Thou shall not suffer a witch to live
POSTED BY: SimonWho
UPDATED: Monday, December 5, 2022 19:41
VIEWED: 25190
PAGE 8 of 11
Its do what Thou wilt. Thy is used in terms of possession.
Such as "Thy staff and thy cloak sit by the door" or "Thy car is ready" if you want modern items.
Thou would be used for verb tenses. Thee for if the word is after the verb.
"THou wilt go" or "Go thee".
Also, the "Persecution' of today is nothing. Some ignorant people make fun of that which is different, and it snot really all Christianity's fault.
Hell, I've met Militant Atheists who hurled abuse at me for being a Christian. (And this is the first time on this thread I said I was. I know, its obvious since I'm, defending Christianity, but everything Ive said Ive seen more enlightened Atheists say.)
Lets not forget how Atheists, pagans, and others tend to shout about the Crusades and inquisition and act like I'm somehow at fault.
Not that either Atheists nor Pagans ever persecuted anyone.
If Wicca ever became the dominant religion Christians would suffer routine persecution, because Wiccans get a kick out of mocking Christianity.
And, it would be different.
If Atheists ever took over and dominated, they'd mock and ridicule everyone of a different religion too. (The idea that Atheists aren't religious is daft. A Religion is a belief system about the world, and they have this. Religion is not theism.)
And, thanks to the Enlightenment and the trend towards Anti-Christian arguments, Christianity, which is seen as the most bloody and oppressive force in human history, would get far worse treatment in any case.
But what your describing is Human nature, and not really the result of the Religion and its teachings, and would happen irrespective of which Religion does the attacking.
Its not like Christianity mandates persecution of those who disagree, or that Christians always persecute others, or all Christians are intolerant ( Or even most.) Nor is it like no one has ever persecuted Christians, or others.
I just think the whole "Blame Christianity" nonsense has grown to such proportions people are willing to just buy into any argument that is presented as fact that undermines its credibility and are willing to see it in the worst possible light without looking at actual evidence.
People do the same with Islam, in thinking all Muslims are Terrorist who want to impose sharia Law and destroyed Western Civilization. Of course, not all Muslims are like that, but many, many people (Christians, atheists, even Neo-Pagans) tend to think they are nowadays.
And they are subject tot he same shoddy history. I can't tell you the times I've had to tell people Allah is not the name of a Pre-Islamic moon god, and the crescent symbol wasn't used by Muhammad.
Christians mainly believe this one. (And again not all Christians.)
They don't want to believe Muslims worship the same god so invent a reason to say they don't.
But I've seen the same argument on Atheist websites, like on Richard Dawkins site.
And its all for the same cause. it snot that Religion makes people do evil things, as those who claim to have no religion do the same things. ( And everyone has a Religion, as I said religion is just how you think about the world and relate to it.)
People want simple answers and think in simplistic terms, and often segregate along tribal lines, and create sterotypes f other not part of the group or hey perceive as a threat.
We also tend to lump everything together into a single pot.
people acting As if Methodists or Presbyterians should somehow be guilty of the Catholic Pedophile Priets Scandal is a good example. They are all Christian so they belogn to the Christian Church so are all culpable. Never mind that Presbyterians and Methodists don't have the same CHurhc structure and divdrge in doctrine, and aren't governed by the same bodies, they are Christian so guilty.
For that matter the idea that all Catholic Priests are Pedophiles is itself a gross generalisation I hear too often, or that the Church as an institution is Guilty. ( As opposed to a handful within it. It snot like this as well known tot he Vati
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zarove, for the love of your god, could you PLEASE slow down and mix in a proof-reading once in a while? Your posts actually give me headaches, trying to figure out what you're "saynig".
It does your point no good at all if no one can read it without consulting an English-to-gibberish dictionary.
By the way, I can as easily say that nothing you've said about christianity is true. It's all made up with the full intent of demonizing other religions, or lack of religions.
Quote:
...and it snot really all Christianity's fault.
It snot?
Mike
Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zarove, for the love of your god, could you PLEASE slow down and mix in a proof-reading once in a while? Your posts actually give me headaches, trying to figure out what you're "saynig".
It does your point no good at all if no one can read it without consulting an English-to-gibberish dictionary.
My posts aren't that difficult to understand. And I am dyslexic, as Ive said. Slowing down will not help that.
By the way, I can as easily say that nothing you've said about christianity is true. It's all made up with the full intent of demonizing other religions, or lack of religions.
You could, but since I've not demonised any religion (And in fact just defended Islam) it'd be pretty stupid for you to make this claim as its fairly obvious that its not true.
I merely present the facts of History.
Also, the people who "Lack religion" sure do agree on a lot of things. Its like they have doctrines and a cultural context that shaped a common belief system.
I'm sorry but there are no people who lack religion. Everyone has a Religion. Religion is simply a system of beleifs regarding the nature of our world, and which provides the context from which we understand our existance. Its basiclaly a framework built from established beleifs thattell us how to interpet the Data we get and how to proccess it, and form which we understand the events in ur lives and the world we occupy.
Even Atheists who hate religion have a Religion. If you don't beleive me, visit the Cousil for Secular Humanism or Richard Dawkins.Net. They will deny they have a Religion, bt will then procceed to explain how th world works and what you shoudl beelive to be a rational, free thinking individual.
There really is no difference between their "Non-religious beleifs" and religious ones.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
One last.
About the Chinese Whisapers effect comment. That really doens't work here.
For one thing, w're dealing with texts that where actually written down within the living memory of the man they wrote of. The ealriest of those texts shere possibley only 5 or so years later, with Pausl Epistle sbeign from only ten years after, and all New Testament matwrials beign complet eby the close of the Firts Century.
Of coure you may still cite the years between, and assert thta over time the stories woudl have been embellished, but two problems emerge.
1: You cannot show that th elife of a real man, Jeuss, was mered with stories of Pagan deities. No evidence suggests it was. Liekise, Jewish culture was rather isolationist and refused such mergers, and Christianity is an offshoot of Hudaism.
2: The "CHiense Whispers' effect doens't actually occure in an oral society. Oral traditions can actulalybe accuratley rpeserved and passed laogn if the osicety is base dupon them, and peopel tend to do much better at rememberign them in societies run off them.
Studyign Oral transmission in modern tribes, we have learend that the previous expeditions where otld identical stories by their stodrytellers as those today.
Oral culture emphasises accuracy in the retelling, and Firts Century palistine woudl have been such an oral culture, since paper and ink where scarce and expensive.
Only they didnt preserve everyhtign orlaly indefinitely, only when peopel began to die that recalled the events woudl they commit them to paper, but they still possessed the original witnesses and those who heard it firts hand, and there is no reaosn tot hink this needed to include changes to the narrative.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Zarove, please ignore kwickie's complaints. He just wishes normal people abided his delusionally high standards for casual discussion.
Side note regarding your comments about atheism and wiccans. I spent some time around Madison, WI. Not only did it achieve the Gay & Lesbian Capital of the World, but it also has a large base of atheists (Freedom from Religion, for instance) and is the largest and most active area of Wiccan activity in the midwest. I've sometimes wondered how interconnected those things were.
Oh, and thanks for your posts and the information therein.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Jewel, if you will notice, the Neo-Atheists, such as Dan barker, don't really hate all religions equelly. of course, they don't hate their own religion, they simply claim their Humanism is not a religion then procceed to tell others how to think and how society should be run aling their beleifs.
But to answer yoru question in breif ( I've little time, I can address it in greater detail later) Wicca is actually tied to the new Atheist movement we see.
Wicca began in the 1950's based mainly n a badly researched book by Margeret Murray, whose name evades me for now. Gerald gardner took that information and embellished it wih Masonic rites, Christian occult soruces, and a hodgpodge of varios myths, legends, and things he simply made up.
But his cheif motivation was to get laid by much younger women, and to get attention.
However, he capitolised on the Western Worlds newfound contempt for Christianity, which, agin, began in the Enlightenment, and develkped through the Humanist philosophy of thw 19th century.
Wicca was created in a context of Antipathy towards Christianity, that started in the 18th century, when the Enlightenment viewed Christianity (SPecifically Cahtolisism) as a part of the old order thatneeded to be replaced by the new, in faovur of what they saw as reason and nature. Much of the language used in describing Modern Humanism, as well as the arguments used agaisnt Christainity being a force of evil and superstition, came form the Enlightenment as it tried to discredit Christianity in order to get peopel to accept the principles it laid out.
This is also where the concept pf the Dark Ages took hold. The time when the Churhc rienged supreme over nations, and everyone obeyed unquestionignly. This wa a time of oppression when no one had any freedom, and Sicence was not advancing. They are a Historical myth, but have become engrined in our society as truth. In fact, so has the idea that the Crusades where an evil set of attrocities commited by CHristendom. The truth is, without the Crusades the Muslim world woudl have forceby taken CHristain lands, Raping and pillaginge all the way. But peopel don't realise this and just think it was mean, nasty Christains who slaughtered peopel over their beleifs.
The Inquesitional courts had a much higher standard of evidence and higher aqyuittal rating than the Secular COurts, and actually gave less severe sentences. In todays mind thugh, we see them as the worst, most vicious court system ever, and inherantly unjust, and cruel.
Our whole idea that Christinity spread by the sword usign violence is also a myth.
Byt they where needed because the Enlightenment, which also linked the Churhc ot the Crown, wanted people to see the CHurhc as oppressive and cruel. The Enlightenments principle claim was hat they sought freedom for the common man, and an open, just society. Thus, the CHurhc had ot be both oppresive and unjust in order for it to be an actual enemy of the Enlightenment. It alo had to be irrational, so as to make it an enemy of reason.
( We've seen example so fhow irrational some Atheists are. For example, the Pi thing. No one in their right mind woudl think that this is a flaw in the bIble. Only those hwo want to prove its wrong woudl buy it.)
This set the stage for the general sentiment of antipathy and seeing the Catholoic Churhc as a cruel and oprpessive force, though to be fair the Enlightenmetns myths where buklt ont he backs of the Protestant claims about Catholisism. Most of the Enlightenments claims originated with Protestants int he Reformation tht they used ot justufy breaign away and depicting the Cahtolci Church as evil.
The ENljghtenemtn simply extended it, and impose dit on all of CHristendom indiscremenately. (Just as modern Militant Atheists do. As if you can blame a Lutheran for the Inquisition.)
Later, after the "Age of Reason" ende din disaster, with milliosn dead in the name of Liberty, Atheism, reason, and whatever else they coudl kill for, and the promise of freedom dashed by the Republicans, people began to thin
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Being both humanist and atheist (And I imagine you're going to say "ah ha! *points points*"), I have to ask: doesn't religion require organization, ritual, and worship?
I consider humanism a form of spiritualism, but a religion? Where's all the frills and perks? It's been called as such by some of the early humanists, but functionally, about all I'm familiar with is that there's been legal recognition that it can function in place of a religion for the purposes of surveys and in the workplace, and that some humanists have been granted the power to perform legal ceremonies like some religious officials.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Religion is simply a set of beleifs and principles one holds to that acts as a framework for how he views existance.
It doens't require orginisation or ritual or worship. Which doesn't matter since Humanists have all three nowadays. Just look at the counsil for Secular Humanism or any number of Secular Societies that exist. or the Aforementioned "Freedom From religion Foundation" .They clearly are set up in a way that is orginised. They have a heirarchy consosting of officers, and ground workers, and regular adherants.
They just dont call them clergy.
They also ruituals, in the form of Humanist weddings, Funerals, and even Sunday Services in some areas.
Lets not forget retreats, pilgirmages to Darwins House or the rhis or thta Humanist Martyrs grave.
That said, many Religions lack orginisation. Wicca is a religion that often has solitary practicioners or those who meet informally. Some forms of Budhism doesn't reqire weekly worship or ritual, either. Evwn some forms of Islam, Judaism, r Christianity lack specific structure.
So, I'd argue no, they dont.
A religion is undertsood psycologically and socially as simply a foundational beleif system that acts as a framework from which you understand the world aroudn you, but requires nothign aside from beleifs about the world you live in.
Everyone has a Religion.
The only reason some say they have no rekigion now is because of how we've redefined Religion, which was don by th emilitant Atheists so they could make Religion to be the enemy of Reason and Science, as well as the survival of Humanity, whilst actin as if they are the Alternative. It never dawns on them that not all Ahtiests share their values or arrive at their conclusion, as they see their share dconclusiosn as the result of reason leadign them to obvious truth, not as the reult of cultural development and beign taught how tot hink as htey do.
Well, that and they don't wantot spudn like Hypocrites when they impose their beleif sonto society. They advocate for seperaiton of Churhc and Stte, an dinteprrt this to mean no relgiion shoudl be allowed in the Public Square. Thwyr OK with people beign CHristaisn in their homes or their HCurhces,btu must leave it beside and emrbace SAecularism when they ar eint he world.
They then want to teach their Humanist value sin school, set Govenrment policies on it, make laws base odn it, and impose it as the only allowable beleif system in pubic discourse.
If I advocated doign the same with Chrisyainity, I'd be trold how I wated to make a THeocrayc and was forcign my relgiion down their throats. Btu tis OK for htem to do it, because hey, their sient a relgiion, and is secular, so its not foricng relgiion onto others. Its no different though, is it? Im still forced to accept their beleifs on their terms and not acknolede mine or use them.
Which is why as a Libertarian I find it bad. I dont have a problem with Humanists in general, just the militant ones who want to impose the rbeleif sonto all of society and act as if popel shodl think exalcty liek them in heir daily business or in Govenrment.
But I do with they'd admit their is nothgin speraitgn their beleif system form others aside form specific doctirnes, and woudl elarn the hisotry a bit better, and why they beelive as they do.
Well, that and to stop slagign off agaisnt Christainity and mutteirng how evil and corrupt it is. It gets old, and its clealry their only real target. (Except some now slag off on ISlam too, which is also disturbing.)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Also, what about some of the adoptions of pagan holidays for Christian observances?
Christ was born in the spring and resurrected in the spring, I recall, but Christmas is celebrated around the winter solstice. Or what about All Saint's Day overlapping common harvest festivals, but never quite removing all of the symbolism of autumn being a transition towards winter, paralleling life moving towards death and an uncertain afterlife?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME