity, a single deity.
What precisely do you mean by "deity?"
One or more of the Gods and Goddesses that make up my personal pantheon of deities.
Help me here. Do you see these gods as "beings," or spirits, or what?
No, they are entities, like yours, there, but invisible most of the time - usually until you call upon them. Rather like yours.
So, correct me if I'm wrong: your "entity" could be the self-same as mine, just perceived in a slightly different manner?
Get this once and for all BA - my deities are NOTHING like yours.
Aye, some are not the most friendly at times but they say what they mean, they mean what they say, they do not wrap it up in a load of shit so that they need a bunch of know-it-all priests to "interpret" their words.
If you fuck up your punishment will fit the crime (karma and the "three-fold law) not OTT eternal damnation in the Fires of Hell just for saying "I do not believe in you" and "I do not need you to "save" me".
-
Reply to message #92
And this all in the name of the "loving" God of the Christians and his "loving" son.
Gives a whole different interpretation to "Suffer the little children" doesn't it?
Where, I wonder is the evidence of the rejection of and steps to stop and prevent these barbaric practices from the worldwide Christian church and its members!
-
If a deity looks ugly and harsh.... but the group encourages inclusiveness, selflessness, humility, tolerance, peace and nonviolence...then the deity is godly.
I suppose it depends on what is included within inclusiveness.
By the way, Sriram, from what I have read of world belief systems, Christianity is the only one that was for the whole of humanity from its very inception.
And it so very kindly tried to FORCE itself on everybody whether they liked it or not.
Just wanting to save their poor damned souls, eh????
Love it! A precise and concise statement of the problem with Christianity - my way, oh sorry - My Way or the highway (to Hell)!
-
Regardless of how a deity looks...I think the morals and behaviour patterns encouraged by the group is more important IMO.
If the deity looks nice, gentle and handsome...but if the group encourages divisiveness, pride, selfishness, condemnation of others, violence and so on...then the deity is demonic.
If a deity looks ugly and harsh.... but the group encourages inclusiveness, selflessness, humility, tolerance, peace and nonviolence...then the deity is godly.
This is a very good point. It doesn't matter at all what an image looks like, or what title a deity has come to that, but what it inspires in its followers. Think what actions have been carried out in the name of the Prince of Peace.
-
Regardless of how a deity looks...I think the morals and behaviour patterns encouraged by the group is more important IMO.
If the deity looks nice, gentle and handsome...but if the group encourages divisiveness, pride, selfishness, condemnation of others, violence and so on...then the deity is demonic.
If a deity looks ugly and harsh.... but the group encourages inclusiveness, selflessness, humility, tolerance, peace and nonviolence...then the deity is godly.
This is a very good point. It doesn't matter at all what an image looks like, or what title a deity has come to that, but what it inspires in its followers. Think what actions have been carried out in the name of the Prince of Peace.
Let's face it, Lady Rhi, some of the Egyptian deities were hardly paragons of beauty were they? The Roman ones were mostly human shaped though.
-
A-theism
Against theism ie god(s)
Its about belief.
Atheism is a LACK of belief NOT a belief!
It varies, doesn't it? For some it is an absence of belief, but for others it is a specific declaration that gods do not exist.
No, it doesn't vary. All have an absence of belief in gods, just not all declare gods don't exist.
Well that's two variants. Those who declare no gods exist are stating a definite position, no?
Yes, but they still don't believe gods exist. You were saying some atheists do A, but some do B. I'm just clarifying that all do A, but some do B too.
-
A-theism
Against theism ie god(s)
Its about belief.
Atheism is a LACK of belief NOT a belief!
It varies, doesn't it? For some it is an absence of belief, but for others it is a specific declaration that gods do not exist.
No, it doesn't vary. All have an absence of belief in gods, just not all declare gods don't exist.
Well that's two variants. Those who declare no gods exist are stating a definite position, no?
Yes, but they still don't believe gods exist. You were saying some atheists do A, but some do B. I'm just clarifying that all do A, but some do B too.
Methinks that is splitting hairs somewhat. It's a given that the Bs are also As, isn't it? So atheism does vary.
Not as much as paganism though. :)
-
Methinks that is splitting hairs somewhat. It's a given that the Bs are also As, isn't it? So atheism does vary.
Not as much as paganism though. :)
No, it's just accurate. ;)
Atheists vary, just as everyone does anyway. Atheism doesn't.
-
Regardless of how a deity looks...I think the morals and behaviour patterns encouraged by the group is more important IMO.
If the deity looks nice, gentle and handsome...but if the group encourages divisiveness, pride, selfishness, condemnation of others, violence and so on...then the deity is demonic.
If a deity looks ugly and harsh.... but the group encourages inclusiveness, selflessness, humility, tolerance, peace and nonviolence...then the deity is godly.
This is a very good point. It doesn't matter at all what an image looks like, or what title a deity has come to that, but what it inspires in its followers. Think what actions have been carried out in the name of the Prince of Peace.
Let's face it, Lady Rhi, some of the Egyptian deities were hardly paragons of beauty were they? The Roman ones were mostly human shaped though.
I don't know that human=beautiful. Is there anything lovelier than sharing one's life with a living representation of Bastet?
And the moon is quite lovely too. And the ocean, mountaintop, waterfall, snail, seedling...
-
Methinks that is splitting hairs somewhat. It's a given that the Bs are also As, isn't it? So atheism does vary.
Not as much as paganism though. :)
No, it's just accurate. ;)
Atheists vary, just as everyone does anyway. Atheism doesn't.
Well it does a bit.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism
-
Regardless of how a deity looks...I think the morals and behaviour patterns encouraged by the group is more important IMO.
If the deity looks nice, gentle and handsome...but if the group encourages divisiveness, pride, selfishness, condemnation of others, violence and so on...then the deity is demonic.
If a deity looks ugly and harsh.... but the group encourages inclusiveness, selflessness, humility, tolerance, peace and nonviolence...then the deity is godly.
This is a very good point. It doesn't matter at all what an image looks like, or what title a deity has come to that, but what it inspires in its followers. Think what actions have been carried out in the name of the Prince of Peace.
Let's face it, Lady Rhi, some of the Egyptian deities were hardly paragons of beauty were they? The Roman ones were mostly human shaped though.
I don't know that human=beautiful. Is there anything lovelier than sharing one's life with a living representation of Bastet?
And the moon is quite lovely too. And the ocean, mountaintop, waterfall, snail, seedling...
Conceded!
-
Your post as usual has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence - the word is Wicca, not wicker ::)
I know... It was simply a gliche
The word is cliché.
But what is your excuse... Why reply to a spelling mistake and not the contents.
The contents are an incoherent word salad.
My excuse is exhaustion what is yours for not being able to produce an argument for the post?
I've just provided it - most of the time what you come out with isn't even comprehensible English.
-
If a deity looks ugly and harsh.... but the group encourages inclusiveness, selflessness, humility, tolerance, peace and nonviolence...then the deity is godly.
I suppose it depends on what is included within inclusiveness.
By the way, Sriram, from what I have read of world belief systems, Christianity is the only one that was for the whole of humanity from its very inception.
Hope,
I don't know about that. Christians have always been trying to make everyone a Christian. They never recognized the merits of other belief systems and never accepted anyone else as knowledgeable and blessed. It is probably the very smug...'we are the only blessed ones'... attitude of the Jews that brushed off on the Christians as well.
However, having said that I and most Indians are very appreciative of the service mindedness of Christians. The missionaries, nuns and others who traveled far and wide into unknown and often dangerous places... and their brave and tireless efforts to serve the poor, to cure the ailing and to educate the people ....is truly amazing! Proves that faith can work wonders.
In recent decades Hindus have tried to pick up a few of these laudable qualities from Christians.
-
I don't know about that. Christians have always been trying to make everyone a Christian. They never recognized the merits of other belief systems and never accepted anyone else as knowledgeable and blessed. It is probably the very smug...'we are the only blessed ones'... attitude of the Jews that brushed off on the Christians as well.
Excellent point.
-
However, having said that I and most Indians are very appreciative of the service mindedness of Christians. The missionaries, nuns and others who traveled far and wide into unknown and often dangerous places... and their brave and tireless efforts to serve the poor, to cure the ailing and to educate the people ....is truly amazing! Proves that faith can work wonders.
Unfortunately, the "educating" includes teaching them belief in a false "God". Every rose has a thorn.
In recent decades Hindus have tried to pick up a few of these laudable qualities from Christians.
Then I hope they take note of the above failing.
-
I don't know about that. Christians have always been trying to make everyone a Christian. They never recognized the merits of other belief systems and never accepted anyone else as knowledgeable and blessed. It is probably the very smug...'we are the only blessed ones'... attitude of the Jews that brushed off on the Christians as well.
Excellent point.
Thanks Shaker! :)
-
However, having said that I and most Indians are very appreciative of the service mindedness of Christians. The missionaries, nuns and others who traveled far and wide into unknown and often dangerous places... and their brave and tireless efforts to serve the poor, to cure the ailing and to educate the people ....is truly amazing! Proves that faith can work wonders.
Unfortunately, the "educating" includes teaching them belief in a false "God". Every rose has a thorn.
Spreading the faith was their motivation...but they nevertheless helped millions of people. That is commendable.
-
However, having said that I and most Indians are very appreciative of the service mindedness of Christians. The missionaries, nuns and others who traveled far and wide into unknown and often dangerous places... and their brave and tireless efforts to serve the poor, to cure the ailing and to educate the people ....is truly amazing! Proves that faith can work wonders.
Unfortunately, the "educating" includes teaching them belief in a false "God". Every rose has a thorn.
In recent decades Hindus have tried to pick up a few of these laudable qualities from Christians.
Then I hope they take note of the above failing.
Agreed in toto.
-
However, having said that I and most Indians are very appreciative of the service mindedness of Christians. The missionaries, nuns and others who traveled far and wide into unknown and often dangerous places... and their brave and tireless efforts to serve the poor, to cure the ailing and to educate the people ....is truly amazing! Proves that faith can work wonders.
Unfortunately, the "educating" includes teaching them belief in a false "God". Every rose has a thorn.
Spreading the faith was their motivation...but they nevertheless helped millions of people. That is commendable.
Yes, they did, but at a price!
For people like the Aztecs and the Mayans who told them to go home and to take their religion with them the price was extinction via military actio or venerial disease.
-
OOHHH Interesting.
Would you please elaborate???
If you were referring to my comment, certainly.
I believe that there are multiple deities. I do not believe in one almighty deity who is responsible for everything that exists.
I believe that deity is present in all things but not a single deity.
I do not believe that all nature, that the whole universe is deity, a single deity.
What precisely do you mean by "deity?"
One or more of the Gods and Goddesses that make up my personal pantheon of deities.
Help me here. Do you see these gods as "beings," or spirits, or what?
No, they are entities, like yours, there, but invisible most of the time - usually until you call upon them. Rather like yours.
So, correct me if I'm wrong: your "entity" could be the self-same as mine, just perceived in a slightly different manner?
Get this once and for all BA - my deities are NOTHING like yours.
Aye, some are not the most friendly at times but they say what they mean, they mean what they say, they do not wrap it up in a load of shit so that they need a bunch of know-it-all priests to "interpret" their words.
If you fuck up your punishment will fit the crime (karma and the "three-fold law) not OTT eternal damnation in the Fires of Hell just for saying "I do not believe in you" and "I do not need you to "save" me".
Probably because they are all in your mind. What evidence do you have for "their" existence?
-
I like where this is going ;)
-
What precisely do you mean by "deity?"
One or more of the Gods and Goddesses that make up my personal pantheon of deities.
Help me here. Do you see these gods as "beings," or spirits, or what?
No, they are entities, like yours, there, but invisible most of the time - usually until you call upon them. Rather like yours.
So, correct me if I'm wrong: your "entity" could be the self-same as mine, just perceived in a slightly different manner?
Get this once and for all BA - my deities are NOTHING like yours.
Aye, some are not the most friendly at times but they say what they mean, they mean what they say, they do not wrap it up in a load of shit so that they need a bunch of know-it-all priests to "interpret" their words.
If you fuck up your punishment will fit the crime (karma and the "three-fold law) not OTT eternal damnation in the Fires of Hell just for saying "I do not believe in you" and "I do not need you to "save" me".
Probably because they are all in your mind. What evidence do you have for "their" existence?
As I have said to Floo elsewhere.
Drop the evidence shit OK.
You cannot "prove" the existence of your deity any more than I can "prove" the existence of mine.
Why?
If you weren't so stuck in trying to "dis" my beliefs to the aggrandisement of your own you would be able to see it - either that or you are just too stupid to see it.
You cannot, I cannot, no-one can, "prove" the existence of something that is a belief, a matter of faith.
Now do me a favour either knock of the faux-stupid questions that, presumably, make you think that you are cleverer than I or just shut up.
-
What precisely do you mean by "deity?"
One or more of the Gods and Goddesses that make up my personal pantheon of deities.
Help me here. Do you see these gods as "beings," or spirits, or what?
No, they are entities, like yours, there, but invisible most of the time - usually until you call upon them. Rather like yours.
So, correct me if I'm wrong: your "entity" could be the self-same as mine, just perceived in a slightly different manner?
Get this once and for all BA - my deities are NOTHING like yours.
Aye, some are not the most friendly at times but they say what they mean, they mean what they say, they do not wrap it up in a load of shit so that they need a bunch of know-it-all priests to "interpret" their words.
If you fuck up your punishment will fit the crime (karma and the "three-fold law) not OTT eternal damnation in the Fires of Hell just for saying "I do not believe in you" and "I do not need you to "save" me".
Probably because they are all in your mind. What evidence do you have for "their" existence?
As I have said to Floo elsewhere.
Drop the evidence shit OK.
You cannot "prove" the existence of your deity any more than I can "prove" the existence of mine.
Why?
If you weren't so stuck in trying to "dis" my beliefs to the aggrandisement of your own you would be able to see it - either that or you are just too stupid to see it.
You cannot, I cannot, no-one can, "prove" the existence of something that is a belief, a matter of faith.
Now do me a favour either knock of the faux-stupid questions that, presumably, make you think that you are cleverer than I or just shut up.
Tetchy old guy, aren't you!
So, you are just saying, you made these deities up and expect people to accept that as real?
"...make you think that you are cleverer than I." That is self-evident, old son!! :)
-
Sorry but shouldn't that be said TO a Christian & not FROM one???
N
-
Sorry but shouldn't that be said TO a Christian & not FROM one???
N
It is, just about every day. The difference is, there is not one tiny scrap of evidence to support CMG KCMG GCMG's claims. He can't even put forward any clue as to their existence or "form." It's all in the mind, I'm afraid.
-
Well God IS, of course.
I'm NOT an atheist but there's really NO way to prove a God.
Personally I don't care what others think. as said in the other thread.
What matters is your ACTIONS NOT gobbing off all the time & arguing over non-provable things ?!!??!
-
Well God IS, of course.
I'm NOT an atheist but there's really NO way to prove a God.
Personally I don't care what others think. as said in the other thread.
What matters is your ACTIONS NOT gobbing off all the time & arguing over non-provable things ?!!??!
Are you watching, Shaker, and the rest of you atheists?
-
What precisely do you mean by "deity?"
One or more of the Gods and Goddesses that make up my personal pantheon of deities.
Help me here. Do you see these gods as "beings," or spirits, or what?
No, they are entities, like yours, there, but invisible most of the time - usually until you call upon them. Rather like yours.
So, correct me if I'm wrong: your "entity" could be the self-same as mine, just perceived in a slightly different manner?
Get this once and for all BA - my deities are NOTHING like yours.
Aye, some are not the most friendly at times but they say what they mean, they mean what they say, they do not wrap it up in a load of shit so that they need a bunch of know-it-all priests to "interpret" their words.
If you fuck up your punishment will fit the crime (karma and the "three-fold law) not OTT eternal damnation in the Fires of Hell just for saying "I do not believe in you" and "I do not need you to "save" me".
Probably because they are all in your mind. What evidence do you have for "their" existence?
As I have said to Floo elsewhere.
Drop the evidence shit OK.
You cannot "prove" the existence of your deity any more than I can "prove" the existence of mine.
Why?
If you weren't so stuck in trying to "dis" my beliefs to the aggrandisement of your own you would be able to see it - either that or you are just too stupid to see it.
You cannot, I cannot, no-one can, "prove" the existence of something that is a belief, a matter of faith.
Now do me a favour either knock of the faux-stupid questions that, presumably, make you think that you are cleverer than I or just shut up.
Tetchy old guy, aren't you!
So, you are just saying, you made these deities up and expect people to accept that as real?
"...make you think that you are cleverer than I." That is self-evident, old son!! :)
Google Cernnunos and Cerridwen, and Hecate, and Isis, Astarte, Bast, Horus, - just few "made up" deities for you. Deities that pre-date your deitiy by thousands of years!
Cleverer than you? I would only need an IQ in double figures to achieve that, but if you are happy in your delusional world whpo amI to complain.
-
Google Cernnunos and Cerridwen, and Hecate, and Isis, Astarte, Bast, Horus, - just few "made up" deities for you. Deities that pre-date your deitiy by thousands of years!
Cleverer than you? I would only need an IQ in double figures to achieve that, but if you are happy in your delusional world whpo amI to complain.
That's ironic, coming from a guy with an IQ smaller than his shoe size. :)
Is "whpo amI' another of your gods? :)
-
It is, just about every day. The difference is, there is not one tiny scrap of evidence to support CMG KCMG GCMG's claims. He can't even put forward any clue as to their existence or "form." It's all in the mind, I'm afraid.
Good point whereas for Christianity the evidence in favour doesn't consist of even a tiny scrap. It's totally different.
-
It is, just about every day. The difference is, there is not one tiny scrap of evidence to support CMG KCMG GCMG's claims. He can't even put forward any clue as to their existence or "form." It's all in the mind, I'm afraid.
Good point whereas for Christianity the evidence in favour doesn't consist of even a tiny scrap. It's totally different.
I thought you knew a little about Christianity?
-
Isn't that ALL you need to be a Christian ???? ;)
-
Isn't that ALL you need to be a Christian ???? ;)
Atheists seem to think so, but hey, they know nothing. :)
-
I thought you knew a little about Christianity?
I know quite a lot about it. Why do you ask?
-
Your post as usual has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence - the word is Wicca, not wicker ::)
I know... It was simply a gliche
The word is cliché.
I know my spell checker told me.... but loved giving you the needle.
But what is your excuse... Why reply to a spelling mistake and not the contents.
The contents are an incoherent word salad.
You would have took great joy in stating that had it been true in the first reply.
You are slipping and others of us are just laughing....
My excuse is exhaustion what is yours for not being able to produce an argument for the post?
I've just provided it - most of the time what you come out with isn't even comprehensible English.
What a load of tosh... What I am smiling at is the fact everyone knows you are like a knife which once sharp is now blunt. Make up any excuse you like but it was clear... Paganism is related to the dark side... you just keep deluding yourself....
-
If a deity looks ugly and harsh.... but the group encourages inclusiveness, selflessness, humility, tolerance, peace and nonviolence...then the deity is godly.
I suppose it depends on what is included within inclusiveness.
By the way, Sriram, from what I have read of world belief systems, Christianity is the only one that was for the whole of humanity from its very inception.
Hope,
I don't know about that. Christians have always been trying to make everyone a Christian. They never recognized the merits of other belief systems and never accepted anyone else as knowledgeable and blessed. It is probably the very smug...'we are the only blessed ones'... attitude of the Jews that brushed off on the Christians as well.
However, having said that I and most Indians are very appreciative of the service mindedness of Christians. The missionaries, nuns and others who traveled far and wide into unknown and often dangerous places... and their brave and tireless efforts to serve the poor, to cure the ailing and to educate the people ....is truly amazing! Proves that faith can work wonders.
In recent decades Hindus have tried to pick up a few of these laudable qualities from Christians.
So Siriam Islam and other religions do not believe or want everyone to be Muslims.
You see Christians know that everyone cannot be made to believe it is a personal choice and no matter what you think you are wrong. Christians have not been trying to make everyone a Christian because you cannot give someone your oil they have to have their own. What Christians have done is enabled others to make their choice. Read Acts 10 where the good news was told and those who believed actually received,
What other religion can do that. keyboard not working correctly excuse the lack off use of question marks etc
-
As I have said to Floo elsewhere.
Drop the evidence shit OK.
You cannot "prove" the existence of your deity any more than I can "prove" the existence of mine.
Why?
If you weren't so stuck in trying to "dis" my beliefs to the aggrandisement of your own you would be able to see it - either that or you are just too stupid to see it.
You cannot, I cannot, no-one can, "prove" the existence of something that is a belief, a matter of faith.
Now do me a favour either knock of the faux-stupid questions that, presumably, make you think that you are cleverer than I or just shut up.
He doesn't have to think he is cleverer. When it comes to the bible and his faith he is cleverer than you.
TRUTH.. is what you lack.... and the ability to reason and question what the bible teaches.
You see the bible does provide evidence...
The truth is you don't seek that evidence for the sake of truth and to change accordingly.
BA does have evidence which is given to him and other believers alone.
You choose not to seek it or want to find it.... That is your choice and your
He can prove it to himself you have to get your own proof. The truth is you don't want it and your gods don't require proof as we both know already they don''t exist and never have....
-
What a load of tosh... What I am smiling at is the fact everyone knows you are like a knife which once sharp is now blunt. Make up any excuse you like but it was clear... Paganism is related to the dark side... you just keep deluding yourself....
As I have stated to another who thinks they know Paganism - what yoiu DO know about paganism could be written on a flea's arse with a baseball bat dipped in tar.
You are just upset because your Christianity tried to wipe out pagan religions (for which evidence exists - the Venus of Willendorf - dating back to between 25,000 and 23,000 BCE) and failed miserably!
It is Wicca, which is only a branch of Paganism, that is made up; made up by Gerald B Gardner in the 1950's, and even his most devoted followers have come to recognise that.
Modern Paganism (neo-Paganism) has never been attached to the Dark Side, the Left Hand Path, though it is known that some ancient Pagan beliefs were "Dark" to the Christians, but then anything that was not Christainity was so classified.
-
Of course, Muslims also seek to promote and spread their religion....much more violently than Christians. I think this tendency to think of themselves as very special custodians of the real truth....is a strong meme that has been inherited from Judaism by both Christians and Muslims.
Jews of course don't seek to convert anyone. They probably believe that no one else is qualified to be in the exclusive club of Gods's chosen people.
In any case, this idea of being God's exclusive people is lot of nonsense. All good, peaceful people are God's people. The Truth is in everyone...and everyone has to develop and grow to attain freedom. Even atheists. No exceptions.
-
The Truth is in everyone...and everyone has to develop and grow to attain freedom. Even atheists. No exceptions.
Sriram has spoken! :)
-
The Truth is in everyone...and everyone has to develop and grow to attain freedom. Even atheists. No exceptions.
Sriram has spoken! :)
Yes... :D. You can't get away. You are part of the school of life too. ;)
-
The Truth is in everyone...and everyone has to develop and grow to attain freedom. Even atheists. No exceptions.
Sriram has spoken! :)
Yes... :D. You can't get away. You are part of the school of life too. ;)
Indeed! But I am NOT, as you stated, one of "God's" people, because as far as I am concerned "God" doesn't exist.
-
Yes... :D. You can't get away. You are part of the school of life too. ;)
Indeed! But I am NOT, as you stated, one of "God's" people, because as far as I am concerned "God" doesn't exist.
Have you read the thread ...'Tat Tvam Asi'..?!
-
Yes... :D. You can't get away. You are part of the school of life too. ;)
Indeed! But I am NOT, as you stated, one of "God's" people, because as far as I am concerned "God" doesn't exist.
Have you read the thread ...'Tat Tvam Asi'..?!
Yes, but I find it pretentious nonsense. :)
-
Have you read the thread ...'Tat Tvam Asi'..?!
Yes, but I find it pretentious nonsense. :)
What is pretentious about it? It is what all philosophers and mystics over the centuries have taught.
-
Have you read the thread ...'Tat Tvam Asi'..?!
Yes, but I find it pretentious nonsense. :)
What is pretentious about it? It is what all philosophers and mystics over the centuries have taught.
That doesn't impress me. It's still all guesswork.
-
What a load of tosh... What I am smiling at is the fact everyone knows you are like a knife which once sharp is now blunt. Make up any excuse you like but it was clear... Paganism is related to the dark side... you just keep deluding yourself....
As I have stated to another who thinks they know Paganism - what you DO know about paganism could be written on a flea's arse with a baseball bat dipped in tar.
What you write is really tantamount to a joke and your opinion are worthless as ice cubes to an Eskimo. I know about paganism and I have read up on many things to do with it.
What I wrote is a fact but you are selective when it comes to truth. If it walked up and introduced itself you would not recognise it...
You are just upset because your Christianity tried to wipe out pagan religions (for which evidence exists - the Venus of Willendorf - dating back to between 25,000 and 23,000 BCE) and failed miserably!
I have to laugh... there is absolutely nothing tangible about paganism to wipe out. Other than the sacrificing of humans and children. Baal was a pagan god whom children were sacrificed to. You have to be deluded to think Christ or his followers would be upset about something we all know definitely only exists in the minds of pagans.. I suppose what upsets you more than anything is that our beliefs are not know to be fallacies unlike your own. Nah the truth shows only you are upset.
It is Wicca, which is only a branch of Paganism, that is made up; made up by Gerald B Gardner in the 1950's, and even his most devoted followers have come to recognise that.
An opinion NOT a fact.
As I said they tried to separate it by trying to make it a myth. Shows how little you know.
Modern Paganism (neo-Paganism) has never been attached to the Dark Side, the Left Hand Path, though it is known that some ancient Pagan beliefs were "Dark" to the Christians, but then anything that was not Christainity was so classified.
Is a modern form of Paganism which tried to separate itself from the true history of bloody and dark side of it's origins...You are so easily deluded as your belief in paganism proves... It has not basis in TRUTH... THAT is the TRUTH...
-
Sriram,
You won't get any converts here... ;D
-
Hi Sass,
It has not basis in TRUTH... THAT is the TRUTH...
Which makes it just the same as your belief. Everybody swallows their own god story, without regard for the fact that none of them exist. ;D
-
Sass: Stop generalising - it does niether you, nor the cause of Christ, any favours.
Baal worship was a tiny part of what you call paganism.
Human sacrifice, archaeologically speaking, an even tinier.
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
It persisted in uthe insignificant nation states between the Fertile crescent and the Nile Valley untill the Assyrians wiped it out.
If there was Iron age human sacrifice in Europe from c500BC onwards (and modern historians doubt the Roman claims as propaganda), it was wiped out before the end of thw first century AD - and the advance of Christianity had barely touched Europe by then.
Whether you accept modern neo-paganism or not (and, as a believer, I accept only One way to God - Christ Jesus, God Invcarnate). it has little or nothing in common with satanism, clairvoyants, seances, or drivel like that - most of which was actually invented, not by pagans, but by ex-Christians, whomnot I, but a far greater judge, will judge in due course.
Whatever happens is up to Him.
-
Sass: Stop generalising - it does niether you, nor the cause of Christ, any favours.
Baal worship was a tiny part of what you call paganism.
Human sacrifice, archaeologically speaking, an even tinier.
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
It persisted in uthe insignificant nation states between the Fertile crescent and the Nile Valley untill the Assyrians wiped it out.
If there was Iron age human sacrifice in Europe from c500BC onwards (and modern historians doubt the Roman claims as propaganda), it was wiped out before the end of thw first century AD - and the advance of Christianity had barely touched Europe by then.
Whether you accept modern neo-paganism or not (and, as a believer, I accept only One way to God - Christ Jesus, God Invcarnate). it has little or nothing in common with satanism, clairvoyants, seances, or drivel like that - most of which was actually invented, not by pagans, but by ex-Christians, whomnot I, but a far greater judge, will judge in due course.
You and I, Anchorman will never, in a million years, agree on the Christian deity being the only TRUE deity.
As far as I am concerned Christianity has as much validity, and no more than, all other religions and atheism; we are entitled to our views on the subject and, as I have said many times before, they are, until we reach the life after death for proof positive to the contrary, matters of personal faith - a case of you go your way I'll go mine and if we meet in the pub sometime I'll buy you a dram. Glenfiddich?.
I thank you for your post above, I have spent the last eight or nine years studying the history of Paganism and Witchcraft and to have to plough through Sassy's interminal rubbish that he (she?) spouts under the guise of his (her) sure and certain knowledge on the subject is wearying in the extreme and it was great to read a post by a committed Christian who actually knows what they are talking about.
As Dave Allen used to say at the end of his TV shows - May your God go with you (with a slight emphasis oon the 'your').
-
Glenfiddich?
Hmmmmm, nah - Laphroaig!
Seriously;
As you know, as an Egypt-type geek, I looked at the three or four thousand years of the Nile valley and surrounding civilisations.
Most, in cluding Egypt, practiced some form of human sacrifice around 3000BC. By 1500 BC, none of the major powers touched it with a ten foot ankh.
As a Christian, I obviously think a lot about Israel and her history from c1000BC onwards.
However, as a historian, while I recognise that, biblically, the events surrounding the states in what is now Syria-Palestine are vitally important, to be honest, they were never more than a footnote in history.
The major powers - Egypt, Naharin, Mittanni, and later, Assyria, Babylon and Persia, played them against each other, much as America and Russia did during the cold war.
And those major powers, whom Sass would describe as pagan, had long abandoned human sacrifice (mainly because it was uneconomic), and, indeed, adopted many and various law codes which bear striking similarities to the Ten Commandments.
-
MM Interesting stuff A.
Why are you surprised OTHER civilisations have their 'own' 10 Commandments?
Human nature's basically the same the world over.... Always has been.
-
MM Interesting stuff A.
Why are you surprised OTHER civilisations have their 'own' 10 Commandments?
Human nature's basically the same the world over.... Always has been.
-
Who's surprised?
After all, any city-state whiche evolves into a nation needs some kind of rules or order to keep it running.
If it has no such set up. it lasts about as long as one of Sass's pronouncements.
-
LOL Yes !!!!
Cos you used the the word striking which implies, to me, a kind of surprise.
Nick
-
Sriram,
You won't get any converts here... ;D
LOL! Sassy...I am not trying to convert anyone.
What I am saying is the basis of your religion too. Just go into its esoteric teachings and you'll know. Its the basis of all spirituality and religions. Even science will eventually realize (its beginning to in some areas) that our inner consciousness is the foundation of all phenomena.
-
;D
Ah maybe I should come back here more often.. it doesn't get more amusing that Sriram's imaginations on what science will 'eventually realise".
This from someone who doesn't even realise that most of what they say is held in the same esteem as the views of meth drinkers and the corn circle society!!! ;)
Satan doesn't seem such a bad option after all!!
-
This from someone who doesn't even realise that most of what they say is held in the same esteem as the views of meth drinkers and the corn circle society!!! ;)
". . . held in the same esteem . . . " - by whom?
You, obviously, but for who else, for what learned body, do you speak?
-
Dear CMG KCMG GCMG, ( can I just call you C )
It's just Rabbac being Rabbac, he mellows after a few ciders.
Gonnagle.
-
This from someone who doesn't even realise that most of what they say is held in the same esteem as the views of meth drinkers and the corn circle society!!! ;)
". . . held in the same esteem . . . " - by whom?
You, obviously, but for who else, for what learned body, do you speak?
NOBODY ELSE. I have respect for Sriram's views anyway, as he knows !!!!
-
Dear CMG KCMG GCMG, ( can I just call you C )
It's just Rabbac being Rabbac, he mellows after a few ciders.
Gonnagle.
Call me whatever you like as long as it is not late for meals!
-
Thanks a lot Nick, Gonnagle and CMG....for your support. :)
Thanks KO too for your kind thoughts! ::)
-
Sass: Stop generalising - it does niether you, nor the cause of Christ, any favours.
Baal worship was a tiny part of what you call paganism.
Human sacrifice, archaeologically speaking, an even tinier.
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
It persisted in uthe insignificant nation states between the Fertile crescent and the Nile Valley untill the Assyrians wiped it out.
If there was Iron age human sacrifice in Europe from c500BC onwards (and modern historians doubt the Roman claims as propaganda), it was wiped out before the end of thw first century AD - and the advance of Christianity had barely touched Europe by then.
Whether you accept modern neo-paganism or not (and, as a believer, I accept only One way to God - Christ Jesus, God Invcarnate). it has little or nothing in common with satanism, clairvoyants, seances, or drivel like that - most of which was actually invented, not by pagans, but by ex-Christians, whomnot I, but a far greater judge, will judge in due course.
Whatever happens is up to Him.
Stop making excuses to suck up to the pagans and stop treating this as if a personal attack somehow.
Why don't you stop making excuses... Anything that is not born of God, Christ, the Spirit and Truth is pagan. Because all that is false in any century is born of the devil the Father of all lies...
Paganism, Baal, Seti and all false gods are born of the devil.
You can make as many excuses as you like and talk about any century but the truth does not change. Now how about telling the truth that all that is false is condemned. Why lie and make people think they are secure in such beliefs. Take a lesson in truth. It might save your life.
-
What a load of tosh... What I am smiling at is the fact everyone knows you are like a knife which once sharp is now blunt. Make up any excuse you like but it was clear... Paganism is related to the dark side... you just keep deluding yourself....
As I have stated to another who thinks they know Paganism - what you DO know about paganism could be written on a flea's arse with a baseball bat dipped in tar.
What you write is really tantamount to a joke and your opinion are worthless as ice cubes to an Eskimo. I know about paganism and I have read up on many things to do with it.
What I wrote is a fact but you are selective when it comes to truth. If it walked up and introduced itself you would not recognise it...
You are just upset because your Christianity tried to wipe out pagan religions (for which evidence exists - the Venus of Willendorf - dating back to between 25,000 and 23,000 BCE) and failed miserably!
I have to laugh... there is absolutely nothing tangible about paganism to wipe out. Other than the sacrificing of humans and children. Baal was a pagan god whom children were sacrificed to. You have to be deluded to think Christ or his followers would be upset about something we all know definitely only exists in the minds of pagans.. I suppose what upsets you more than anything is that our beliefs are not know to be fallacies unlike your own. Nah the truth shows only you are upset.
It is Wicca, which is only a branch of Paganism, that is made up; made up by Gerald B Gardner in the 1950's, and even his most devoted followers have come to recognise that.
An opinion NOT a fact.
As I said they tried to separate it by trying to make it a myth. Shows how little you know.
Modern Paganism (neo-Paganism) has never been attached to the Dark Side, the Left Hand Path, though it is known that some ancient Pagan beliefs were "Dark" to the Christians, but then anything that was not Christainity was so classified.
Is a modern form of Paganism which tried to separate itself from the true history of bloody and dark side of it's origins...You are so easily deluded as your belief in paganism proves... It has not basis in TRUTH... THAT is the TRUTH...
Errr, sassy? Where to start with your post? I guess the opening sentence 😉
Ice cubes are very useful to Eskimos, it's how they build igloos
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/b4/eb/aa/b4ebaafe25f7322dc0fffbc3ce3d5655.jpg
Christians demonised Paganism in their attempt to convert Pagans, it's all propaganda.
Pagans weren't really like Early Christians painted them, did you not realise this?
Man and pagan beliefs caused them to sacrifice their children to these false gods.
No one demonised anyone... BRUSH up on the truth the pagans changed and dropped some of their beliefs because their history was bad.
-
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
I thought Christ was human and was a sacrifice?
-
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
I thought Christ was human and was a sacrifice?
Touche!
-
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
I thought Christ was human and was a sacrifice?
Christ wasn't sacrificed to God.
Christ was the sacrifice for man and the sins they had committed to bring us back to God. The living sacrifice not sacrificed by man or God, but he gave up his life no one took it from him. At any time he asked God would have rescued him because he had NO sin in him.
It is the selfless love of one man for the whole of mankind.
Just as you would risk your life to run into a burning building to rescue a child.
Sometimes it is easier to risk your life than feel filled with guilt having to watch and doing nothing whilst another comes to harm.
It is more to Christs credit that he would do it for anyones child not just his own. He did it for all Gods creation. Self sacrifice is different from enforced sacrifice which those poor children had no choice in. What type of evil can a person possess that would allow them to burn or kill a child for their false god.
Today we are protective toward our children. Can you ever imagine a time when people did not care and could kill them? Or did they scream out when their turn came and the other parents allowed it to happen?
Two things God taught us... He does not want human sacrifice. He taught Abraham that and the people of Israel. I feel the lesson is again taught in judges makes it clear not to offer God something he does not want.
30 And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,
31 Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD'S, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering.
34 And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter.
35 And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that trouble me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back.
Now we know that it is not good to offer human sacrifices as God finds it an abomination.
I find that sad that someone can promise another as a sacrifice. God is not happy with human sacrificing. What I do know it was ignorance and superstition which caused such evil. I think it is mans saddest history that they killed their own children. Hitler killed the children of the Jews and those who were not Jews but disabled. A sad world that once existed. Thank God man knows better now.
-
The Romans crucified Jesus after pressure from the religious mafia of the day. The dying for humans 'sins' and the resurrection story, were concocted by his followers, imo!
-
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
I thought Christ was human and was a sacrifice?
Christ wasn't sacrificed to God.
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
-
The Romans crucified Jesus after pressure from the religious mafia of the day. The dying for humans 'sins' and the resurrection story, were concocted by his followers, imo!
And what grounds did the 'religious mafia of the day' (aka the Jewish religious leadership) use to pressurise the Romans, Floo?
-
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
Well done jakswan, you seem to be learning. Yes, Jesus was fully human, but at the same time, he remained fully God. Now, just how that occurred is outside your or my understanding, but as that is how Jesus described himself.
-
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
Well done jakswan, you seem to be learning. Yes, Jesus was fully human, but at the same time, he remained fully God. Now, just how that occurred is outside your or my understanding, but as that is how Jesus described himself.
Interesting admission.
-
Interesting admission.
Not sure that jakswan has admitted anything yet: as for anything you think I might have 'admitted', it ain't new. I've been saying it for years.
-
The Romans crucified Jesus after pressure from the religious mafia of the day. The dying for humans 'sins' and the resurrection story, were concocted by his followers, imo!
And what grounds did the 'religious mafia of the day' (aka the Jewish religious leadership) use to pressurise the Romans, Floo?
Well they obviously did or Jesus wouldn't have been executed, would he?
-
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
Well done jakswan, you seem to be learning. Yes, Jesus was fully human, but at the same time, he remained fully God. Now, just how that occurred is outside your or my understanding, but as that is how Jesus described himself.
Maybe it occurred by magic, as BHS uses to say 'if magic then anything'. :)
-
In Montana there is a statue of Jesus of 50 years standing which a group of atheists and agnostics wanted pulling down.
It was ruled against because it is a popular meeting place for normal people.
-
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
Well done jakswan, you seem to be learning. Yes, Jesus was fully human, but at the same time, he remained fully God. Now, just how that occurred is outside your or my understanding, but as that is how Jesus described himself.
Maybe it occurred by magic, as BHS uses to say 'if magic then anything'. :)
Yes that sounds like the sort of thing Elvis would have said.
-
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
Well done jakswan, you seem to be learning. Yes, Jesus was fully human, but at the same time, he remained fully God. Now, just how that occurred is outside your or my understanding, but as that is how Jesus described himself.
Oh dear. It's a logical contradiction to be both fully human and fully God. If bits of you are God, then clearly you are not fully human.
-
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
Well done jakswan, you seem to be learning. Yes, Jesus was fully human, but at the same time, he remained fully God. Now, just how that occurred is outside your or my understanding, but as that is how Jesus described himself.
Oh dear. It's a logical contradiction to be both fully human and fully God. If bits of you are God, then clearly you are not fully human.
That's rubbish since you can be fully antitheist and fully twat at the same time.
-
Straight for the Vlad hominem again I see ::)
-
In Montana there is a statue of Jesus of 50 years standing which a group of atheists and agnostics wanted pulling down.
It was ruled against because it is a popular meeting place for normal people.
Are you somehow suggesting that atheists and agnostics aren't 'normal people' - seems to be the obvious inference of your comment.
-
That's rubbish since you can be fully antitheist and fully twat at the same time.
Perhaps you should find a forum more suited to your intellect, I hear CBeebies has one.
-
In Montana there is a statue of Jesus of 50 years standing which a group of atheists and agnostics wanted pulling down.
It was ruled against because it is a popular meeting place for normal people.
Are you somehow suggesting that atheists and agnostics aren't 'normal people' - seems to be the obvious inference of your comment.
Of course that's what he meant - another Vladinsult!
As soon as Vlad gets rubbished he resorts to insults - see Shaker's post - hence to Vlad he's a twat!
Vlad is the twat because he cannot undestand what a contradiction is when one is pointed out to him!
-
In Montana there is a statue of Jesus of 50 years standing which a group of atheists and agnostics wanted pulling down.
It was ruled against because it is a popular meeting place for normal people.
Are you somehow suggesting that atheists and agnostics aren't 'normal people' - seems to be the obvious inference of your comment.
Nope I'm suggesting the group who want it pulled down are not the norm. The statue is a popular meeting place for secularist purposes and that probably includes lots of atheists and agnostics who aren't upset by statues i.e. normal people.
I suppose what I am saying is that there is a level where antitheism becomes a bit ''off the norm''
-
Straight for the Vlad hominem again I see ::)
Nope. Did I name names?
I'm just demonstrating that you can be fully one thing and fully something else at the same time.
-
Straight for the Vlad hominem again I see ::)
Nope. Did I name names?
I'm just demonstrating that you can be fully one thing and fully something else at the same time.
I wouldn't touch a straight line lie trhat with a barge-pole!
-
Straight for the Vlad hominem again I see ::)
Nope. Did I name names?
I'm just demonstrating that you can be fully one thing and fully something else at the same time.
I wouldn't touch a straight line lie trhat with a barge-pole!
Eh?
-
Nope I'm suggesting the group who want it pulled down are not the norm.
Disingenuous in the extreme.
And of course there is a difference between not being in the majority (i.e. not the norm) and not being a normal person. The first use isn't pejorative, merely reflecting a minority view (or characteristic) while characterising someone as not being a normal person is clearly pejorative.
Given that elsewhere you have suggested you believe that atheists are in the majority in the UK, would you therefore describe christians in the UK as not being 'normal people' which would be the obvious conclusion of your supposed argument. Somehow I doubt it. Likewise would you indicate that non white people in the UK are not normal people, which again would be consistent with your 'not the norm' view.
-
Nope I'm suggesting the group who want it pulled down are not the norm.
Disingenuous in the extreme.
And of course there is a difference between not being in the majority (i.e. not the norm) and not being a normal person. The first use isn't pejorative, merely reflecting a minority view (or characteristic) while characterising someone as not being a normal person is clearly pejorative.
Given that elsewhere you have suggested you believe that atheists are in the majority in the UK, would you therefore describe christians in the UK as not being 'normal people' which would be the obvious conclusion of your supposed argument. Somehow I doubt it.
If a group of Christians wanted a fifty year old statue of Bertrand Russell pulled down I would think that was ''off the norm'' and extreme if not a bit loopy.
Are you prepared then to defend the behaviour of antitheists no matter how abnormal?
-
Straight for the Vlad hominem again I see ::)
Nope. Did I name names?
I'm just demonstrating that you can be fully one thing and fully something else at the same time.
I wouldn't touch a straight line like that with a barge-pole!
Eh?
I've corrected the typo's - sorry about that!
-
Nope I'm suggesting the group who want it pulled down are not the norm.
Disingenuous in the extreme.
And of course there is a difference between not being in the majority (i.e. not the norm) and not being a normal person. The first use isn't pejorative, merely reflecting a minority view (or characteristic) while characterising someone as not being a normal person is clearly pejorative.
Given that elsewhere you have suggested you believe that atheists are in the majority in the UK, would you therefore describe christians in the UK as not being 'normal people' which would be the obvious conclusion of your supposed argument. Somehow I doubt it.
If a group of Christians wanted a fifty year old statue of Bertrand Russell pulled down I would think that was ''off the norm'' and extreme if not a bit loopy.
Are you prepared then to defend the behaviour of antitheists no matter how abnormal?
I didn't ask whether their view was 'off the norm' but whether they were 'normal people'. The notion that people who might hold minority views are somehow not normal people is deeply offensive - but of course you only use that in the context of atheists - quelle surprise!!
-
The notion that people who might hold minority views are somehow not normal people is deeply offensive - but of course you only use that in the context of atheists - quelle surprise!!
Excuse me, this is Vlad you're talking to now; I think you mean anti-theists. (It's the only term he knows).
-
The notion that people who might hold minority views are somehow not normal people is deeply offensive - but of course you only use that in the context of atheists - quelle surprise!!
Excuse me, this is Vlad you're talking to now; I think you mean anti-theists. (It's the only term he knows).
Indeed, but on this occasion he broadened his 'not normal people' bile to include atheists and agnostics.
He really does come across as someone whose irrational hatred of a particular group is so extreme is clouds everything he says - he comes across as so full of hatred and bile that you feel his head is going to explode at any time.
And it must be all the worse for him, given that he has indicated that he feels that the majority of the UK population are atheist so he must walk around twitching every time he passes someone in the street just in case they are one of the atheist 50+% and somehow out to get him.
-
If this statue is on a piece of publicly owned land it could be that it's against the US secular constitution to put it there, I'm not certain but this sounds like it to me.
Can't remember the details but there was some sort of case where someone or a group wanted a statue of a religious figure of some kind or a religious dedication placed in the foyer of one of their courthouses; it was taken to court, not a pun, and it had to be removed in accordance with their secular constitution. That case wouldn't have been any more than about five years ago.(I'll have a look and see if I can find the details; the above is all I can call to mind at the moment).
If that's all it is this non-religious group just didn't like the statue, I would side with Vlad; but I think it was more than likely something to do with with an infraction of their secular constitution that made them want it removed, in which case it's a perfectly legitimate principle that should be upheld.
ippy
PS, found it the info about The US secular constitution; one of the relevant cases.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/a-right-for-one-is-a-right-for-all
-
If this statue is on a piece of publicly owned land it could be that it's against the US secular constitution to put it there, I'm not certain but this sounds like it to me.
Can't remember the details but there was some sort of case where someone or a group wanted a statue of a religious figure of some kind or a religious dedication placed in the foyer of one of their courthouses; it was taken to court, not a pun, and it had to be removed in accordance with their secular constitution. That case wouldn't have been any more than about five years ago.(I'll have a look and see if I can find the details; the above is all I can call to mind at the moment).
If that's all it is this non-religious group just didn't like the statue, I would side with Vlad; but I think it was more than likely something to do with with an infraction of their secular constitution that made them want it removed, in which case it's a perfectly legitimate principle that should be upheld.
ippy
PS, found it the info about The US secular constitution; one of the relevant cases.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/a-right-for-one-is-a-right-for-all
You may be right. There are plenty in the USA who are obsessed with upholding the constitution and if this statue were 'unconstitutional' (i.e. violation of the constitutional separation of church and state) then I image the key reason for opposition would be on constitutional grounds and many of those who are most vocal in upholding the constitution aren't atheists but religious people with a strong affiliation to the constitution and traditions of the USA.
-
If this statue is on a piece of publicly owned land it could be that it's against the US secular constitution to put it there, I'm not certain but this sounds like it to me.
Can't remember the details but there was some sort of case where someone or a group wanted a statue of a religious figure of some kind or a religious dedication placed in the foyer of one of their courthouses; it was taken to court, not a pun, and it had to be removed in accordance with their secular constitution. That case wouldn't have been any more than about five years ago.(I'll have a look and see if I can find the details; the above is all I can call to mind at the moment).
If that's all it is this non-religious group just didn't like the statue, I would side with Vlad; but I think it was more than likely something to do with with an infraction of their secular constitution that made them want it removed, in which case it's a perfectly legitimate principle that should be upheld.
ippy
PS, found it the info about The US secular constitution; one of the relevant cases.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/a-right-for-one-is-a-right-for-all
You may be right. There are plenty in the USA who are obsessed with upholding the constitution and if this statue were 'unconstitutional' (i.e. violation of the constitutional separation of church and state) then I image the key reason for opposition would be on constitutional grounds and many of those who are most vocal in upholding the constitution aren't atheists but religious people with a strong affiliation to the constitution and traditions of the USA.
Hadn't thought of that Proff; mind you I shouldn't be surprised at anything the Americans do.
ippy
-
If this statue is on a piece of publicly owned land it could be that it's against the US secular constitution to put it there, I'm not certain but this sounds like it to me.
Can't remember the details but there was some sort of case where someone or a group wanted a statue of a religious figure of some kind or a religious dedication placed in the foyer of one of their courthouses; it was taken to court, not a pun, and it had to be removed in accordance with their secular constitution. That case wouldn't have been any more than about five years ago.(I'll have a look and see if I can find the details; the above is all I can call to mind at the moment).
If that's all it is this non-religious group just didn't like the statue, I would side with Vlad; but I think it was more than likely something to do with with an infraction of their secular constitution that made them want it removed, in which case it's a perfectly legitimate principle that should be upheld.
ippy
PS, found it the info about The US secular constitution; one of the relevant cases.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/a-right-for-one-is-a-right-for-all
You may be right. There are plenty in the USA who are obsessed with upholding the constitution and if this statue were 'unconstitutional' (i.e. violation of the constitutional separation of church and state) then I image the key reason for opposition would be on constitutional grounds and many of those who are most vocal in upholding the constitution aren't atheists but religious people with a strong affiliation to the constitution and traditions of the USA.
Actually just found details of the case.
And yes this was on federal land and therefore the challenge was on constitutional grounds, not due to atheists not liking religious statues. The challenge was lost, out of interest as the court concluded that the statue's purpose was primarily secular. There was a dissenting position from one of the judges.
What is interesting of course is that the challenge failed only because the court found that the statue's primary purpose was secular. By inference then were there to be a statue on federal land whose primary purpose was deemed to be religious then the challenge would have been upheld.
But the key point is that the challenge was purely on constitutional grounds.
-
If this statue is on a piece of publicly owned land it could be that it's against the US secular constitution to put it there, I'm not certain but this sounds like it to me.
Can't remember the details but there was some sort of case where someone or a group wanted a statue of a religious figure of some kind or a religious dedication placed in the foyer of one of their courthouses; it was taken to court, not a pun, and it had to be removed in accordance with their secular constitution. That case wouldn't have been any more than about five years ago.(I'll have a look and see if I can find the details; the above is all I can call to mind at the moment).
If that's all it is this non-religious group just didn't like the statue, I would side with Vlad; but I think it was more than likely something to do with with an infraction of their secular constitution that made them want it removed, in which case it's a perfectly legitimate principle that should be upheld.
ippy
PS, found it the info about The US secular constitution; one of the relevant cases.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/a-right-for-one-is-a-right-for-all
You may be right. There are plenty in the USA who are obsessed with upholding the constitution and if this statue were 'unconstitutional' (i.e. violation of the constitutional separation of church and state) then I image the key reason for opposition would be on constitutional grounds and many of those who are most vocal in upholding the constitution aren't atheists but religious people with a strong affiliation to the constitution and traditions of the USA.
LOL. It was reported to be a group of atheists and agnostics.
-
... which not only fails to prevent them from but perhaps actively encourages them to seek to uphold the Constitution.
-
If this statue is on a piece of publicly owned land it could be that it's against the US secular constitution to put it there, I'm not certain but this sounds like it to me.
Can't remember the details but there was some sort of case where someone or a group wanted a statue of a religious figure of some kind or a religious dedication placed in the foyer of one of their courthouses; it was taken to court, not a pun, and it had to be removed in accordance with their secular constitution. That case wouldn't have been any more than about five years ago.(I'll have a look and see if I can find the details; the above is all I can call to mind at the moment).
If that's all it is this non-religious group just didn't like the statue, I would side with Vlad; but I think it was more than likely something to do with with an infraction of their secular constitution that made them want it removed, in which case it's a perfectly legitimate principle that should be upheld.
ippy
PS, found it the info about The US secular constitution; one of the relevant cases.
http://www.secularism.org.uk/blog/2013/07/a-right-for-one-is-a-right-for-all
You may be right. There are plenty in the USA who are obsessed with upholding the constitution and if this statue were 'unconstitutional' (i.e. violation of the constitutional separation of church and state) then I image the key reason for opposition would be on constitutional grounds and many of those who are most vocal in upholding the constitution aren't atheists but religious people with a strong affiliation to the constitution and traditions of the USA.
LOL. It was reported to be a group of atheists and agnostics.
Actually the group that brought the case have the following 'strap-line' as their mission:
'Protecting the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state'
Looks like they are most concerned about the constitutional issue regardless of whether the group includes atheists and agnostics.
-
... which not only fails to prevent them from but perhaps actively encourages them to seek to uphold the Constitution.
Or they are just mean spirited god obsessed types.
or, Sooty, are you specially pleading that only brilliant theists like me can only be Dawkins obsessed?
-
... which not only fails to prevent them from but perhaps actively encourages them to seek to uphold the Constitution.
Or they are just mean spirited god obsessed types.
or, Sooty, are you specially pleading that only brilliant theists like me can only be Dawkins obsessed?
Apparently their purpose under their bylaw is to 'to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church'.
Sounds like they are focussed on upholding the constitutional first amendment to me. They may be obsessives, but it would appears they are 'upholding the constitution' obsessives.
-
... which not only fails to prevent them from but perhaps actively encourages them to seek to uphold the Constitution.
Or they are just mean spirited god obsessed types.
or, Sooty, are you specially pleading that only brilliant theists like me can only be Dawkins obsessed?
Apparently their purpose under their bylaw is to 'to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church'.
Sounds like they are focussed on upholding the constitutional first amendment to me. They may be obsessives, but it would appears they are 'upholding the constitution' obsessives.
And what pray has a statue which has been standing for 50 years and is popular with normal atheists, agnostics, christians and any body else to do with upholding the constitution?
-
Or they are just mean spirited god obsessed types.
Blimey - you describing others as mean spirited and obsessed. That really is pot and kettle given that you are just about the most mean spirited and obsessed person (in your case these mythical anti-theist types) around.
-
... which not only fails to prevent them from but perhaps actively encourages them to seek to uphold the Constitution.
Or they are just mean spirited god obsessed types.
or, Sooty, are you specially pleading that only brilliant theists like me can only be Dawkins obsessed?
Apparently their purpose under their bylaw is to 'to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church'.
Sounds like they are focussed on upholding the constitutional first amendment to me. They may be obsessives, but it would appears they are 'upholding the constitution' obsessives.
And what pray has a statue which has been standing for 50 years and is popular with normal atheists, agnostics, christians and any body else to do with upholding the constitution?
Read the first amendment.
Under the constitution overtly religious symbols cannot be allowed on federally owned land as that would amount to the state being seen to promote religion or a religion. Now I'm not making a point about whether that is right or wrong, merely that that is the constitutional principle.
In this case the challenge failed on the basis not that religious symbols may be allowed on federal land (no that isn't allowed) but because the court ruled that the statue's purpose was primarily secular and was not associated with worship or promotion of religion. Indeed the judgement makes the point by saying that it isn't used in any religious or meditative manner and is not treated in a 'reverent' manner, evidenced by the fact that ski-ers often take selfies with the statue having put their ski hats gloves etc on it.
Had it been used in an overtly religious manner (e.g. religious services held their, a place for regular prayer or meditation) then it is pretty clear that the challenge would have succeeded.
-
... which not only fails to prevent them from but perhaps actively encourages them to seek to uphold the Constitution.
Or they are just mean spirited god obsessed types.
or, Sooty, are you specially pleading that only brilliant theists like me can only be Dawkins obsessed?
Vlad you shouldn't be taking the Dawkings name in vein!
ippy
-
... which not only fails to prevent them from but perhaps actively encourages them to seek to uphold the Constitution.
Or they are just mean spirited god obsessed types.
or, Sooty, are you specially pleading that only brilliant theists like me can only be Dawkins obsessed?
Apparently their purpose under their bylaw is to 'to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church'.
Sounds like they are focussed on upholding the constitutional first amendment to me. They may be obsessives, but it would appears they are 'upholding the constitution' obsessives.
And what pray has a statue which has been standing for 50 years and is popular with normal atheists, agnostics, christians and any body else to do with upholding the constitution?
Read the first amendment.
Under the constitution overtly religious symbols cannot be allowed on federally owned land as that would amount to the state being seen to promote religion or a religion. Now I'm not making a point about whether that is right or wrong, merely that that is the constitutional principle.
In this case the challenge failed on the basis not that religious symbols may be allowed on federal land (no that isn't allowed) but because the court ruled that the statue's purpose was primarily secular and was not associated with worship or promotion of religion. Indeed the judgement makes the point by saying that it isn't used in any religious or meditative manner and is not treated in a 'reverent' manner, evidenced by the fact that ski-ers often take selfies with the statue having put their ski hats gloves etc on it.
Had it been used in an overtly religious manner (e.g. religious services held their, a place for regular prayer or meditation) then it is pretty clear that the challenge would have succeeded.
Yes I understand the challenge failed and normality was restored.
Presumably there will now be some group of atheists and agnostics patrol with drones ready to snap some hapless Buddhist having a quick meditation. I'm sure tape measures are at the ready.....................
I hope they show the same diligence in trying to prevent ''Jesus paints his nails'' being displayed on federal territory.
-
Here is a local news report on the case of the Jesus statue.
http://www.dailyinterlake.com/news/local_montana/appeals-court-says-jesus-statue-can-stay-on-mountain/article_4fee4de0-500c-11e5-a6a4-b78710b0d5ee.html
-
Hardly anything we didn't already know, is it?
-
Hardly anything we didn't already know, is it?
I didn't know it was a memorial to WW2 veterans.
-
Doesn't surprise me in the least.
-
... which not only fails to prevent them from but perhaps actively encourages them to seek to uphold the Constitution.
Or they are just mean spirited god obsessed types.
or, Sooty, are you specially pleading that only brilliant theists like me can only be Dawkins obsessed?
Apparently their purpose under their bylaw is to 'to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church'.
Sounds like they are focussed on upholding the constitutional first amendment to me. They may be obsessives, but it would appears they are 'upholding the constitution' obsessives.
And what pray has a statue which has been standing for 50 years and is popular with normal atheists, agnostics, christians and any body else to do with upholding the constitution?
Read the first amendment.
Under the constitution overtly religious symbols cannot be allowed on federally owned land as that would amount to the state being seen to promote religion or a religion. Now I'm not making a point about whether that is right or wrong, merely that that is the constitutional principle.
In this case the challenge failed on the basis not that religious symbols may be allowed on federal land (no that isn't allowed) but because the court ruled that the statue's purpose was primarily secular and was not associated with worship or promotion of religion. Indeed the judgement makes the point by saying that it isn't used in any religious or meditative manner and is not treated in a 'reverent' manner, evidenced by the fact that ski-ers often take selfies with the statue having put their ski hats gloves etc on it.
Had it been used in an overtly religious manner (e.g. religious services held their, a place for regular prayer or meditation) then it is pretty clear that the challenge would have succeeded.
Yes I understand the challenge failed and normality was restored.
Presumably there will now be some group of atheists and agnostics patrol with drones ready to snap some hapless Buddhist having a quick meditation. I'm sure tape measures are at the ready.....................
I hope they show the same diligence in trying to prevent ''Jesus paints his nails'' being displayed on federal territory.
Sure this challenge failed, but this isn't a one off situation. There have been a number of other similar cases, a number of which have been successful.
Perhaps the most relevant being a cross erected on the central reservation of a highway in Maryland, which was declared unconstitutional.
The whole point about these cases is adherence to (other otherwise) the American constitution, which millions of US citizens hold to be of critical importance, and that includes many many fervent christians, not just non religious people. The constitution has a special place in the hearts of a large proportion of the US population.
-
I like this bit:
Levi's Baphomet was a hermaphrodite, with breasts, "but we took the breasts off," ........ The Temple did not want to get embroiled in a debate about gender
Obviously the Temple are far more frightened of feminists than of Christians!
-
I like this bit:
Levi's Baphomet was a hermaphrodite, with breasts, "but we took the breasts off," ........ The Temple did not want to get embroiled in a debate about gender
Obviously the Temple are far more frightened of feminists than of Christians!
Hell hath no fury................
-
The Romans crucified Jesus after pressure from the religious mafia of the day. The dying for humans 'sins' and the resurrection story, were concocted by his followers, imo!
Good job no one takes any notice of your opinion, isn't it.
-
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
I thought Christ was human and was a sacrifice?
Christ wasn't sacrificed to God.
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
No not a human who was sacrificed but a human who sacrificed himself.
-
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
I thought Christ was human and was a sacrifice?
Christ wasn't sacrificed to God.
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
No not a human who was sacrificed but a human who sacrificed himself.
So he was really a suicide?
-
Yes OR incredibly misguided ?!?!!?
-
... which not only fails to prevent them from but perhaps actively encourages them to seek to uphold the Constitution.
Or they are just mean spirited god obsessed types.
or, Sooty, are you specially pleading that only brilliant theists like me can only be Dawkins obsessed?
For someone who raves on about antitheists so much it's curious you understand so little about them.
They aren't 'god obsessed' types, they are possibly 'religion obsessed' types as the religion to which they are exposed is misogynistic, homophobic, anti-science and intent on creating a theocratic state around them. Under the circumstances 'religion obsessed' could be interpreted as 'enlightenedly self-interested' or 'sensible'.
O.
-
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
I thought Christ was human and was a sacrifice?
Yeh right! ::)
Christ wasn't sacrificed to God.
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
No not a human who was sacrificed but a human who sacrificed himself.
-
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
I thought Christ was human and was a sacrifice?
Christ wasn't sacrificed to God.
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
No not a human who was sacrificed but a human who sacrificed himself.
Yeh right! ::)
-
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
I thought Christ was human and was a sacrifice?
Christ wasn't sacrificed to God.
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
No not a human who was sacrificed but a human who sacrificed himself.
My statement still stands.
-
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
I thought Christ was human and was a sacrifice?
Christ wasn't sacrificed to God.
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
No not a human who was sacrificed but a human who sacrificed himself.
To himself, to atone for his failures in creating a flawed humanity, so that he'd feel appeased and therefore not have to perpetrate genocide (again)....
Stand up guy.
O.
-
To himself, to atone for his failures in creating a flawed humanity, so that he'd feel appeased and therefore not have to perpetrate genocide (again)....
He must have been gutted when he found out he had tricked himself by raising himself from the dead and therefore not really sacrificed himself to himself.
-
Human sacrifice had died out, in the main, at least 2500 years before Christ was Incarnate.
I thought Christ was human and was a sacrifice?
Christ wasn't sacrificed to God.
But still a human who was sacrificed, thanks for confirming.
No not a human who was sacrificed but a human who sacrificed himself.
So he was really a suicide?
Allowing someone to take your life is not suicide because his death was not by his own hand.
-
To himself, to atone for his failures in creating a flawed humanity, so that he'd feel appeased and therefore not have to perpetrate genocide (again)....
He must have been gutted when he found out he had tricked himself by raising himself from the dead and therefore not really sacrificed himself to himself.
If he really popped up alive three days later, then he hadn't sacrificed his life at all. People who sacrifice their lives for others without any hope of coming alive again are much more commendable than him!
-
Allowing someone to take your life is not suicide because his death was not by his own hand.
Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_by_cop
-
Allowing someone to take your life is not suicide because his death was not by his own hand.
Ever heard of suicide by cop?
ETA Ninja'd!
-
Allowing someone to take your life is not suicide because his death was not by his own hand.
Ever heard of suicide by cop?
ETA Ninja'd!
cough!
Reply #231