Just figured I'd start this to put an end to some of the incredible stupidity that some people spout about witches.

If needs be, I can link my friend to this, she is a far superior source of knowledge than I am.

Mark, say anything stupid, I'm banning you for a year. No shit, one year.

Just figured I'd start this to put an end to some of the incredible stupidity that some people spout about witches.

If needs be, I can link my friend to this, she is a far superior source of knowledge than I am.

Mark, say anything stupid, I'm banning you for a year. No shit, one year.

How can you shrink heads? I know about this dude that has a huge head, and I think that shrinking it will get it to normal size.

Or is that a witch doctor question?

Smart ass.

I read a post that claimed to have personally witnessed witches flying on brooms.

I searched ebay, nothing, so I presume it is not inherent in the brooms, like the flying business is carried by the witch and applied to the broom on a need-to-fly basis.

does this... application negate mass, or just weight ?

No such thing as flying witches on brooms.

Shit, if I could, I would. I sit in traffic just like everyone else.

Do you weigh as much as/less than a duck?

Sorry, I wanted to ask a question, but I know plenty about Druids and Wiccans, and non-denominationals.

Druids and Wiccans are NOT the same as Witches.

if you can't alter mass, what's the point ?

Druids and Wiccans are NOT the same as Witches.

Sshhh!

Don't tell them that! They get really pissy if you say that!

Do you weigh as much as/less than a duck?

I almost spit on my screen when I saw that :bigthumb:

Druids and Wiccans are NOT the same as Witches.

Whats the difference between a Wiccan and a Witch?

explain the differences

He has to answer my duckie question first.

Stupid.

Stupid.

so what exactly is a witch and from which ancient tradition does it hail from?

I have to say just about every post in this thread has me lmao. Whats the deal with the witch crap? Shouldn't you be a WARLOCK?

I have a question, kev-dog:

have you ever cast a spell on someone, and, if so, how long ago? did it work?

No, I have not cast a spell on anyone. I have cast spells to help work out situations, but for the most part, you don't cast a spell on someone (in a positive way, at least) without them requesting you to do so. I haven't had the need to drop the hammer on someone, and if I did, I would go to someone more experienced to do that.

Spells are a lot like prayer, just a lot more ceremonial in nature. You pray to God for certain things, right? Health for your family, protection for the ones you care about, spells are pretty much the same type of thing.


explain the differences

The biggest, most obvious difference is that Wiccans abide by the Wiccan Rede, Witches do not.

Shouldn't you be a WARLOCK?

That's another common misconception. Warlock is NOT related to witchcraft. Men and women that perform witchcraft are witches. Warlock is generally an evil term, related to Satanic ritual, stuff like that.

I have to say just about every post in this thread has me lmao. Whats the deal with the witch crap? Shouldn't you be a WARLOCK?

http://www.penny-arcade.com/warlock.jpg

I just had to... :D

Just figured I'd start this to put an end to some of the incredible stupidity that some people spout about witches..

What will happen to you when you die?

Upon what do you base your beliefs?

How confident are you that what you're basing your beliefs upon is the ultimate truth?

Mark, say anything stupid, I'm banning you for a year. No shit, one year.

Why so thin skinned? If you are sure of your self in your own belief system, shouldn't you be willing to face a heckler? Man-up!

What will happen to you when you die?

Upon what do you base your beliefs?

How confident are you that what you're basing your beliefs upon is the ultimate truth?



Why so thin skinned? If you are sure of your self in your own belief system, shouldn't you be willing to face a heckler? Man-up!

because marky isnt a heckler. marky has sincerely told kevin before that he should die. a heckler just throws shit, marky would actually pull the trigger himself if he had the chance, and if he thought he could get away with it. Thats not a heckler, thats someone who needs some serious mental assistance.

EDIT--at the same time, why arent you applying this concept to marky himself? This is strange....if marky really was so certain and solid in his faith, why should he run around telling people the things he does? Thin skin??? HMMM....lets not have a double standard, bx, I have mroe respect for you than that. Dont prove me wrong there. If your concept is sound, then lets use ti on ALL sides. By comparison, those that marky faces ARE hecklers...none here are wishign him dead, no one is praying for a disaster to impact his life, no one is condemning him to burn for eternity, and no one is proclaiming that he will bow and worship at their feet! you cant see the difference? Why not?

What will happen to you when you die?

I have no idea. I'll see when I get there. My system of beliefs isn't based on the afterlife the way Christianity is.

Upon what do you base your beliefs?

Upon what feels right to me. The thing that calls to me about witchcraft is that it isn't based on rules and punishment, but on harmony and partnership.

How confident are you that what you're basing your beliefs upon is the ultimate truth?

Again, you're applying the Christian mindset to something non-Christian. I've said before that my beliefs are what work for me. It's not for everyone, it's the path that I walk. Even other witches don't walk the path I walk. I believe that whatever power that created the universe, life, etc, is powerful enough to be all things to all people, and that you pick the facet of that power that you identify with. "Ultimate truth" is a "I'm right, you're wrong" mindset. My mindset is, "I'm right, you're right."

Why so thin skinned? If you are sure of your self in your own belief system, shouldn't you be willing to face a heckler? Man-up!

Notice the comment was directed to one person in particular? The reason why I directed that comment the way I did was because I don't want to turn this into yet another thread about Christianity. I didn't start this thread to defend myself from conversion attempts, or to have you guys start hammering me about how I'm oh-so-wrong. I figured that giving you guys an easy way to learn about a system of beliefs different than your own would be nice, especially since it seems most everything people on TFL know about witchcraft is from watching Scooby Doo or Charmed.

As far as being sure of myself in my belief system, yeah, I am. For me. I'm not saying it's for everyone, I'm not saying it's the only way. My beliefs do not require anyone else to believe as well. I admit that there is a chance I could die and end up at the gates of Heaven and see Jesus. Could happen. I admit there's a chance I could die and end up face to face with Allah. Could happen. But, I don't think it will, at least not in my case. I think I will go wherever I will go, but, since it's an uncertainty, I'm not going to base my life on getting the Golden Wonka Ticket, I'm going to live my life and make my decisions based on what is right for me and the situation. Because I'm a good person and have common sense, that means those actions and decisions will be, for the most part, along the lines of what anyone would do.

By comparison, those that marky faces ARE hecklers...none here are wishign him dead, no one is praying for a disaster to impact his life, no one is condemning him to burn for eternity, and no one is proclaiming that he will bow and worship at their feet!

And that's part of my problem with that. Thoughts are things and words have wings. You focus on that type of thing enough, and it can happen.

Trust me on this, I know.

And that's part of my problem with that. Thoughts are things and words have wings. You focus on that type of thing enough, and it can happen.

Trust me on this, I know.

It takes strength of mind and clarity of purpose to pull that off. YZF has the attention span of a cockatiel.

witchcraft is based on harmony and partnership.

I admit that there is a chance I could die and end up at the gates of Heaven and see Jesus. Could happen. I admit there's a chance I could die and end up face to face with Allah. Could happen. But, I don't think it will, at least not in my case. I think I will go wherever I will go, but, since it's an uncertainty, I'm not going to base my life on getting the Golden Wonka Ticket, I'm going to live my life and make my decisions based on what is right for me and the situation. Because I'm a good person and have common sense, that means those actions and decisions will be, for the most part, along the lines of what anyone would do.

Interesting. Yet you believe in magic. But not God magic obviously, but magic that you believe we all have inside us and you know how to use it. And so, lack of better words, you believe we are all gods. That is what I understand so far from what I read.

You don't see any immediate effects of magics. Do you allow life cycles to carry your spells? Did you know by simply wearing a cross for all to see causes harmony also? Is this a spell? Or immediate God magic that trumped your 'snail mail' witch stuff?

Interesting. Yet you believe in magic. But not God magic obviously, but magic that you believe we all have inside us and you know how to use it. And so, lack of better words, you believe we are all gods. That is what I understand so far from what I read.

Nope, you're completely incorrect in your assumptions. I do not believe anyone is a God or Goddess, and there are, in fact, countless Gods and Goddesses in the craft. Again, you're trying to twist this to fit monotheist and, quite obviously, Christian beliefs. Think of it this way: Witchcraft is a rotary engine, Christianity is a piston engine. Some of the principles are the same, but how things work is totally different.

You don't see any immediate effects of magics.

Sure you do. It also depends on what you're doing. Do you see immediate effects of your prayers? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some things need constant reinforcement, constant work. Other things can be a quick fix, right?

Did you know by simply wearing a cross for all to see causes harmony also? Is this a spell? Or immediate God magic that trumped your 'snail mail' witch stuff?

Did you know simply wearing a cross for all to see also causes disharmony? Did you know that to many, the cross is a symbol of oppression and hatred?

You do realize that czar is an atheist, right?

I think he's an antagonist. :)

Nope, you're completely incorrect in your assumptions. I do not believe anyone is a God or Goddess, and there are, in fact, countless Gods and Goddesses in the craft. Again, you're trying to twist this to fit monotheist and, quite obviously, Christian beliefs. Think of it this way: Witchcraft is a rotary engine, Christianity is a piston engine. Some of the principles are the same, but how things work is totally different.

Not at all. I'm trying to fit this into something I can understand. We'll keep trying. For simplicity sake, we'll use the saying, "you can not compare apples to oranges", for your piston/rotary argument.

Sure you do. It also depends on what you're doing. Do you see immediate effects of your prayers? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Some things need constant reinforcement, constant work. Other things can be a quick fix, right?
Good. I agree.

Did you know simply wearing a cross for all to see also causes disharmony? Did you know that to many, the cross is a symbol of oppression and hatred?

Surely you don't administer a spell for the wrong occasion. Wearing or casting a spell, for a particular effect, was indeed performed by me today. Successfully. I don't declare myself a witch here, yet I harnessed Harmony, modified to my advantage.....

.....perhaps tell me why you want the label 'witch'?

Not at all. I'm trying to fit this into something I can understand. We'll keep trying. For simplicity sake, we'll use the saying, "you can not compare apples to oranges", for your piston/rotary argument.

The easiest way for you to understand is to start with no assumptions. If you find a contradiction, check your premises.

perhaps tell me why you want the label 'witch'?

I don't label myself 'witch', it's just what I am.

headology is one thing, nullifying gravity is something else.

Man, if I could nullify gravity, I'd be in the fucking NBA. :D

that is the problem, as soon as it becomes useably repeatable it stops being cool and mystical and becomes engineering, dull and not cool.

Unless not everyone can do it, then it's still cool.

Unless not everyone can do it, then it's still cool.

so... being a witch is kinda like being double-jointed ;)

The easiest way for you to understand is to start with no assumptions. If you find a contradiction, check your premises.

Well, lets start from the beginning then. I could Google this but why waste time reading from a poser? You are certainly convinced of this. Make me convinced.

Witchcraft was discovered when? Do people in witchcraft perform magic? or do you guys call it something else? What was the first spell used? How many spells are invented daily? Do spells have a life?

If you guys don't do the magic that I started to assume you guys do, what do you guys do in an organize fashion?


I don't label myself 'witch', it's just what I am.
(Premise checked) Did you know simply being a witch for all to see also causes disharmony? Did you know that to many, the name witch is a symbol of oppression and hatred?

because marky isnt a heckler. marky has sincerely told kevin before that he should die. a heckler just throws shit, marky would actually pull the trigger himself if he had the chance, and if he thought he could get away with it. Thats not a heckler, thats someone who needs some serious mental assistance.

EDIT--at the same time, why arent you applying this concept to marky himself? This is strange....if marky really was so certain and solid in his faith, why should he run around telling people the things he does? Thin skin??? HMMM....lets not have a double standard, bx, I have mroe respect for you than that. Dont prove me wrong there. If your concept is sound, then lets use ti on ALL sides. By comparison, those that marky faces ARE hecklers...none here are wishign him dead, no one is praying for a disaster to impact his life, no one is condemning him to burn for eternity, and no one is proclaiming that he will bow and worship at their feet! you cant see the difference? Why not?

Forget about it, it was a thoughtless question. Why, you ask, because all I care about is truth. I really don't need to ask why $100T2 doesn't want wisecracker comments from Mark.

I have no idea. I'll see when I get there. My system of beliefs isn't based on the afterlife the way Christianity is.

Fair enough.

Upon what feels right to me. The thing that calls to me about witchcraft is that it isn't based on rules and punishment, but on harmony and partnership.

Again, you're applying the Christian mindset to something non-Christian. I've said before that my beliefs are what work for me. It's not for everyone, it's the path that I walk. Even other witches don't walk the path I walk. I believe that whatever power that created the universe, life, etc, is powerful enough to be all things to all people, and that you pick the facet of that power that you identify with. "Ultimate truth" is a "I'm right, you're wrong" mindset. My mindset is, "I'm right, you're right.".

Let's consider what you're saying here. You are basing your beliefs upon what feels right to you and yet at the same time you reveal that you believe some power created the universe. Can you yet see error in your logic here? If there is such a thing as an absolute truth, you can't base your foundation upon a feeling. It must be upon some evidence. Further, you say that you believe that the creator is powerful enough to be all things to all people, but I ask where did this come from? Picking and choosing what bits you care to believe makes less sense than if you were to investigate your options and pick the one that based upon the evidence makes most sense to you. Notice I've not pushed any particular religion. If you say there is no god, I say fine. If you say there is a god and he is Allah, I'm fine with that too. If you say there is a god but that you've decided what is true about it, then I say you've made your own god and you've got less ground to stand on then the atheist or Christian. Does this make any sense to you?


Notice the comment was directed to one person in particular? The reason why I directed that comment the way I did was because I don't want to turn this into yet another thread about Christianity. I didn't start this thread to defend myself from conversion attempts, or to have you guys start hammering me about how I'm oh-so-wrong. I figured that giving you guys an easy way to learn about a system of beliefs different than your own would be nice, especially since it seems most everything people on TFL know about witchcraft is from watching Scooby Doo or Charmed.

Sorry. I retract my question.


Because I'm a good person...

Based on what? You're not as bad as Hitler, but maybe not as charitable as Mother Teresa? Really, where do you fit? You must base your goodness on some system of morality. Which religion's system of morality do you adhere to? Is your system based on some evidence or does it look like Mr. Potatoe Head, where you've gone ahead and matched up the goofy smile with the glasses and happy eyes? I don't mean this to sound insulting. I'm just trying to make a mental picture for you.

Based on what? You're not as bad as Hitler, but maybe not as charitable as Mother Teresa? Really, where do you fit? You must base your goodness on some system of morality. Which religion's system of morality do you adhere to? Is your system based on some evidence or does it look like Mr. Potatoe Head, where you've gone ahead and matched up the goofy smile with the glasses and happy eyes? I don't mean this to sound insulting. I'm just trying to make a mental picture for you.

Why must one's moral system coincide with a religion? Couldn't he say that he bases his life on the norms of the society in which he lives?

And Mother Teresa wasn't all that charitable.

Can you yet see error in your logic here? If there is such a thing as an absolute truth, you can't base your foundation upon a feeling. It must be upon some evidence.Classic. Where's that irony meter... :)

Can you yet see error in your logic here? If there is such a thing as an absolute truth, you can't base your foundation upon a feeling. It must be upon some evidence.

Look up 'faith' in the dictionary. Even Mark conceeds that faith requires belief without evidence.

Why must one's moral system coincide with a religion?

It doesn't have to. It gets messy here. People say "I'm a good person". What is the standard and who hasn't failed it? Where's the line drawn where someone can say they are a good person as opposed to a not so good person? It doesn't exist in the realm of humanity. Superficial and empty. And let me point out that I have yet to interject religion.

Couldn't he say that he bases his life on the norms of the society in which he lives?

Sure. Does it mean anything, I don't think so. Every one lies, right, yet everyone would say lying is wrong. Are you good because you only told 3 lies today? Who makes that rule? Has the society in which he lives come together and agreed that 3 lies a day is ok but 4 is bad? See this ain't so logical.

Look up 'faith' in the dictionary. Even Mark conceeds that faith requires belief without evidence.

Good point. My faith is that the evidence provided is true. I was not there to witness it myself. Although on a deeper level, the Bible says that faith itself is a gift from God.

You are basing your beliefs upon what feels right to you and yet at the same time you reveal that you believe some power created the universe.

right, but he does NOT see a nessesary connection between those two statements.

power and morality are not two faces of the same coin.


If there is such a thing as an absolute truth, you can't base your foundation upon a feeling. It must be upon some evidence.

all roads lead to Rome.

if there is an absolute truth squatting at the center of reality there would be no escaping it, EVERY path seeking it would inevetably lead there, no matter how winding.

think gravity, it doesn't matter where you stand on earth, you know which way is down.




Picking and choosing what bits you care to believe makes less sense than if you were to investigate your options and pick the one that based upon the evidence makes most sense to you.


not if the absolute is HIDDEN so that everybody must grope around in the dark.

not if the absolute is too big to see all at once and NO viewpoint can encompass everything that he sees from where he is standing.
so picking a view that is clearly limited and missing big chunks just because it claims completeness would be loads more foolish than snagging bits from several opposing views that DO accurately describe what he sees.


If you say there is a god but that you've decided what is true about it, then I say you've made your own god and you've got less ground to stand on then the atheist or Christian.

every person makes his own god, what you are talking about is the robe the god wears in public to hide his shame.

You must base your goodness on some system of morality. Which religion's system of morality do you adhere to? Is your system based on some evidence or does it look like Mr. Potatoe Head, where you've gone ahead and matched up the goofy smile with the glasses and happy eyes?

every religions system of morality is a MR potatoe head, just so well polished over the years as to look all dignified to those behind him.

It doesn't have to. It gets messy here. People say "I'm a good person". What is the standard and who hasn't failed it? Where's the line drawn where someone can say they are a good person as opposed to a not so good person?

Being a good person is something that is relative to the observer, whether religion is present or not. The standard depends on who’s looking. An atheist, while not believing in any particular absolute truth, may view any action that would cause his loved ones to lose respect for him as immoral. Looking at this deeper, we realize that having his loved ones lose respect for him causes pain. Here we have some common ground. Every man’s moral system is built upon the avoidance of pain, whether it be emotional, as in something caused by fear, or otherwise.

It doesn't exist in the realm of humanity. Superficial and empty. And let me point out that I have yet to interject religion.

You’re looking at this from an “absolute truth” perspective which runs along the lines of: any moral standard that deviates from such truth, whether it be based upon some religious doctrine or not, is meaningless. If one is willing to concede that a “universal moral standard” is in fact real, but at the same time is not pulled in any particular direction, then they are guilty of not making a wild stab in the dark. One might compare this to guessing at a multiple choice question that you have absolutely no way of understanding. There’s nothing wrong with guessing of course, but when you have to explain your answer, you might as well leave the question blank.

Sure. Does it mean anything, I don't think so. Every one lies, right, yet everyone would say lying is wrong. Are you good because you only told 3 lies today? Who makes that rule? Has the society in which he lives come together and agreed that 3 lies a day is ok but 4 is bad? See this ain't so logical.

I would love to talk about logic, but at the risk of further hijacking this thread, I’ll wait for your response.

Hey $100,
never mind answering my questions.
I found a link http://www.witchvox.com. It got clear pretty quick. It is all individual.

Not to discount you, I don't think anyone knows how witchcraft works, or its origins. i don't buy it (of course). Just the same, throw a little magic my way whenever you are not busy.

good luck with it.

all roads lead to Rome.

if there is an absolute truth squatting at the center of reality there would be no escaping it, EVERY path seeking it would inevetably lead there, no matter how winding.

think gravity, it doesn't matter where you stand on earth, you know which way is down.

Since this is the only place where your comments coherently match anything I asked $100T2, this is only section I'll address with you. If there is an absolute truth as you say squatting at the center of reality, then yes your point is correct. Our first assumption is that there is an absolute truth, can we also agree that if our first assumption is correct then there is purpose in our existense? What I mean here is that if there is a creator, then it is illogical for the creator to create without purpose.

Being a good person is something that is relative to the observer....

I would love to talk about logic, but at the risk of further hijacking this thread, I’ll wait for your response.

I chopped your comment down here, I can only work one idea at a time. Sorry, time constraints. Can we agree on this, that if there is absolute truth then relativism is illogical? If I have to I'll go back to my sources to present a valid argument for this point, or you can look it up yourself, it's a widely discussed topic. And your thoughts here will pretty much guide the rest of your thinking.

coherently

woot ! I managed partial coherence, woot wootedy WOOT !!!

If there is an absolute truth as you say squatting at the center of reality, then yes your point is correct. Our first assumption is that there is an absolute truth,

despite the entire LACK of any hint of a universal attempt to carve paths in that direction ?

every path seems carved in entirely RANDOM directions, reletive to all other similar paths that purport to be chasing the same goal.

which tends to indicate that there IS NO central absolute truth.

or at least that any central truth is not recognisable by unaided man, think magnetic pole.

can we also agree that if our first assumption is correct then there is purpose in our existense? What I mean here is that if there is a creator, then it is illogical for the creator to create without purpose.

it is equally illogical to think that the purpose that an utterly inhuman being might have would make any sense whatsoever to our human viewpoint.

as in the entire point of the earth could be to use the magnetic pole reversals to encode a birthday greeting in the magnetic contour of the ocean floors.
people could be an entirely unnoticed artifact.

so, no, there needs be no purpose to our existance, even assuming a creator.

it is equally illogical to think that the purpose that an utterly inhuman being might have would make any sense whatsoever to our human viewpoint.

as in the entire point of the earth could be to use the magnetic pole reversals to encode a birthday greeting in the magnetic contour of the ocean floors.
people could be an entirely unnoticed artifact.

so, no, there needs be no purpose to our existance, even assuming a creator.

Hang on. So far we only have evidence that Man is the most intelligent form of life in the universe. This gives us reason to make the assumption that we are the focal point of the creation. When this proves to be false, I won't be selling the gospel message anymore. Here's where I argue against your first point above. If we are the pinnacle, we have purpose, and it would be logical for the creator to empower us to know the purpose. If the planet is a greeting card, we serve no purpose. Tie up your logic here.

Classic. Where's that irony meter... :)

Mine's broken. Mark's managed to shatter it to pieces. :D

Hang on. So far we only have evidence that Man is the most intelligent form of life in the universe.

Only by using human definitions of intelligence.

This gives us reason to make the assumption that we are the focal point of the creation.

No.

When this proves to be false, I won't be selling the gospel message anymore.

Hallelujah.

If we are the pinnacle

Pinnacle assumes direction and purpose. Neither are demonstrated in nature.

we have purpose

Enlighten us. What's our purpose?

If the planet is a greeting card

Explain.

Only by using human definitions of intelligence.
"So long and thanks for all the fish". Now come back to the reality of the observable world we live in. I was going to argue this, but no, you do it. Dazzle us with your brilliance, what is the most intelligent form of life known today? And back that shizzo up.

Pinnacle assumes direction and purpose. Neither are demonstrated in nature.
Maybe I'm reading you wrong. Are you saying purpose is not demonstrated in nature?

Enlighten us. What's our purpose?
Based on your knowledge of the universe, what do you think your purpose is?

Explain.
Check the earlier poster's comment I was referring to.

Now come back to the reality of the observable world we live in.
That's rich considering you've stated you have no interest in reality that conflicts with your belief. :roll:

Dazzle us with your brilliance, what is the most intelligent form of life known today? And back that shizzo up.

Define intelligence first. Then define it's relevance. You're (unnecessarily) assigning weight to cognition. Just because we're capable of logic and rational thought doesn't make us the king of the hill.

Human beings are far from the most successful organisms on the planet. That distinction belongs to bacteria.

Maybe I'm reading you wrong. Are you saying purpose is not demonstrated in nature?

Certainly no higher purpose. There's a food chain, intricacies of symbiosis, reciprocal altruism, etc. But there's no demonstrable directive in nature. Organisms live and then they die. Some manage to pass on their genetic information in the process. That's the only purpose.

Based on your knowledge of the universe, what do you think your purpose is?

I don't think there is one. You live and then you die. Everything else is gravy.

Human beings are far from the most successful organisms on the planet. That distinction belongs to bacteria.

Crazy talk. I kill bacteria with Listerine!!!. They've got nothing.

Crazy talk. I kill bacteria with Listerine!!!.

Yeah? Bacteria can kill you without the Listerine. ;)

They've got nothing.

I'm sure that's tongue in cheek, but step back a moment and take a look. They are everywhere we've looked, from the highest of temperatures (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermus_thermophilus), the highest levels of radioactivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinococcus_radiodurans), to the extreme cold of Anarctic coastal waters (http://expasy.org/sprot/hamap/PSEHT.html).

They've even been to space and back (http://www.panspermia.org/bacteria.htm). :)

Define intelligence first. Then define it's relevance. You're (unnecessarily) assigning weight to cognition. Just because we're capable of logic and rational thought doesn't make us the king of the hill.

By intelligence, we stand alone. If I'm wrong, correct me. By capability we stand alone. Until we find et, we are the supreme creature of the universe.

By intelligence, we stand alone. If I'm wrong, correct me.

Again, that depends on how you define intelligence. I'd agree that by cognition we stand alone.

By capability we stand alone.

I disagree. We certainly have unique capabilities, but so do other organisms.

Until we find et, we are the supreme creature of the universe.

That's a very anthropomorphic statement.

I don't label myself 'witch', it's just what I am.


WOW

The quote of the year. This really explains allot.

I have been laughing so hard my stomach hurts. People are starting to peek in my door to see what I'm doing.




http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y175/amishboy/military/838ad257.jpg

I disagree. We certainly have unique capabilities, but so do other organisms.

No, you do agree. I think you're arguing just to argue. Man, by his very capabilities, reigns preeminent over all other organisms on the planet. We invent, we fabricate, we postulate, we create and we destroy. What other yardstick do you need?

That's a very anthropomorphic statement.

What else do we have? When we find something different I'll concede.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y175/amishboy/harry-potter_062.jpg

No, you do agree.

No, I don't. Just because we're special doesn't make us the pinnacle. We're products of our environment just like everything else. We have adapted specialties just like everything else.

I think you're arguing just to argue.

I think you're blinded by anthropomorphism.

Man, by his very capabilities, reigns preeminent over all other organisms on the planet.

Really. Do the other organisms know about this?

We invent, we fabricate, we postulate, we create and we destroy. What other yardstick do you need?

Just because we have incredible abilities doesn't make us the end product in a directed process.

Can you fly? Breathe under water? Fix carbon? Survive without oxygen? Harness energy from light? Regenerate limbs? Reproduce asexually?

What else do we have? When we find something different I'll concede.

I'm not looking for a concession. I just don't believe we're a special creation and you do. Hence the do-loop.

Can you fly? Breathe under water? Fix carbon? Survive without oxygen? Harness energy from light? Regenerate limbs? Reproduce asexually?

This is precisely what I mean. Hell yes. I can fly in an airplane invented by another man, survive underwater with air tanks and regulators invented by another man. What is fixing carbon? Forget it, I can fix carbon. I can live on the moon for as long as my oxyen lasts until we figure out a way to create it. All of these things can be done because we are the supreme creatures on the planet. Nits.

I'm not looking for a concession. I just don't believe we're a special creation and you do. Hence the do-loop.

We can do just about anything we can imagine. Man, you are arguing to argue.

This is precisely what I mean. Hell yes. I can fly in an airplane invented by another man

Until it runs out of fuel or something mechanical fails.

survive underwater with air tanks and regulators invented by another man.

Until they run empty.

What is fixing carbon?

It's what plants do so that you can breathe. :) They take your CO2 and convert it to glucose via photosynthesis, creating oxygen as a byproduct.

Forget it, I can fix carbon.

No. You can't.

I can live on the moon for as long as my oxyen lasts until we figure out a way to create it.

And if you don't find a way?

All of these things can be done because we are the supreme creatures on the planet.

No. We have temporary workarounds that address our shortcomings. It just means we're creative, not supreme.

Nits.
???


We can do just about anything we can imagine.

That still doesn't make us the end product of a directed process. Something better could come along.

Man, you are arguing to argue.

No. We're just at philosophical odds.

Would you two shut the fuck up and pm this argument or something.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y175/amishboy/kevinpotter.jpg

Would you two shut the fuck up and pm this argument or something.

Nobody is forcing you to read anything. So kindly fuck off.

Sorry I will shut up now.
.
.
.
..
thank you


Beeker


http://stashbox.org/uploads/1137281693/beeker.JPG

.

.thank you

Just as weak as when Mark does it. :rolleyes:

Would you two shut the fuck up and pm this argument or something.

Good idea, you intolerant nazi bastard.

I chopped your comment down here, I can only work one idea at a time. Sorry, time constraints. Can we agree on this, that if there is absolute truth then relativism is illogical? If I have to I'll go back to my sources to present a valid argument for this point, or you can look it up yourself, it's a widely discussed topic. And your thoughts here will pretty much guide the rest of your thinking.

That’s simplifying things too much. Assume that you believe that the universe was created by some supreme being. This belief likely will lead to the concession that this Supreme Being has some system of rules. For various reasons, we conclude that these rules are absolute and for our convenience, This Supreme Being wrote them down for us all to see. So far, relativism has been rendered illogical. Now suppose that the ink used to write these rules was smudged on one line, obscuring the rule of… let’s say baring false witness. Would a relative perspective be logical in this one instance, even despite the fact that an absolute truth in the matter does exist?

In the wake of uncertainty, what serves as an adequate substitute?

HMMM

but what if I eat my dinner and I can't remember having done it

did it still happen

or can I just not remember dreaming about having done it


You guys are so funny.

That’s simplifying things too much. Assume that you believe that the universe was created by some supreme being. This belief likely will lead to the concession that this Supreme Being has some system of rules. For various reasons, we conclude that these rules are absolute and for our convenience, This Supreme Being wrote them down for us all to see. So far, relativism has been rendered illogical. Now suppose that the ink used to write these rules was smudged on one line, obscuring the rule of… let’s say baring false witness. Would a relative perspective be logical in this one instance, even despite the fact that an absolute truth in the matter does exist?

In the wake of uncertainty, what serves as an adequate substitute?

In the case you present the relative perspective can only be held as a substitue at best, always open for conjecture. But the scenario falls down like a cow with 3 legs. If we go this far, that there is absolute truth, that there is purpose, that there is a system of rules, then it is illogical to assume that the being would allow a rule to be smudged. You might say well wtf is "honoring the sabbath"? This seems unclear, what is meant by it? And it can be considered obscure since there is no definition of "work" laid out for the reader. The rule is there, the interpretation is argued. There is no adequate substitute because you cannot lose the rule.

In the case you present the relative perspective can only be held as a substitue at best, always open for conjecture. But the scenario falls down like a cow with 3 legs. If we go this far, that there is absolute truth, that there is purpose, that there is a system of rules, then it is illogical to assume that the being would allow a rule to be smudged.

This objection is easily countered with “The Supreme Being acts in mysterious ways.” Further, one could argue that It’s capacity is so great in comparison with our own that we merely fail to grasp the superior logic that overshadows us. Maybe the rule was intentionally smudged so that we could be judged by the merits of our own substitutions.

At any rate, this is really all just a sidebar. The real question remains: given one’s uncertainty, is relativism illogical?

Note: the position I argue from is not necessarily one that I hold.

You might say well wtf is "honoring the sabbath"? This seems unclear, what is meant by it? And it can be considered obscure since there is no definition of "work" laid out for the reader. The rule is there, the interpretation is argued. There is no adequate substitute because you cannot lose the rule.

Consider a rule that is unclear and can be interpreted two ways. Given the odds, is it illogical to guess what is meant by the rule and act accordingly? How about a rule with many possible interpretations?

So far we only have evidence that Man is the most intelligent form of life in the universe.

right, so we have no evidence whatsoever of any higher form of human or nonhuman intellegence in the universe.

This gives us reason to make the assumption that we are the focal point of the creation.

oddly, yes.
but purely as an ego thing, with no real evidence to base it on other than that we are so cool it MUST be all about us.

When this proves to be false, I won't be selling the gospel message anymore.

good, it is so poorly thought out that it makes you look goofier than absolutely required. { ;) }


Here's where I argue against your first point above. If we are the pinnacle, we have purpose, and it would be logical for the creator to empower us to know the purpose. If the planet is a greeting card, we serve no purpose. Tie up your logic here.

to assume a creater, a higher form of nonhuman intellegence, AND THEN to assume that we are a desired result of the creators act, the fact of the lack of evidence of the existance of the creator leads to the assumption that the creator is not interested in our knowing his intent in creating us.

so we have no contribution to his plan that requires us to know about his plan.

so we are intended to behave as though there WAS no plan.

which is a perfectly good purpose, assuming it is a good plan.

If we go this far, that there is absolute truth, that there is purpose, that there is a system of rules, then it is illogical to assume that the being would allow a rule to be smudged.

or disobeyed.

if it can be disobeyed then it is not the creation of the being that created the universe that embodies his rule.

a rule that CAN be disobeyed is a game, being played by rules made by the creator.

at which point smudging of the rules is entirely possible and likely depending on the point of the game, which point we do NOT have a right to expect to be told.



your point is why I point at the "loss" of the original 10 commandments as proof of the absence of a god who created them.

a god who cared enough to create eternal stone tablets would care enough to keep them on display.


The rule is there, the interpretation is argued. There is no adequate substitute because you cannot lose the rule.

no originals are available, the accuracy of the copies used is KNOWN to be less than 100% so the rule itself is NOT there, leading to the existance of interpretations. none of which can possibly be 100% accurate.

which means they cannot be the product of the creator since the superiority of his intellegence would trump any effort on our part to fog his message.

By intelligence, we stand alone. If I'm wrong, correct me. By capability we stand alone. Until we find et, we are the supreme creature of the universe.

right, so creating an imaginary intellegence superior to our own is silly.

This objection is easily countered with “The Supreme Being acts in mysterious ways.” Further, one could argue that It’s capacity is so great in comparison with our own that we merely fail to grasp the superior logic that overshadows us. Maybe the rule was intentionally smudged so that we could be judged by the merits of our own substitutions.

At any rate, this is really all just a sidebar. The real question remains: given one’s uncertainty, is relativism illogical?

Note: the position I argue from is not necessarily one that I hold.

Consider a rule that is unclear and can be interpreted two ways. Given the odds, is it illogical to guess what is meant by the rule and act accordingly? How about a rule with many possible interpretations?

What's up with you and honegod? If you are thinking about the point of this whole world, you come to the conclusion that either there is absolute truth or there isn't. Take a few steps down the path towards the existense of absolute truth, have you seriously investigated the religions of the world? Or is it more true you've had some unpleasant experiences with "Christians" and now you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

The point to this thread is that $100 actually has a life outside of said thread due to his absent, and is probably brewing a cool spell that when cast, makes us all get laid this Saturday.

Note to $100: Plz insure its a WOMAN this time, k thx.

have you seriously investigated the religions of the world? Or is it more true you've had some unpleasant experiences with "Christians" and now you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

there I was, having just very impressivly showed my current chosen prophet some of my Secret Truth and this gang of children started MAKING FUN OF HIS BALD HEAD !!!

what else could I do but send some angry bears to tear those evil children to bloody pieces ?

naturally, after all the screaming stopped, I gathered their souls up and cast them into the flaming pit where they can burn forever as an expression of the Absolute Truth... "There Is No Excuse".



is probably brewing a cool spell that when cast, makes us all get laid this Saturday.

I have a spell that I have found that works particularly well at getting me laid, but it involves deoderant and so might be too risky for normal men.

personally, I find the chance of :boobies: outweighs the fearsomeness of deoderant.

What's up with you and honegod?

While I can only speak for myself, I'm attempting to carry on a debate about the logic (or lack there of) behind moral relativism. If you are not interested in doing so, then say the word.

If you are thinking about the point of this whole world, you come to the conclusion that either there is absolute truth or there isn't.

Agreed.

Take a few steps down the path towards the existense of absolute truth, have you seriously investigated the religions of the world? Or is it more true you've had some unpleasant experiences with "Christians" and now you're throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Hmmm... That's not my story. I was baptized into the Catholic Church, went through all the sacraments (well, most of them anyway) and continue to attend mass regularly. As I said in my previous post, I like to argue from different view points. I feel doing so is important in developing one's understanding and further solidifying his faith in what he believes. Naturally, there will be times when this practice gives way to change and re-evalutation, but such issues will always be a work in progress. I perfer such over simply ignoring contradictory perspectives.

While I can only speak for myself, I'm attempting to carry on a debate about the logic (or lack there of) behind moral relativism. If you are not interested in doing so, then say the word.

I don't adhere to moral relativism but it makes sense or is at least pausible if there is no absolute truth.

Hmmm... That's not my story. I was baptized into the Catholic Church, went through all the sacraments (well, most of them anyway) and continue to attend mass regularly. As I said in my previous post, I like to argue from different view points. I feel doing so is important in developing one's understanding and further solidifying his faith in what he believes. Naturally, there will be times when this practice gives way to change and re-evalutation, but such issues will always be a work in progress. I perfer such over simply ignoring contradictory perspectives.

We should debate RCC vs Protestant intrepretation sometime.

The real problem here is that we've hijacked other peoples opportunity to ridicule $100T2's decision to become a Witchiepoo. It is my deepest hope that we can get back to making $100T2, God bless him for his candor, explain himself.

How old are you by the way?

19

I don't adhere to moral relativism but it makes sense or is at least pausible if there is no absolute truth.

I would say it is dependant on what the Absolute Truth IS .

"there is no excuse" is an absolute moral truth that still allows absolute freedom in choosing WHAT would need excusing.

"Obey Me" is another.

I would say it is dependant on what the Absolute Truth IS .

"there is no excuse" is an absolute moral truth that still allows absolute freedom in choosing WHAT would need excusing.

"Obey Me" is another.
:werd:

people can hypnotize themselves into believing anything they want. people would have to know that possiblity exists in order to even begin mastering it. the subconscious is vulnerable, it can be lead in any direction by virtually anyone/sequence of events. perhaps mastering mental control and self awareness is the common art all religious/spiritual institutions strive for, most of which are avenues to abuse (benefits being financial offerings, trojan-horse-like proliferation of a proprietary theology and thus exponential multiplication of said theology, a basal means of manipulation of morals and beliefs, instillation of fear[weakness]). mastering your own mind puts more control over your life than any other single thing. mastering your own domain can result in undue pressure in the vessicles, mastering your thoughts is in and of itself creating your reality. what makes self control and witchcraft different from each other? the only difference i can think of is self control involves yourself, witchcraft is a collective effort. :2cents:

The real problem here is that we've hijacked other peoples opportunity to ridicule $100T2's decision to become a Witchiepoo. It is my deepest hope that we can get back to making $100T2, God bless him for his candor, explain himself.

How old are you by the way?

Disrespectful... Tsk, tsk.

mastering your thoughts is in and of itself creating your reality. what makes self control and witchcraft different from each other? the only difference i can think of is self control involves yourself, witchcraft is a collective effort. :2cents:

civilization would fall under the heading of witchcraft then.

it being an artifically constructed common viewpoint on a big chunk of reality.

take for example the notion of cops.

until the civilised notion of cops weakens, cops don't need guns most of the time because civilised people GIVE them all the stopping power they need.

a flash of the lights, a whoop of the siren is every bit as effective at stopping whatever is going on as a barrage of 9mm's.

headology.

I am still totally puzzled over this "moral reletivism" business.

what is the absolute morality referenced ?

I have been forced to invent my own, "Obey Me." for example, which is clearly a straw man, but I think is a terriffically well chosen one, but I don't KNOW because all I hear is .....


it is fun to respectfully sneer at awefully goofy notions, it takes far more skill than a simple :gay:

civilization would fall under the heading of witchcraft then.

it being an artifically constructed common viewpoint on a big chunk of reality.

take for example the notion of cops.

until the civilised notion of cops weakens, cops don't need guns most of the time because civilised people GIVE them all the stopping power they need.

a flash of the lights, a whoop of the siren is every bit as effective at stopping whatever is going on as a barrage of 9mm's.

headology.

Please don’t feed the raccoons.

what is the absolute morality referenced ?

Hard to say what it is but if you believe in God, absolute morality falls right into place.

I have been forced to invent my own, "Obey Me." for example, which is clearly a straw man, but I think is a terriffically well chosen one, but I don't KNOW because all I hear is .....

I guess you'll have to be content with patting yourself on the back.

what else could I do but send some angry bears to tear those evil children to bloody pieces

note that the reason noah had a pair of 9' tall two ton walking razor blades on the ark was specifically so the lord would have them on hand to slash and tear those children to a gruesome and bloody death.

as an object example of absolute morality.

:bowdown: :screwyou:

Hard to say what it is but if you believe in God, absolute morality falls right into place.

apparantly, but that "hard to say" bit when applied directly over any attempt to actually LOOK at what is termed an "absolute" upon which so much is based, including the assumption that witchcraft is even sillier than it appears at first glance, is a tad frustrating.

isn't the POINT of an "Absolute" to BE unequivicable ?

Hard to say what it is but if you believe in God, absolute morality falls right into place.


How do you figure that? There are plenty of people who "believe in god" and kill each other in the name of... there are nut job christians who preach from both sides of their mouth: "thou shalt not kill, unless theyre different from us". Oh I'm sorry, maybe that is 'absolute morality' falling right into place.... that makes so much sense my balls hurt.

civilization would fall under the heading of witchcraft then.

it being an artifically constructed common viewpoint on a big chunk of reality.

take for example the notion of cops.

until the civilised notion of cops weakens, cops don't need guns most of the time because civilised people GIVE them all the stopping power they need.

a flash of the lights, a whoop of the siren is every bit as effective at stopping whatever is going on as a barrage of 9mm's.

headology.

If such control to instill compliance in people was ever implemented, i don't see why it should be hard-limited there and couldnt be applied to eliminate the existence of cops to begin with.

i personally would never claim any one religion right now. spirituality is like water: it's all around us, why should i take the easy way out and look for only one particular brand of water? typical consumerist mentality. totally worthless and applied to a serious issue like spirituality?

But there is evidence of prayer and religion (and spells) working: yes perhaps. the problem shows up when the simple fact that the successful results were acheived while practicing X religion, the mind is then entrained to associate that success with your particular religion, lending credence to it, when in fact all it took was true faith and your instrinsic spiritual power. thats tragic.


some religionists are like people in the midst of a torrential downpour, but are dehydrating because they can't find a bottle of evian to drink. it's so stupid and totally phsychological.

atheists are kind of like people who are bitter at the evian drinkers, so much so, that they completely denouce water. they won't even acknowledge the water around them when they drown in a lake. kind of a stupid solution....

my point is spirituality and harnessing the instrinsic almost-GOD-like power we all have to control our own lives in ways we wouldnt imagine does not have to be branded. it's universal and the greatest tragedy is people who can't see it, unless it is wearing a brand name or sub-culture label.

this concept applies far beyond the reaches of spirituality...

$100 - I'm curious, what would you personally attribute the success of 'spells' to?

it's universal and the greatest tragedy is people who can't see it, unless it is wearing a brand name or sub-culture label.

this concept applies far beyond the reaches of spirituality...

yup, I believe "Headology" {tm Pterry} covers it.

a cute thing is that as spiritualism it is not reproducable and cannot be scientifically investigated, but as headology it IS reproducable and CAN be scientifically investigated.

yup, I believe "Headology" {tm Pterry} covers it.

a cute thing is that as spiritualism it is not reproducable and cannot be scientifically investigated, but as headology it IS reproducable and CAN be scientifically investigated.

Thats the most ironic thing though, 'science' is so limited to a scientists understanding, and of course limited to his mind..... and even all understanding of physics is totally theoretical. Are we using m-theory? string theory? particle theory? its like trying to prove theres light with a microphone. how can we have anti-matter, dark matter? we cant detect it quite possibly because it's extra-dimensional. How can science be in favor of branes/dimensions when it cannot quantify them? Without faith in a possiblity, that possibility cannot exist. The clasical conflict between scientists and spiritualists? They choose to believe different possibilities and thus live totally different experiences.


Whats the basic idea of headology?

the beauty of science IS that very limitation.

by not accepting something as truth until it can be actually measured it places no LIMITS on the truth itself, all the limits are on our ability to observe.

mystics always place sharp boundries on what they will ALLOW to be true.


headology... think stereotypical voodoo, dolls and pins, psychological quantum coupling.
the map is the territory, if you believe hard enough.

How do you figure that? There are plenty of people who "believe in god" and kill each other in the name of... there are nut job christians who preach from both sides of their mouth: "thou shalt not kill, unless theyre different from us". Oh I'm sorry, maybe that is 'absolute morality' falling right into place.... that makes so much sense my balls hurt.

If you believe in God then it is logical that He has some rules , hence absolute morality falling into place. Absolute morality has nothing to do with whether people obey the rules, just that the rules exist. Maybe you should you should try reading the whole thread before sharing your thesaurus invested "contributions."

If you believe in God then it is logical that He has some rules , hence absolute morality falling into place. Absolute morality has nothing to do with whether people obey the rules, just that the rules exist. Maybe you should you should try reading the whole thread before sharing your thesaurus invested "contributions."


absolute morality = absolute subjectivity, misnomer

Absolute morality has nothing to do with whether people obey the rules, just that the rules exist.

but, the Rules seem to only exist theoretically, in that there ARE no explicit set of rules written by god that can be pointed at.

the fact that god cannot be openly consulted on the contents of whatever rules he is supposed to be interested in imposing on us just widens the gap between absolute and imaginary.

but, the Rules seem to only exist theoretically, in that there ARE no explicit set of rules written by god that can be pointed at.

This is an assumption that your argument is based upon, making it inherently weak.

the fact that god cannot be openly consulted on the contents of whatever rules he is supposed to be interested in imposing on us just widens the gap between absolute and imaginary.

Widens the gap between absolute and imaginary? I'm not sure if you actually meant to say this or if it's just a mistake.

This is an assumption that your argument is based upon, making it inherently weak.

rather, it is an observation.

have you anything that is NOT a translated opinion of what somebody told somebody else god said ?



Widens the gap between absolute and imaginary? I'm not sure if you actually meant to say this or if it's just a mistake.

dang, I was doing a Migrane and although I couldn't figure exactly what it meant it seemed to flow so well that I figured it MUST mean something and I hoped that it meant something like what I wanted it to mean.

in other words, someone put a spell on me.

the fact that god cannot be openly consulted on the contents of whatever rules he is supposed to be interested in imposing on us just widens the gap between REAL and imaginary.

which gap 'mystical' is supposed to bridge ?

mystical being a bridge so folks are able to go get imaginary stuff and bring it over to the real side.


amusingly, that being the exact same function of science, to act as a crane to fetch stuff from imaginary and build up the edge of real, extending real out into former imaginary territory.
{like those folks living at the edge of the water dumping dirt in it to extend the land outward}

the problem with the mystical bridge is that it is immovable and sets the edge of reality as a static line that cannot be crossed or altered or it would leave this big stone bridge standing meaninglessly in the middle of a garden.

where the crane of science is mounted on huge tank tracks and keeps moving along as reality continues to grow.
[sort of like the big coal mining scoops that walk to wherever needs to be dug next]

When you say “real,” are you referring to what is perceived as real on an individual basis or what is actually real?

Note that the latter does not move.

a great definition of real is that which is still true even after you stop believing in it.

which is why science can dredge rocks out of the sea of foaming illusion and build solid foundations for churches so the worshippers can freely foam back without having rocks falling on their heads.

there I was, having just very impressivly showed my current chosen prophet some of my Secret Truth and this gang of children started MAKING FUN OF HIS BALD HEAD !!!

what else could I do but send some angry bears to tear those evil children to bloody pieces ?

naturally, after all the screaming stopped, I gathered their souls up and cast them into the flaming pit where they can burn forever as an expression of the Absolute Truth... "There Is No Excuse".

I've seen someone post about this event before, as though the Bible is showing that God is vindictive and unreasonable. Why didn't you mention Jesus cursing the fig tree or Moses not being allowed to go into the land of Canaan because he hit a rock twice? The Bible describes God's seriousness about his laws. He demands obedience. If you tell a lie, you deserve to go to hell. It's that serious. But also with that idea, the Bible describes God as being long suffering, patient, full of mercy and grace. Personally from this story, I take the lesson that I should never insult God's messenger. And the repercussions of doing it might result in my untimely death.

Honegod, what is the overall picture of the Bible, is God more loving, slow to anger and patient or is God more vengeful and quick to dispense justice? In light of the fact that the second Adam died an unjust death to pay for all the sins of the cumulative population of the planet, well, you have to arrive at the former conclusion. Otherwise, how much different are you from those 'qatan na'ars' in disrespecting Elisha?

the second Adam died an unjust death to pay for all the sins of the cumulative population of the planet

never happened.

the second Adam died an unjust death to pay for all the sins of a carefully chosen fraction of the cumulative population of the planet.

leaving a majority of the cumulative population of the planet still saddled with the sin of the first adam, to be treated like those 'qatan na'ars' without the need for them to [choose to] formally disrespect anything at all.

as to the "unjust" punishment, the accused stood convicted of violently assulting churchgoers lawfully engaged in approved AND PROTECTED church affairs.

such violent religious terrorism was rightfully sternly dealt with by the Roman authorities.

somewhat worse than mere thievery, which also rated execution, yes ?

never happened.

the second Adam died an unjust death to pay for all the sins of a carefully chosen fraction of the cumulative population of the planet.

leaving a majority of the cumulative population of the planet still saddled with the sin of the first adam, to be treated like those 'qatan na'ars' without the need for them to [choose to] formally disrespect anything at all.

Sounds like Calvin to me. Where do you stand? Do you believe this or not?

as to the "unjust" punishment, the accused stood convicted of violently assulting churchgoers lawfully engaged in approved AND PROTECTED church affairs.

such violent religious terrorism was rightfully sternly dealt with by the Roman authorities.

somewhat worse than mere thievery, which also rated execution, yes ?

Not so on your first point, he was convicted of blasphemy, for claiming to be the Christ. If you recall from scripture even the governor was going to let him go, but did not do so, to appease the people. And Pilate left it up to the people to choose his fate.

what is the overall picture of the Bible, is God more loving, slow to anger and patient or is God more vengeful and quick to dispense justice? In light of the fact that the second Adam died an unjust death to pay for all the sins of the cumulative population of the planet, well, you have to arrive at the former conclusion. Otherwise, how much different are you from those 'qatan na'ars' in disrespecting Elisha?

The answer is the God of the Bible is schizophrenic. In the Old Testament he's wrath and smiting. In the New Testament he's the loving father sorry for having beaten you earlier, and now offering you favorite toys to make up for it.

The answer is the God of the Bible is schizophrenic. In the Old Testament he's wrath and smiting. In the New Testament he's the loving father sorry for having beaten you earlier, and now offering you favorite toys to make up for it.

Back it up with some data.

Sounds like Calvin to me. Where do you stand? Do you believe this or not?

I tend more toward Hobbs, 'nasty,brutish, and short'

97 feces indeed.

I believe that is the story told in the bible, as presented by the able, and currently banned, yzf.

Not so on your first point, he was convicted of blasphemy, for claiming to be the Christ. If you recall from scripture even the governor was going to let him go, but did not do so, to appease the people. And Pilate left it up to the people to choose his fate.

that is indeed the story told in the bible, but...

none of the apostles could possibly have been present for any part of the actual trials, since they would have been equally accused as accessories if nothing else.

the romans enforced freedom of religion, so one cult would have no lever to use the roman justice system against any other cult, the romans didn't CARE about heresy, for rome to get involved there HAD to be an offence against ROMAN law, which busting up a temple most certainly was.

given that, the bible story looks to be a complete fabrication to make jesus LOOK as though he was unjustly convicted of something that was NOT a crime against rome, even though he was PROUDLY guilty of an actual crime that rated exactly the penalty he recieved.

I can just see the pharasees thinking "Gocha !!" upon hearing about jesus' illegal violent assult on the moneychangers.

wossisname mutilating a member of the arresting party only adds to the list of charges against the gang leader jesus.

oops, 95 theses, just starting to read a translation of them now.

my german is scarce.

whoops LUTHER, not calvin, so I'll read THIS first : By: John Calvin - A Treatises on the Eternal Predestination of God the Secret Providence of God.

Sounds like Calvin to me. Where do you stand? Do you believe this or not?

from page 47 - A Treatises on the Eternal Predestination of God the Secret Providence of God.

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/calvin/calvin_predestination.html

Who does not see that the eternal purpose of God is here set in diametrical opposition to our own purpose and will?
This passage also was deeply weighed by Augustine, who, in his interpretation of it, observes " that God so works out all things, that He works also in us the very willingness by which we believe."
It is thus, I think, clearly brought out and proved who they are whom God calls by the Gospel to the hope of salvation, whom He engrafts into the body of Christ, and whom He makes heirs of eternal life; that they are those whom He had adopted unto Himself by His eternal and secret counsel to be His sons; and that He was so far from being moved by any faith in them to come thus to adopt them, that this His election is the cause and the beginning of all faith in them; and that, therefore, election is, in order, before faith.

Equally plain and manifest is that which we have in the eighth chapter of the apostle's Epistle to the Romans.
For after he had said that all things work together for good (or are a help) to the faithful who love God; that men might not trace the source of their happiness to themselves, or suppose that by their first loving God they had, by thus first loving Him, merited such goodness at His hands; the apostle, by way of correcting every error of that kind, immediately adds, " Who are the called according to His purpose."
Whereby we see that Paul is anxious to secure to God Himself all the originating glory, for he shews that it is He Who, by His calling, causes men to love Him, who of themselves could do nothing but hate Him.


sounds about right to me, you got a problem wit' dat ?

I'm closing this because it turned into yet another thread on Christianity.

Back it up with some data.

The "data" is the bible. Old testament, wrath of god. New testament, love of god.