>> ^osama1234:

...
i'd just expose her argument to be silly and weak as quickly and briefly as I can.
Take for example, she quotes: 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them"...
Well if you actually look at 9:5 in it's entirely:
But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.
And just to be uber-clear, let's continue onto 9:6
If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.
....


So it essentially says that you should use every tool at your disposal to kill the unbeliever, but if they "see the light" and convert to your way of thinking, then they're cool? Or did I miss something? Because that's not really an improvement!

Please note that I am in such awe of your debating technique I have decided to adopt it. I too will not be responding to anyone who points out flaws in my argument. As such, I'm right because I say I am. /thread

LALALAALALAALALALAALALALALALALALALAL I'M NOT LISTENING!!!

She really is presenting half the picture of what things really are like. I'm not going to get into the paedophilia, rape charges etc, because i dont want to have a back and forth rather, i'd just expose her argument to be silly and weak as quickly and briefly as I can.

Take for example, she quotes: 9:5 "Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them"...

Well if you actually look at 9:5 in it's entirely:

But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

And just to be uber-clear, let's continue onto 9:6

If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

If you want to get into the other point, reply, otherwise i really am not going to preach to a choir that simply isn't willing to listen.
*edit; i'm not even going to respond, you dont win arguments on the internet, they go on forever. If you want to criticize something, just at the very least dont be ignorant about it.

hey look, r10k came back, wrote more nothing and left again... bravo.

I thought you might actually be specific, with ANY example at all from the bible as to what you mean, but you haven't.

So, we're done here, and you'll delude yourself into thinking that you've 'won' this argument because we couldn't rebut you... except that you haven't said anything to rebut. So as long as you never say anything, no-one can refute you and you can think that you're winning this huge war against us pagans.

Well, if it makes you happy.

I, personally, would actually put my view about the bible out there... put out the actual thing that I thought that Pratchett was wrong about out there and see if it holds up to us picking at it. If it did then I could be happy that my reasoning has held up... if not, then I would go and see where I went wrong.

But you continue with your 'go and read the bible' line, which is meaningless, if it makes you feel good about seemingly having no actual basis for argument.

"without jesus, your solstice would mean nothing!"

Actually, the christians stole the holiday from the "dirty pagans." Same with Easter, and "All Hallow's Day." People weren't celebrating your shindigs, so you decided to put it on the same day as theirs.

It's like in highschool, a popular kid throws a party at his house and invites all your friends when it's your birthday. No one comes to your birthday because he's got hookers and blow.

Christ gave winter solstice meaning? Nice try, the church declared Christ's birthday as dec. 25th to curtail all the pagan celebrations during the winter solstice and give the people something christian to celebrate. From what I understand a lot of biblical scholars think his birth was in the spring. So basically the church stole the meaning of winter solstice for their own, and in doing so probably created some sort of blasphemy by their own standards.

>> ^scottishmartialarts:
Mithras was a Persian god, not Roman. Although his mystery cult was very, very popular among the Roman Legions. Wherever we have evidence of a Legion presence, we also find evidence of Mithras cult. As I recall Mithras was Ahura Mazda's (the infinitely good god of the Zoroastrian faith) general in his crusade against the devil Ahriman. Darius the Great's conquests were largely motivated out of missionary zeal to spread the Zoroastrian religion.


Well, Mithra was the Persian name. Adding the "s" on the end was just how it was Latinized. But the Roman Mithraic cult doesn't, as far as scholars can tell, have much in common with the Persian cult beyond the name and a few elements of symbolism--a lion-headed "Arrimanus," for instance, a clear Latinization of Ahriman. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to the Roman version of Mithras as a Roman god.

It has to be said, though, that Fry's facts about Mithras are just wrong. In the first place, we don't actually know what the central beliefs about Mithras were. They were Mysteries, not be written down or revealed to outsiders. The doctrines of Mithraism perished with its last follower. Reconstructions of Mithraic doctrine like the ones Fry read are merely speculative interpretations of the images found in the Mithraea--the caves where the Mysteries of Mithras were enacted.

However, some of the things Fry said are just plain wrong even as mere speculation. Mithras is never depicted as being born in a cave or manger, for instance, but emerging from a rock or an egg. He didn't die for anyone's sins or to give people eternal life. The central image of Mithras was instead the tauroctony--Mithras' slaying of a bull, usually assisted by a dog, a serpent, and a crab, clearly astrological symbolism. While there are a few superficial similarities with Christianity--as Fry mentioned, the head of the cult of Mithras was called Papa, just as the Pope is--they do not seem to go very deep.

And finally, it would be very strange for the December 25th date of Christmas to come from the cult of Mithras simply because it was a private mystery religion. Public celebrations just weren't allowed.

However, I'm a little surprised that Fry didn't mention Dies Natalis Solis Invicti--the Birthday of the Unconquered Sun. It was celebrated in the late Roman Empire around the same time as Christmas as a public holiday, and so is a prime candidate for being an influence on the date of Christmas.

His quick dismissal of Saturnalia as being only somewhat influential, though, is just plain wrong. Many of the traditions of Christmas clearly come out of Saturnalia--gift-giving, visiting friends, and lavish feasts and celebrations. Many elements of Northern European Christmas celebrations just as clearly come from the pagan holiday "Jol" or "Yule," such as hanging mistletoe as a sign of peace and love, and the ornamenting of an evergreen tree.

"In God We Trust" predates the Red Scare by a long time. It was suggested during the Civil War as a way to indicate to future generations that despite the country being "shattered beyond reconstruction", no, we were not a "heathen nation."

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust for the text of the letter making that suggestion.

Not quite related, but it strikes me as funny that the pagan goddess, Libertas, gets so much stage time along side "In God We Trust" given that whole First Commandment (Second in Judaism) deal.

>> ^Krupo:
I think the "big guns" and "lightweights" comment is more revealing than just calling this an "as usual" situation. I've heard MUCH better orators who would've turn H&F's points to shreds much more efficiently.


It could be the case that a better orator might better persuade the audience that the Catholic church is a force for good, but I doubt it would be strongly sustained by facts and reason.

Even at its best, the Church does great damage to freedom of thought and human dignity. In the 20th century alone, it has been responsible for tremendous damage in perpetuating colonial oppression. Where it spreads, it breaks apart or perverts traditional social structures and--by its teachings of exclusivity and damnation to Hell--splits societies apart. The Rwandan genocide, as Hitchens pointed out, was at least in part caused by the Church.

And this has been the case throughout its entire history, going back to the destruction of temples and lynching of Pagans by angry Christian mobs from the moment it attained political power. Before then, the twisted passive-aggression of voluntary martyrs--a not insubstantial proportion of Christian martyrs--and aggressive, even militant rhetoric of its leaders made it clear how they might act if given power.

Speaking from another country in USA's sphere of influence, I can attest that quite a few people here are annoyed that this obviously over-commercialized holiday has been imported without them having a say. They find it rude that kids suddenly demand candy under threat of vandalism due to a foreign tradition that they themselves do not observe.

I personally am a little ambivalent about this sneak implementation by commercial interests, but in the end I can appreciate another excuse to throw a party. I also like that the imported tradition is so obviously pagan in origin, to offset all the christian holidays in my country. If a little candy to the kids is the price I have to pay, so be it.

Nevertheless, I will forgo tonight's celebration in favor of a Rakfisk party. Yum yum!

>> ^raverman:
Most importantly the state is, constitutionally, in writing and sworn to = separated from the church.
Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, Buddist Marriage, Chinese Marriage, Muslim Marriage, Pagan, mother earth goddess - tree worshiping marriage... and Gay Marriage are all equal in law due to freedom of belief and religion.
Choosing to oppose Gay marriage based on Deuteronomy? That's using freedom of religion as a moral guidance to prejudge, and oppose equality.
You can't say, my god says you and your lifestyle is evil and you cannot be legally equal - but I'm not a homophobe, i don't hate you! You're just evil and you do not deserve freedoms.


How does Separation of Church and State have anything to do with me (hypothetically) being against gay marriage? I am neither Church nor State; I can have the opinion that gays should not be married all I want.

A homophobe who says they're not a homophobe is still a homophobe. PHJF's comment is a perfect example of someone being against gay marriage without a drop of hatred for gays. People seem to be getting hung up on the argument that an opinion like the one proposed by PHJF is unreasonable. Whether it is or not is beside the point. The point is that someone can be against gay marriage without being a homophobe and attempting to drown them out by calling them such is a disservice to everyone.

I am very much in support of people who are gay, but I am slightly sick of hearing that when people make voting decisions based on their beliefs, they are somehow violating the "separation of church and state" doctrine, which I believe wholeheartedly in, but which is not an explicit part of the Constitution. Jefferson suggested that the doctrine is an inherent part of the Constitution, and nobody "sw[ears] to" it, but they misunderstand it on a regular basis.

People shouldn't vote on issues that they consider moral based on their religious beliefs? Well, maybe their religious beliefs are wrong, but it is completely unreasonable to suggest that they shouldn't vote based on their beliefs, and it is even more unreasonable to suggest that this is somehow a violation of the separation of church and state. It isn't. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. All laws are enforcements of someone's concept of right and wrong. Granted, this particular issue is based less on ethics and more on faith that almost any other. Although the decisions themselves may be unconstitutional, there is nothing unconstitutional about making them based on religious beliefs. The separation of church and state is irrelevant.

>> ^raverman:
>>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.I actually agree with everything else in ^xxovercastxx's post except for this.

Most importantly the state is, constitutionally, in writing and sworn to = separated from the church.

Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, Buddist Marriage, Chinese Marriage, Muslim Marriage, Pagan, mother earth goddess - tree worshiping marriage... and Gay Marriage are all equal in law due to freedom of belief and religion.

Choosing to oppose Gay marriage based on Deuteronomy? That's using freedom of religion as a moral guidance to prejudge, and oppose equality.

You can't say, my god says you and your lifestyle is evil and you cannot be legally equal - but I'm not a homophobe, i don't hate you! You're just evil and you do not deserve freedoms.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.


I actually agree with everything else in ^xxovercastxx's post except for this.

Most importantly the state is, constitutionally, in writing and sworn to = separated from the church.

Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, Buddist Marriage, Chinese Marriage, Muslim Marriage, Pagan, mother earth goddess - tree worshiping marriage... and Gay Marriage are all equal in law due to freedom of belief and religion.

Choosing to oppose Gay marriage based on Deuteronomy? That's using freedom of religion as a moral guidance to prejudge, and oppose equality.

You can't say, my god says you and your lifestyle is evil and you cannot be legally equal - but I'm not a homophobe, i don't hate you! You're just evil and you do not deserve freedoms.

I agree with the basic message of this video, that change will not happen as long as we keep electing democrats and republicans.

However, Alex Jones is an insane nut that should be ignored. He's worse than Glenn Beck. He actually believes that the government is worshiping horned pagan gods and working directly with Satan. He thinks 911 is an inside job. He even thinks the Virginia Tech shootings were a government black-ops mind control experiment.

The answer is;

If you believe the bible word for word your a moron. That or you've never taken even a half-arsed attempt to understand the natural world and it's actual history. And yes.. I am calling the 65% of Americans who believe the bible word for word.. morons.

As to the Catholic Church. They have become surprisingly progressive in the last decade or so. They've apologized for their wrong doings, to the pagans, the jews, etc. They have abolished the idea of Hell. They have openly stated the bible is not a direct link to god and was written by followers of the apostles.. ie men, fallible men and should be looked to as a guide, stories to teach, not literal truths. They have even basically accepted evolution, saying that faith and evolution are not at odds.

Surprisingly progressive for the largest branch of the church in the world. Not surprising, it is the smallest denomination here in the US. Sucks our first settlers were the most puritanical Christians since the middle ages, a taint that still interferes with our countries progress in every way on a daily basis.

No need to apologize for great posts! The Sift is all about exchanging ideas and learning about new stuff! Oh, and bacon and getting drunk on a Monday.

Cheers!

In reply to this comment by enoch:
In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
^


well,
there is a bit more to it than that.
"wicca" is an amalgamation of celtic,galic and druidic practices which were considered "pagan" which means (of the village),they were fairly small groups of villagers in northern europe who had to become very secretive with the advent of the papacy and the holy seat,which wielded immense influence and power before the reformation.remember the inquisition went on for centuries,and many pagans were killed for their beliefs and practices.
however it should be interesting to note how much of pagan rituals and practices made it into the christian theosophy:
christmas,easter,st patricks day..there are numerous examples,and all are derived from pagan,even the sacred geomancy you find in churches come from pagan symbols.
now "wicca" on the other hand was revealed by gardenier in 1951 and made its way into the americas via england,and draws almost all of its knowledge and practices from a myriad of celtic,galic and druidic texts and rituals,beliefs.
gardenier was ex-communicated for his revealing of so-called "secrets".
but "wicca" does have a fairly loose set of practices compared to old-world traditional paganism.
now..your definition is more in line with the semetic triad,and how the canonize "holy" text.there is more than one author,but it was by council,325 a.d nicea,and then in 1605 a.d concerning the bible,and its "holy" text.
which to me is a far better attempt than say joeseph smith and his magic hat,or L ron hubbard and his dianetics.
religions,all 4500 of them,range from the sublime,surreal to the absurd.
i..myself..enjoy poking fun sometimes at that absurdity.

just realized you were making a statement,and not asking a question per se'.
my bad..shame to delete this answer tho..
so im not gonna =P
till next time bud.
namaste