@transmorpher
so when i point out the historical implications,i am somehow automatically disregarding the inherent problems within islam itself?

and your counter is to not only NOT counter,but refuse to acknowledge the historical ramifications,because that is some political,agenda driven-drivel.

that the ONLY acceptable argument is to focus on the religion itself,and ignore all other considerations,because,again..just tools to be used and abused by the left to fuel the far right.

am i getting this right so far?

that to include history is actually the path that stops that path to move forward?

and here i was still hanging on to that tired old adage "those who refuse to recognize history,are doomed to repeat it".

i am glad that you found those authors so respectful and admired their analysis and dedication to research,but you didn't even bother to use one of THEIR arguments.you simply made claims and then told us you read some books.

dude..now i am just kinda...sad for you.

i am sorry that you are oblivious to your own myopia,and that you are coming across as condescending.yet really haven't posted anything of value that you have to contribute.

you are just pointing the finger and accusing people of their arguments being dishonest,when it appears to me that everyone here has taken the time to try to talk to you,and your replies have been fairly static.

hitchens tried to make the case,and failed in my opinion(i am not the only one),but a case i suspect you are referencing.that even if we took the history of neoliberalism,colonialism and empire building OFF the table.islam would STILL be a gaggle of extremist radicals seeking a one world caliphate.

which is why i referenced dearborn michigan.
it is why i mentioned kabul afghanistan.

we are talking about the radicalization of muslims.
why are they growing?
where do they come from?
why do they seem to be getting more and more extreme?

which many here have attempted to answer,including myself.

but YOU are addressing and entirely different question:
'what is wrong with islam as a religion"

well,a LOT in fact and i already mentioned islams dire need for a reformation,but it goes further than that.you see the epistemology of both judiaism and christianity have been thoroughly argued over and over....and over..that what you find today is a pretty succinct refinement of their respective theologies.

agree/disagree..maybe you are atheist or agnostic,that is not the point.the point is that the so-called "finished' product has pretty clear philosophies,that adherents can easily follow.

for judaism this is in large part to the talmud,which is a living document,where even to this day rabbis debate and argue the finer details.not to be confused with holy scripture the torah.

christianity was forced to acknowledge its failings and flaws,because the theology was weak,and was becoming more and more an amalgamation of other religious beliefs,but most of all,and i think most importantly,the in-fighting with the vatican and the church of england had exposed this weakness,and christianity was on the brink of collapse due to its own hubris and arrogance.

they had no central authority.no leadership that the people could come to in order to clarify scripture.

so thanks to the bravery of martin luther,who risked being labeled a heretic,challenged the political power,which in those days was religious,and so began the process of reformation.

and also ended the dark ages,and western civilization stepped into the "age of enlightenment".

islam has had no such reformation,though is in desperate need of one.they had no council of nicea to decide what was holy canon and what was not,which is why you have more gospels of jesus in the quran than you do in the actual bible.

the king james bible has over 38,000 mis-translations in the old testament alone,whereas the quran has....well...we don't know,because nobody challenges the veracity of the quran.

am i winning you over to my side yet?
still think i am leftist "stooge' and "useful idiot"?

look man,
words are inert.
they are simply symbols.
they are meaningless until we lay eyes on them and GIVE them meaning.

so if you are a violent,war-loving person-------your religion will be violent,and warmongering.

if you are a peaceful and loving person----then your religion will be peaceful and loving.

the problem is NOT religion itself,and i know my atheists really don't want to hear that,but it's true.religion is going nowhere.

the problem is fundamentalist thinking.
the problem is viewing holy scripture as the unerring word of god.
which is why you see creationists attempt,in vain,to convince the rest of us that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old,and their only proof or evidence is a book.

so we all point and laugh.....how silly..6,000yrs old.crazy talk.

but WHY is the creationist so adamant in his attempts to defend his holy text?
because to accept the reality that the earth is not 6,000 yrs old but 14 billion yrs old,is to go against the word of god,and god is unerring,and if the bible is the word of god....and god is unerring.........

now lets go back to dearborn michigan.
if hitchens and harris are RIGHT,then that relatively stable community of muslims are really just extremists waiting for the angels to blow their horn and announce the time for JIHAD!!!

and,to be fair,that is a possibility,but a small one.

why?
because of something the majority of christians experience here in the states,canada,europe,australia...they experience pushback.

does this mean that america does not have radical christians in our midst?

oh lawdy do we ever.

ok ok..i am doing it again.
me and my pedantic self.

suffice to say:
islam IS a problem,even taken as a singular dynamic,that religion has serious issues.
but they are not the ONLY problem,which is what many of here have been trying to talk about.

ALL religions have a problem,and that problem is fundamentalism.which for christianity is a fairly new phenom (less than 100 yrs old) whereas islam has suffered from this mental malady pretty much since its inception.

ok..thats it..im done.pooped,whipped and in need of sleep.

hope i clarified some things with ya mate,but i swear to god if you respond with a reiteration of all your comments.i am going to hunt you down,and BEAT you with a bible,and not that wimpy king james either!
the hefty scofield study bible!

See now, here's a logical problem for me:

If the bible is the word and the truth then it is an absolute. It cannot be changed or added to or reinterpreted. It is set in stone - or more - it is set with the omnipotent will of god. Hence why you're able to quote it with such conviction.

And yet... That would suggest to me that if a man were to walk up to me today an claim to be a prophet from god. He is either a false prophet or insane. For that would allow him to 'amend' the word and the truth and the law - which surely, cannot be? For if the word can be changed and added to by man, then it cannot be an absolute. It becomes subjective. Competing amendments can exist. The Bible becomes a guide based on the latest prophet's interpretations of visions.

So what's different if a man claims to be a prophet happened less than 100 years ago?

Even rejecting the council of Nicea highlights a belief that the bible is an optional subjective interpretation - there for NOT a quotable absolute truth.

In 325, the Council of Nicea set out to officially define the relationship of the Son to the Father, in response to the controversial teachings of Arius. Led by bishop Athanasius, the council established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and condemned Arius' teaching that Christ was the first creation of God. The creed adopted by the council described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father."

Mormons reject the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus Christ was the first born of the Father in spirit and the only begotten in the flesh. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches that God the Father, His son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are one Godhead while remaining 3 distinct beings. The Father and the Son have glorified physical bodies, while the Holy Ghost has only a body of spirit.

The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible
The word "Trinity" was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)
The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: "One God, three Persons"
The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father."

Facts about the doctrine of the Trinity:
It is not mentioned in the Bible
It does not make philosophical sense
It is not compatible with monotheism
It is not necessary in order to explain the "specialness" of Jesus

In Matthew 3:16-17 of the KJV of the New Testament we read an account that includes all 3 members of the Godhead:

16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:

17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

Mormons assert that Jesus was not speaking to himself about being pleased with himself, but rather that God the Father was pleased in His son Jesus for being baptized while the Spirit of God descended upon Him (Jesus). This statement also implies that it (The Holy Spirit) was not there beforehand.

John 17:20-21 “Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us”

Mormons believe that it is that perfect unity between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that binds these three into the oneness of the divine Godhead.


See also:

John 17:3 “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

Matt 17:1-5 “...after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,

“And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.

“And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.

“Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.

“While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.”

John 1:1-2, 14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Matt. 12:31-32 “And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man (another name for Jesus Christ), it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come."

remember i am a gnostic so i read the gospels...differently.
i also include ALL the gospels not just those conveniently canonized by the council of nicea.
which is the direction my comment was pointing at.

Ahh, yes, I remember. Before I became a Christian I had gnostic beliefs. I believed in the demiurge for instance, and considered the gospels found in the dead sea scrolls authoratative. However, after much research and some spiritual experience, I have changed my mind. I could bring up objections as to their dates, as many were written far after the fact in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but my main objection is that I do not believe they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What gnosticism does is turn Christianity into a dualistic system, with matter being called evil and spirit being good. It recasts the Father as the "demiurge", a petty and evil tyrant who totally bungled the creation. It subtly shifts the blame for the fall from mankind to God. So now man is no longer to blame for sin, but is just a victim to the brute fact of being born in the material world that an evil demigod created. So naturally, rebellion against all his authority is justified.

Futher, the saving work of Christ is turned on its head. Rather than defeating death and sin on the cross, he came to defeat ignorance of the spiritual realities as teacher of secret knowledge (gnosis). Rather than being saved through substitutionary atonement and spiritual rebirth, we must save ourselves by climbing the ladder of spiritual truths and illuminating our "divine spark". All systems of morality and ethics are perceived as relative truths governing the material reality and irrelevent to the true salvation of gnosis.

So, if I could sum up: God is the devil, rebellion is good, man saves himself (enlightenment), death is a release, and do whatever you want. I think I've heard that somewhere, before..

This is in contrast to what Jesus said:

John 19:30

When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Meaning, the work is done. There is nothing more any human can do, or ever could do. He got us the victory, and God put everything under His feet:

Matthew 28:18

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

It is only through Him, and His finished work, that we are liberated

simply put:
the powerful institution known as the church (be it catholic or baptist) have co-opted and twisted the message to fit a narrative which empowers the institution and keeps them relevant.this translates into wealth and political power and influence.
this is the absolute antithesis of christs teachings.
christ held the key.he offered it openly and freely.
THIS disempowered those who desired control and was exactly the point.
those who held seats of power saw this threat clearly and if you cant beat em....co-opt them

While I agree the catholic church perverted the message for their own gain, I think your idea of what the message actually says is a far cry from what the disciples or the early church fathers knew it to say. The baptist church is very much in line with that message. John, for instance, wrote against gnostic teaching when he said:

1 John 4:3

And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

He wrote this because of gnostic claims that Jesus was not united to a body but only appeared that way.

for centuries the catholic church has been the greatest offender but in the past 50 years other institutions have wrestled their way to prominent control and espouse a contradictory and perverted message in order to manipulate their own people in order to gain more influence and power.all in the name of god.

i counsel many,MANY a people who were former fundamentalist,catholics,methodists,lutheran who found themselves in a crisis of faith due to this very perversion.
lets remember that for centuries the bible was an incomplete text (still is imo)and was written in languages the common man could not read (hell,most people were illiterate at that time).it was the printing press and the translation into english (and many many other languages) that freed the common man to read the very thing his entire belief system was based on.
this is a good thing.

Yes, I agree, it is a very good thing that everyone is able to read the word of God; the catholic church definitely engineered that situation of massive ignorance when they banned all translations except the latin vulgate. I also agree that the massive apostacy in the church is leading many people to reject the church altogether. This is very sad and unfortunate, and many of us have much to answer for. It is written that in the last days, many would fall away and believe false doctrines, and because of the increase of sin, the love of many would grow cold.

I must ask you though, what are you teaching these people? Are you telling them there is no such thing as sin and they need to save themselves?

you have a unique starting point in understanding the bible.simply by the fact you were not indoctrinated as a child and can study,research and formulate your own understanding of biblical teachings based solely on your own studies.

This has been an advantage, in that I can better relate to the secular world than most Christians. Even more of an advantage was my spiritual journey of about 8 years before becoming a Christian, where I explored all of the various religions and belief systems.

i have witnessed over a fairly short amount of time an evolution in your comments and responses pertaining to faith and belief.
this is such a good thing to see for it tells me your ravenous curiosity has driven you to attempt to understand.
the path is long and never truly ends but at least you ask the questions and do not blindly follow.
i am interested in seeing where you are in a year...or two..or twenty.
because nothing saddens me more than to discuss religion with someone who is incurious and seeks to be told what to think or how to feel in regards to faith and belief.

I am not incurious, no. I have followed God without any doctrine at all, so it isn't a frightening prospect to consider things from many different angles. One of the reason I do so much witnessing to atheists is because their questions bring me to many different areas of inquiry, and serve to illuminate and enhance my understanding.

I understand the objections people have, because I've had them too. My experience, especially my spiritual experience, has confirmed to me the truth of the word of God, which is universally applicable and experiential in nature. The Holy Spirit guides into all truth, and through Christ, I lack nothing. So, God has answered my objections. This is the truth I recognize:

Proverbs 3:5

Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

When you shift the basis of your reason from God to man, you have made yourself Lord over Him. If it only by trusting God to provide the answers that you can understand anything.

if christianity had more people like you and less people like pat robertson or ted haggard,the discussion would be so much more..interesting.
you seek to KNOW.you seek wisdom.that is a very very arduous path and can be a solitary one.
i encounter so many people who seem to conflate the ability to recite biblical chapter and verse as somehow translating to wisdom.
this is a falsehood and the epitome of lazy and is also the reason why they become enraged and will many times resort to the most intellectually dishonest trap of deeming the person who revealed their laziness as coming from the devil.

Christianity has many people like me, but too many who are half-hearted in their faith. What I am interested in is the truth, and not something that merely comforts me. I would rather die than live out a comfortable lie. All wisdom comes from God, it is something He gives freely. Whatever understanding I have is from Him, and not something I accomplished by myself. A lot of Christians are content with a superficial understanding of their faith, but this is mostly due to sin. They take what they want from the message and ignore the parts that command that they change their ways. This leads to much error and ignorance.

What I believe about the devil is that he is the father of all lies. I do not think that someone who believes a lie worships the devil, but I do believe that all those who sin are a slave to sin. There is a difference between worshipping the devil and being fooled by him. Some people do worship him knowingly, but most are simply following doctrines that he created to lead people away from the truth.

so i applaud the path you have chosen.
does this mean you will come to the same conclusions as i?
hehe..probably not.we will most likely still disagree but that does not mean i will not appreciate you as a human being nor dismiss your insights simply due to our disagreeing.

as always,
your brother.

Thanks bro. Neither would I throw out your observations based on our disagreement. I believe Jesus is the only way to know God, and I hope you will come to this conclusion as well, but in the meantime I am sure there is a lot of fruitful dialogue to be had. I have learned a few things from investigating various point you have brought up, and appreciate your insight. I respect your right to believe as you want, and I extend my hand to you as a fellow human being in the image of our Creator.

>> ^enoch

>> ^shinyblurry:

Yes, I agree people have used the message for personal gain..but your statement confuses me. Since you admit the gospel was the sincere account of the disciples who wrote it (it would have to be for them to martyr themselves over it), and they preached a resurrected, glorified Christ who is the Savior of the world, why don't you believe them?
>> ^enoch:
i think you misunderstood who i was refering to when i spoke of those who sought power perverted christs message.
the disciples didnt and nor did those early christians who suffered and died for their beliefs.
but there have been many who have used christs message to garner power,influence and to line their own pocket.
this can be traced back to only a few 100 yrs after christs death all the way to present day.
if you would like to call that a conspiracy theory,i guess thats your choice but i think the evidence is overwhelming.



remember i am a gnostic so i read the gospels...differently.
i also include ALL the gospels not just those conveniently canonized by the council of nicea.
which is the direction my comment was pointing at.
simply put:
the powerful institution known as the church (be it catholic or baptist) have co-opted and twisted the message to fit a narrative which empowers the institution and keeps them relevant.this translates into wealth and political power and influence.
this is the absolute antithesis of christs teachings.
christ held the key.he offered it openly and freely.
THIS disempowered those who desired control and was exactly the point.
those who held seats of power saw this threat clearly and if you cant beat em....co-opt them.

for centuries the catholic church has been the greatest offender but in the past 50 years other institutions have wrestled their way to prominent control and espouse a contradictory and perverted message in order to manipulate their own people in order to gain more influence and power.all in the name of god.

i counsel many,MANY a people who were former fundamentalist,catholics,methodists,lutheran who found themselves in a crisis of faith due to this very perversion.
lets remember that for centuries the bible was an incomplete text (still is imo)and was written in languages the common man could not read (hell,most people were illiterate at that time).it was the printing press and the translation into english (and many many other languages) that freed the common man to read the very thing his entire belief system was based on.
this is a good thing.

you have a unique starting point in understanding the bible.simply by the fact you were not indoctrinated as a child and can study,research and formulate your own understanding of biblical teachings based solely on your own studies.

i have witnessed over a fairly short amount of time an evolution in your comments and responses pertaining to faith and belief.
this is such a good thing to see for it tells me your ravenous curiosity has driven you to attempt to understand.
the path is long and never truly ends but at least you ask the questions and do not blindly follow.
i am interested in seeing where you are in a year...or two..or twenty.
because nothing saddens me more than to discuss religion with someone who is incurious and seeks to be told what to think or how to feel in regards to faith and belief.

if christianity had more people like you and less people like pat robertson or ted haggard,the discussion would be so much more..interesting.
you seek to KNOW.you seek wisdom.that is a very very arduous path and can be a solitary one.
i encounter so many people who seem to conflate the ability to recite biblical chapter and verse as somehow translating to wisdom.
this is a falsehood and the epitome of lazy and is also the reason why they become enraged and will many times resort to the most intellectually dishonest trap of deeming the person who revealed their laziness as coming from the devil.

so i applaud the path you have chosen.
does this mean you will come to the same conclusions as i?
hehe..probably not.we will most likely still disagree but that does not mean i will not appreciate you as a human being nor dismiss your insights simply due to our disagreeing.

as always,
your brother.

I'm not sure where you're getting that John was a rebel or disagreed with Jesus, or that the book of John contridicts a single thing Jesus said.. on the contrary John was the beloved disciple and perhaps more than the others was privy to the deeper meaning of what Jesus said. The book of John goes right to the heart of His teachings.

I'm also not sure where you're drawing this imaginary contention between Revelation and the apocryphal vision of paul from..they are completely different animals..Revelation is pure prophecy, whereas the supposed pauline doctrine is very similiar to the gnostic mystery texts, which describes the various artifices of heavenly processions, but fails to expand on or add any meaningful truths. It has the words but not the content. Revelation is about the future, and it makes several predictions which are happening today, such as the formation of a one world government, economy and religion. This is what seperates the word of God from everything else.

As far as predictions about the end go, no one is ever supposed to make them..and anyone who does is automatically wrong. >> ^enoch:
book of john.
the man who disagreed with jesus most of all and was a true zealot.
i prefer the book of revelation according to paul.the writing is better and not as much hallucinagenic influences.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible to be canonized by the council of nicea.the revelation according to paul was rejected because johns was allegedly more emotionally and imagery provoking than pauls.
because of the addition of the prophecy of john there have been so many christians who read the book literally.when we consider the times that these books were written and the punishment if exposed,we need to take in to account that much of what is written is metaphorical.representing much of the cosmology and symbology of the time by way of inferrence rather than literal translations.wish some devout christians understood that.
see millerites:http://historicaldigression.com/2011/05/20/the-rapture-millerites-and-the-great-disappointment/
they are still around today.seventh day adventists

book of john.
the man who disagreed with jesus most of all and was a true zealot.
i prefer the book of revelation according to paul.the writing is better and not as much hallucinagenic influences.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible to be canonized by the council of nicea.the revelation according to paul was rejected because johns was *allegedly more emotionally and imagery provoking than pauls.
because of the addition of the prophecy of john there have been so many christians who read the book literally.when we consider the times that these books were written and the punishment if exposed,we need to take in to account that much of what is written is metaphorical.representing much of the cosmology and symbology of the time by way of inferrence rather than literal translations.wish some devout christians understood that.
see millerites:http://historicaldigression.com/2011/05/20/the-rapture-millerites-and-the-great-disappointment/

*they are still around today.seventh day adventists

Interesting, but I disagree with Penn here to a large extent.

I am an atheist, but I don't think anyone should feel like they need to exclude themselves from celebrating Christmas, or any other holiday, out of respect towards those who assign a deeper / broader / different meaning to the day.

For one thing, start with the obvious: there is no indication that the person referred to in the Bible as Jesus, if he existed at all, was born on December 25th. I think that date was assigned at the Council of Nicea in 325AD, and was chosen because it was already celebrated as the winter solstice / birth of Pagan Sun God(s, of which the biblical Jesus could arguably be included amongst). So if secularists "steal" the "deeper meaning" of Christmas from Christians, they aren't doing anything that Christians didn't do to a long history of Pagans.

I think one can easily strike a respectful middle ground without bringing that up though. Celebrate the holiday in whatever way you want, including or excluding any elements you find good or bad. Make it exclusively about being with your family, and abandon the Santa / commercial aspects if you wish. Decorate the house, talk about Santa and Reindeer, and give small or home-made presents if you prefer that. Or explain to your kids that many if not most Christians celebrate the holiday for their own religious reasons, but that you prefer to see it as a time to celebrate the family bond.

Do whatever you want. Don't go out of your way to rub it in anyone's noses, and don't give a second thought to anyone that might tell you that you are somehow perverting or desecrating the "true spirit" of the holiday if they see that your house decorations are conspicuously missing a nativity, or that your list of preferred carols replaces "Silent Night" with "Frosty the Snowman".

ugh...
this person already feels that obama is the anti-christ.if i used this very poorly though out premise i could prove THIS man was the anti-christ.and to end it with that disclaimer../shakes head...thats like saying something dissrespectful to someone by prefacing "in all due respect" im gonna say something really shitty,but i mean no dissrespect.
i have posted before,but let me do so again for the sake of being thorough:
/takes a big breath...
satan does not exist.
the original bible was translated,as the video states,from aramaic to greek.
the sepaquintic translations fail many times(to the tune of around 22,000).
the hebrew word s'tn :meaning "diabolic=devil" as a noun and "adversary,adversarial" as an adjective.
so s'tn became satan,it was the church that used this as a rallying point.it has nothing to do with actual scriptural text.
so if satan doesnt exist that means???
yes,hell doesnt exist.
original sin was created by the church,not by jesus.
secondly,and this is just for fun.
there was a large community around the period of jesus that believed that prophecy had already happened.that the coming,ministry and resurection WAS the final judhement prophesized not by the book of john(hadnt been written yet) but by the more ancient hebrew texts concerning the messiah.
they were preterists.
thirdly,because i cant resist.
the book of john was a last minute addition to the bible.yes yes..it seems divine providence is a huge procrastinator around 325 a.d. just after the council of nicea.
the book of john was chosen over "the revelation of paul" due to its graphic imagery and imaginative span.which was most likely due to the fact that john was a strict sophian gnostic and practiced shamanism by ingesting magic mushrooms(this is only specualtion,but i find it hilarious)hence the more skillfully written prophecy of paul was beaten by a zealot who loved psychadelics.my point is that no gospel in the bible references jesus speaking about the book of john,though many christians are led to believe otherwise.
thank you for playing,dont forget to tip your bartenders.
good night.

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

In reply to this comment by ponceleon:
^

To me I'm not sure there is any "real" wiccan, like so-called druids, it is composed mostly of hippies wanting to rebel against "established" religions. Their "texts" are just written by self-styled religious "leaders" who basically pick and choose from whatever sounds cool to them.

Then again, isn't all religion like this? When you think about it, some guy (and in rare cases girl) just decides God wants it a certain way, writes a "holy" text and viola! New religion is born.


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

ok....
this is pure tripe.
first,there is no sign of a debate.
for a debate to happen there has to be two opposing views.
second,while this teacher may have had a "born-again" experience,which is fine,he seems to be more prosyletizing than debating,which is not fine in the realms of a "debate".
i have seen kent hovind debate,his skills are less than extraordinary,and is usually left shackled by his own inept and circular logic by an experienced person of science.think it was dr bennet,but i could be mistaken.
the man built a museum in order to perpetuate his premise that dinosaurs and man lived at the same time.that alone disqualifies him in any rational discussions about creation.
mr hovind claims to be an evangelical,but in actuality he is a fundamentalist.
the written word IS the word of god...period.
to entertain any other theory,premise or reality is to deny his whole belief system.this is the main reason he promotes creationism so fervently.
the fact of the matter is:the bible is the written word of man and anybody who looks deeper into the matter will see that plainly.

so let me throw my two cents here:
first:there are 66 books in the bible (73 if you are catholic),yet there are in actuality 267 books of the bible,all by biblical authors.
why so many books not included in the bible?
nicea council of 325 a.d emperor constantine played a large role in its canonization.understand that before this time christianity looked far different than the christianity you see today,the current christian churches roots started in 325 a.d.
the bible contains the gospels (the good news) of mathew,mark,luke and john.
but there are actually 24 gospels.
*for all you heretics out there i suggest reading the gospels of mary,judas and thomas.you might enjoy the revelations of paul also.all are apocryphal books.
second:understanding that in the time of the biblical writings of the old testament (from the hebrew torah),sacred geomancy,astrology,numerology and a huge dose of superstition,influenced almost all religious texts.they were almost entirely metaphorical.
for example..the book of genesis,which has been written and re-written over and over,is actually a metaphorical representation of the tetragrammaton,which in itself is a graphic representation of creation itself,yet having little,or nothing,to do with religion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
to use the book of genesis,and all its obvious flaws,to explain and argue the validity of biblical creationism,is not only a poor platform,but lacks imagination.
the only reason i can surmise that seemingly intelligent people keep re-visiting this dead horse,is that they believe whole-heartedly in the "word",
and to allow any other belief is tantamount to having to rebuke god.
this is the fundamental flaw in..well...fundamentalism.
when your belief system is so rigid,based in bad science and even worse theology,you are doomed to either break or dismiss all evidence as heresy.
this is dark ages material,and should be rejected,but sadly its not.

one final note...
if the definition of science is:the study and observation of the natural,physical universe through testing and experimentation,to reach a consensus based on theory and fact.
and if you believe there is a creator.
a creator who created the known physical universe.
would it not then make sense that science is actually the study of god?
is that NOT a more poetic,and beautifully harmonious way of looking at the universe?
because to me science reveals creation to be a much more complex,profound and poetic place than the book of genesis.
who wants to be dust and a rib?
booooooring.
now the story of a single-cell organism fighting,scratching and ultimately co-operating with other single-cell organisms to form more complex,and ultimately what we see today.creatures of all unique and incredible forms.
now THATS impressive!
so ends todays sermon..
please dont forget to tip your bartenders and waitresses.
next week!
sink or swim wednesdays!

Thank You Malcolm McClaren, wherever you are!!!!

Here's a fav...

Call the Army, call the Navy
So-so's gonna have a baby.
Wrap it up in tissue paper,
send it down the elevator,
(Rope turned double time)
Boy, girl, twins, triplets, boys, girls, twins, triplets, etc.
-
Whichever the jumper misses on is the number of babies she's going to have.
OOOOOOOOOOHHH!
hey anty!! nicea posta!