Here's what I think about Paganism.

[General Septem]

http://omegaplus.blogspot.com/2006/06/reasons-to-become-wiccan-for-slow-this.html

:D

[silvery moon]

I must say that, to some extent, I agree with you
But how would you feel if someone would post the same thing, only anti Christian?

[General Septem]

But how would you feel if someone would post the same thing, only anti Christian?
I would rather easily refute it. I'm not so insecure in my faith that I can't take a couple of hits.

[silvery moon]

Good for you :D But what would you think of the 'person' that did it.. Would you think of him/her as pathetic, someone that disrespects other people's beliefs? Or someone who's simply insecure about his/her own faith and therefore has to be as childish to pick on other people's religion?

[General Septem]

Good for you :D But what would you think of the 'person' that did it.. Would you think of him/her as pathetic, someone that disrespects other people's beliefs? Or someone who's simply insecure about his/her own faith and therefore has to be as childish to pick on other people's religion?
I don't judge people based on their actions. For instance, I wrote that article this morning after I got fed up with a Wiccan I know who pissed me off, and I needed to vent.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Well that all is a really asinine way to attack someone. It is very childish and presumptuous. It sounds to me more like you don't understand the Wiccan religion nearly enough to show how it's wrong, so you're just throwing out a lot of BS that may apply to one or two Wiccans that you know. Just like we've been arguing about the Christian faith, you can't use the acts of a few select people to define the whole.

You do know that many of the Christian traditions were created from ideas stolen from the Pagan religion right?

[Paisleyspeaker]

But wasn;t it the actions of this Wiccan that made you angry? Wiccans run the gamut as do the followers of any other faith. But most of the Wiccan I have met I would call spritually lazy. They are held to a level of behavior that should be almost as stricts as christians. Instead of the ten commandments , they have the wiccan rede: "And it harm none, do what thou will" Which when looked at it objectivly covers most of the commandments murdering, commiting adultry, stealing, and giving false witness all obviously harm others. As well as failing to honor your mother and father. Coveting really is self harm. That leaves those that have to do with the sensitivity of God. Here is gets murky as some honor pagan dieties and others an abstract Earth Spirit that they very carefully don't call a god.They all in one way or another don't fufill those commadments.
People are people and there will always be those that agravate you.

[General Septem]

Actually, every sin harms others in some way. Every single one of them, from using the Lord's name in vain to committing fornication harms the human race as a whole. If you can't understand that on your own then there's little hope of me explaining, at least over the Internet.

Catholicism didn't get shit from Wiccanism, or any other religion for that matter except Judaism, of which Catholicism is an extention. Any similarities to other false religions are coincidental.

"Judging a religion by the actions of one of its members" only applies to a couple of the "reasons" I stated. Many of the others are just ironic, such as 4, 5, and 7.

All in all it's just an article I wrote about the religion of someone who got on my nerves which I already thought was wrong for legitimate reasons ommitted from the article because all in all I don't care.

[Paisleyspeaker]

I had seperated the first three commandments because to break those commandments you have to believe in God. If you don't, they hold little relevance. But all can agree to the harm done by breaking the other commandments.

And there are things in Christianity that also existed in earlier faiths. That is what causes the belief that Christianity appropriated them. The best example of this is the holy trinity. The neolithic fertitlity cauls that spead over europe and asia also had a trinty the maiden, mother, and crone.
Now help me with this, I have read the bible and do bible studies weekly, but I have yet to find a single refrence to the holy trinity. I find Jesus saying his father is his father, and greater than him. I also find all the refrences to Jesus and God are all capitlized as proper nouns should be, but refrences to the holy spirit are not capitolized as it is nothing more than Gods active force on Earth.
When you take into consideration that the gospels were written roughly 100 years after the deaths of the apostles, then the Council of Nicea happend less than a hundred years after that. Where did the concept of trinity come from? Did an omnipotent God just forget to include that fact both the Old testament and the New? When looked at it objectivly it isn't suprising people jump to the conclusions they do.
Now when you add the two best known Christian holidays to the mix, it gets worse. Christ's birth in Bethehem is sold as a birth in a manger, but it was most likely a cave. No biggie. But when you read the acccounts of the shepards in the fields, then compare that with the agricultural calander, it doesn't fit. In that part of the world, they wouldn't have still been in the fiields. He birth would have been more like october. So why December? And the yule log is pagan, as well as the decorated tree. And the timing just happens to line up with a pagan celebration. Easter is even worse. Why is the holiday that celebrates the resurection of Christ named after a goddess Eo-star? And the symbols of the egg and the rabbit are moon symbols, and femine symbols. And again the timing is something, because it coincides with the pagan spring fertility holiday.
Traditionally religions have taken on aspects of those that existed before them. Usally through it's converts holding on to the old while embracing the new. It is not generally done with intention by religioug leaders.

[General Septem]

Well I got the gist of some of that. In response to the Holy Trinity. The Holy Spirit is mentioned many times in the New Testament, the most notable occurence happening at Pentecost when the Holy Spirit came down in tongues as of fire and came to rest on the disciples' heads. The people began speaking in tongues, and so on. So we have the Father, the Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit, all of whom are mentioned in the Bible. That's all the Holy Trinity is. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not each other, but all three are God.

Just because it isn't in the Bible doesn't make it not true. Jesus gave Peter power that "whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven." Now this "binding" and "loosing" refers to governing the Church's laws. If Peter "binds" a certain law or doctrine, it will be "bound" in Heaven. It doesn't have to be a law, it can be doctrine. We believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

In short, nothing we believe as Catholics goes against anything we know in the Bible.

I could care less about the similarities between Catholicism and Paganism. It doesn't mean anything.

[Paisleyspeaker]

I am familiar with the pentacost refrence in Acts, and Jesus telling them of it in John. What I am looking for is a scripture that specifically mentions holy trinity, not just one part, or another. But the calls them the holy trinity. A verse that says they are one god. This has always confused me, and every explantion I have heard has confused me further. If Jesus was God, then why would he tell us to worship his father not him, that his words were Gods words. Would'nt they just be his words?

[General Septem]

Basically, it's the only explanation that would make sense.

[Paisleyspeaker]

But doesn't it also make sense that they are Father and Son like the gospels say? And that the Holy Spriit is Gods agent here on earth?

[General Septem]

How would that go against the idea of the Holy Trinity?

[Paisleyspeaker]

Just the whole, one God , three faces/people part. They would still be the Holy "three"

[General Septem]

Not necessarily. None of the Trinity are each other, but all three are God. Think of it as a committee if you will, except they agree on everything.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Not necessarily. None of the Trinity are each other, but all three are God. Think of it as a committee if you will, except they agree on everything.

You really have a narrow viewpoint on what God and all is and can be, and exactly how things work under his rule, almost like you've spent a few weeks up there talking directly to him. Not saying that you're wrong, but I think you need to open up to possibilities beyond what you've been taught.

[General Septem]

I've already said, I know the opposing sides and they just don't make sense. It's not narrow if you know it to be true, any more than calling me a human being is narrow. If it didn't matter I wouldn't care.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

I've already said, I know the opposing sides and they just don't make sense. It's not narrow if you know it to be true, any more than calling me a human being is narrow. If it didn't matter I wouldn't care.


So then for example: is the father, son and the holy spirit all one in the same god? Are they each individuals, or is there something in between? And how do you know this for certain? Why does no other explanation make sense?

[General Septem]

So then for example: is the father, son and the holy spirit all one in the same god? Are they each individuals, or is there something in between? And how do you know this for certain? Why does no other explanation make sense?
All three are individuals, but all three are God. Not gods, but God. Think of a triangle. Better yet, allow me to show you one:

http://orlapubs.com/AR/IMAGES--BUTTONS/triangle3x3.gif

It's the only thing that makes sense, because Jesus is God, The Father is God, and the Holy Spirit, being the spirit of the Father and Son, must also be God. We only have one God. But the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit, and the Son is neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit; they are three separate individuals. The Trinity must therefore be one God yet three persons at the same time. Based on what Scripture tells us I see no other explanation.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Scripture has been translated too many times to take it completely literally. The Da Vinci Code makes a good point of this, that the Holy Grail probably isn't actually a cup, but a symbol of what holds the holy blood of christ. Not to say that this is true, but an acceptible alternative if you don't take the translated scriptures completely literally. Also, these scriptures were written by men, and they may have gotten things wrong or at least not completely right. These men were just interpreting things the best that they could also...so there are plenty of ways for things not to be exactly as you understand them.

Maybe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all separate entities, why couldn't they be? Maybe there is only the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost is nothing more than a creation of the Christian Religion. Just what makes these possibilities impossible in your mind?

[General Septem]

Maybe the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are all separate entities, why couldn't they be? Maybe there is only the Father and the Son, and the Holy Ghost is nothing more than a creation of the Christian Religion. Just what makes these possibilities impossible in your mind?
They are separate entities, but they are also God. The Holy Spirit is mentioned several times in Scripture, notably Pentacost. I'm going purely by Scripture here. The business about "maybe the Bible is wrong because it was translated so many times" is just bullshit spread by Atheists; no historical evidence suggests that the Bible has been changed, particularly since translations are rarely translations of tranlsations.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

So then you believe every last fact that the Bible posts, literally word for word?

[General Septem]

Not word for word, especially since some things just aren't important. Such as whether Jesus cleansed the temple at the begining of His ministry or at the end of His ministry - it doesn't matter when, what matters is that He did.. Or exactly how many cubits in circumference the "sea" in the book of Kings was. And then there are things that are meant to be taken proverbially or metaphorically. It's still quite obvious which things are to be taken literally and which are not.

[Paisleyspeaker]

If not all of the good book is to be taken literally then what do you belive about creatioinism vs evolution, and how old is the earth?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Not word for word, especially since some things just aren't important. Such as whether Jesus cleansed the temple at the begining of His ministry or at the end of His ministry - it doesn't matter when, what matters is that He did.. Or exactly how many cubits in circumference the "sea" in the book of Kings was. And then there are things that are meant to be taken proverbially or metaphorically. It's still quite obvious which things are to be taken literally and which are not.


In that case, whether or not you can rationalize yourself, if you can neglect certain portions of the Bible because you think that they are not important, then you are admitting that the Bible does not have it perfect and you cannot justify why certain portions are fact where others are not. How can you be certain which parts of the Bible are intended to be taken literally? You have not spoken with the authors about it, and the society in which the Bible was written is far too different from the society of today to know exactly what the authors' intent was with each writing.

Plainly put, if one portion of a piece of literature is known to be false, while other portions have not been proven true, it would be ignorant to claim undoubtedly that they are true.

[General Septem]

In that case, whether or not you can rationalize yourself, if you can neglect certain portions of the Bible because you think that they are not important,
I wouldn't put it that way. Nothing in the Bible is explicitly false. I'll give you an example. If the Bible gives the dimensions for something as 10 cubits in diameter and 30 in circumference, which it does, you can pretty much interpret that to mean the exact figures don't matter, because a perfect circle 10 in diameter and 30 in circumference is geometrically impossible. All the figures are there for is to give you a general idea of how big the thing is, in this case about 15 feet wide. If it's 15 1/2 feet wide, you're not going to go to Hell for thinking it's 15. The Bible is not a textbook.

What does this have to do with Paganism anyway?

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

The Bible is not a textbook.



Yet you are treating it like you know exactly how to interpret it, and what is important and what isn't. You are assuming that you can overlook a mistake because it isn't important, yet if you haven't proven a mistake you are rejecting the notion of there being a different explanation for it than your interpretation.



Its relation to Paganism is that you are rejecting Paganism with proof of the Bible, and treating the Bible as absolute fact, where you feel appropriate. I am simply trying to show you that the Bible isn't necessarily the perfect representation of the truth that you claim it to be.

[General Septem]

Yet you are treating it like you know exactly how to interpret it, and what is important and what isn't. You are assuming that you can overlook a mistake because it isn't important, yet if you haven't proven a mistake you are rejecting the notion of there being a different explanation for it than your interpretation.
People have studied these things their whole life and came to the same conclusions. Do you deny that the exact size of the "sea" in Kings is unimportant? If it was important then how do you explain it being 10 cubits in diameter and 30 in circumference? Some things are up for debate but there really aren't any other explanations for other things.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

People have studied these things their whole life and came to the same conclusions. Do you deny that the exact size of the "sea" in Kings is unimportant? If it was important then how do you explain it being 10 cubits in diameter and 30 in circumference? Some things are up for debate but there really aren't any other explanations for other things.

I'm not denying anything, I'm pointing out that if you can't prove good credibility, yet you are certain there are portions that have bad credibility then how am I supposed to accept that the portions that you select are true? You are only believing the portions that you want to in the Bible, and that is why I am arguing that you need something more.

These people who studied it for their entire lives...did they have something that they wanted to prove while doing it or were they being completely unbiased in their studies?

[General Septem]

I'm not denying anything, I'm pointing out that if you can't prove good credibility, yet you are certain there are portions that have bad credibility then how am I supposed to accept that the portions that you select are true? You are only believing the portions that you want to in the Bible, and that is why I am arguing that you need something more.
I think you're misunderstanding though. It's not about "believing what I want to believe". It's about using common sense; the passages that are to be taken metaphorically are quite obvious. For example, the parable about Lazarus and the rich man. The story itself is true but it is unlikely the Lazarus and rich man talked about actually existed, nor do they have to have existed for the meaning to have effect. In the case of the parable, it's clearly maked "Jesus told a parable", and parables are stories, not meant to be taken word-for-word literally in the sense that the people involved actually existed, but rather the point of the story is what it's really about. There's a difference between that and "believing what I want to believe".

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

And still, how can you be certain that everything else that you hasn't been proven true was meant to be interpreted exactly as you are interpreting it? Why do you claim anything other than your interpretation of it can't possibly be true?

"You'll find that many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

[General Septem]

And still, how can you be certain that everything else that you hasn't been proven true was meant to be interpreted exactly as you are interpreting it? Why do you claim anything other than your interpretation of it can't possibly be true?

I never said any such thing. There are things that are true. For example, murder is wrong. But there are other things that are open to debate and generally don't matter anyway. This all started because paislyspeaker was critisizing Catholics for believing in doctrine not explicitly stated in the Bible. I was just explaining why this train of thought was flawed, at least in one particular example, specifically the Holy Trinity. She claimed that this was not in the Bible. I said that it was not against anything in the Bible and while the Bible did not explicitly mention the Holy Trinity, what is in the Bible points directly at the Trinity.


"You'll find that many of the truths that we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view."

Of course, but that doesn't make either point of view wrong. What Obi-Wan was referring to is how his explanation of the evil in someone killing the good in them and taking over was true, from a certain point of view. That's different from something that's just blatantly wrong.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

That's right. Your posts indicated to me that you felt differently. You had been arguing that the Holy trinity had to be all god, and all separate. I am saying that they can be just all god, just all separate, or possibly something else. For whatever reason that is the direction that the argument had turned.

[Paisleyspeaker]

" ...And the three men I admire most; the Father , Son, and Holy Ghost, all took the last train for the coast..."

:D :cool: ;) :rolleyes:

anyone old enough to finish that line?

[General Septem]

...The day the music died. :D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

I think that song is too good a song for it to matter how old you are. If you have the mental capacity to have enough of an opinion to post on this site you're going to be familiar with that classic!

[General Septem]

I like Weird Al Yankovic's version of it. :D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Oh definately, that's one of the few songs that I can sing word for word without the help of background music. But the original itself is pretty good too, Al wouldn't have used the tune if it wasn't!

[General Septem]

I like the song Yoda too. That's one of the few songs I was able to play chords on the guitar and sing at the same time. I can do both very well, just not at the same time.