News:

"Wings and a Prayer [L-E]"
Congratulations OfferedToEros & Random for completing your RP!

Main Menu

Very controversial subject.

Started by Mnemaxa, January 11, 2010, 07:33:19 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mnemaxa

I won't pull any punches here - this particular article may be biased and it is certainly going to set most very devout Christians aflame (probably not literally though).  I am posting it here because it is fairly well thought out and is written well, without being too inflammatory in and of itself (aside from the usual, that is).  The article is about the Other People - the Pagans, who are not Christians, and uses bible passages to prove that there were more gods than the single god of Christianity at Genesis, and that there were other people beyond Adam and Eve.

I am not a bible scholar in the slightest, but this was a very reasonable seeming response by a Pagan household to the Jehovah's Witnesses who came to their door one day. 

http://original.caw.org/articles/otherpeople.html

The Well of my Dreams is Poisoned; I draw off the Poison, which becomes the Ink of my Authorship, the Paint upon my Brush.

Thanatos

I actually found that to be a fascinating article.

And I often wondered about some of those obvious references to other people as well when I was growing up and forced to go to church.

Not that I resent going to church NOW...I did then, but it did open my mind up to checking out religions of all types to help me decide what I wanted to believe.

Sabby

Sounds to me like the Gods running the Garden were deceptive tyrants and the Snake did the right thing in blowing whistle. Of course, he got punished, and snakes would forever be demonized in the Bible simply for the crime of telling the truth...

This is the morals the Bible was founded on, and actively trying to teach? Jeez...

Jude

I suspected it was an unfair translation trick annnd... it took all of 5 seconds to understand what's going on here and confirm my assumption.

Quote from: WikipediaElohim (אֱלהִים) is a Hebrew word which expresses concepts of divinity or deity, notably used as a name of God in Judaism. It is apparently related to the Northwest Semitic word ʾēl "god". Within Hebrew, it is morphologically a plural, in use both as a true plural with the meaning "angels, gods, rulers" and as a "plural intensive" with singular meaning, referring to a god or goddess, and especially to the single God of Israel. The associated singular Eloah (אלוה) occurs only in poetry and in late Biblical Hebrew, in imitation of Aramaic usage.
You can argue whatever you want about a particular text by twisting the translations incorrectly to serve your purpose.  Doesn't make you right.

Lord Drake

Actually there is a bit more than that. I usually don't like to discuss on this kind of topics but i would like to give a bit of a word of warning about this kind of articles.

It MAY seem well thought and written and MAY seem less inflammatory than usual. This is because it is definitely aimed to those who are NOT bible scholars, and has a construction made out to SEEM solidly based and well thought out.

It is a bit like those advertisements you see on TV to build workout machines or special shoes that will make you lose weight or walk better. You see lots of 'scientific' demonstrations.. infra red scanning of people and many 3D renderings of spinal cords and muscles so to make you think that a group of Nobels had tested those great machines and their effect will be matter of scientific books from now on.

Actually, someone that had made classical studies and has a bit of knowledge of biblism would see in that article holes big enough to have trains pass through. Also this is the kind of stupid attack that is done by people who do not seek dialogue but simply wants to act as demagogues.

Despite being Christian myself I am not here to defend Christianity... so please take this as a generic rant against THAT kind of misinformation be it about religions, politics or whatever....

^^
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Jude

I couldn't agree more Lord Drake, and I'm not a Christian.  Also a very clever, accurate way of describing the claims therein.

Callie Del Noire

my FAVORITE comment was from a co-worker who was a self professed 'lapsed Jew'. We were over at his place and a Fundie showed up at the door (which was kind of weird given we were in San Deigo) with a 'Have you found Jesus?"

And my buddy goes.. "What? Did you Gentiles lose him AGAIN!?" And slammed the door in his face.

HairyHeretic

I've also heard that the Judeo-Christian God was originally part of a pantheon (or at least a God and Goddess), which over time dwindled or was absorbed, or simply ignore and forgotten about til it turned into one all powerful God. That might be another angle on the use of Elohim.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Oniya

At one point in time, someone actually made this essay into a pseudo-Chick-Tract.  The thing I like about it is that - whether you end up believing it or not, it prompts you to think.


Hairy:  There is a Judaic tradition of a female portion of Deity - Shekinah.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Beguile's Mistress

To me it reads like something Glenn Beck might have written on a slow news day.

HairyHeretic

Quote from: Oniya on January 11, 2010, 10:50:20 AM
Hairy:  There is a Judaic tradition of a female portion of Deity - Shekinah.

That might be what I was thinking of. It was years ago I heard it, so kinda fuzzy on the exact details.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Mnemaxa

Quote from: Lord Drake on January 11, 2010, 09:49:37 AM
Actually there is a bit more than that. I usually don't like to discuss on this kind of topics but i would like to give a bit of a word of warning about this kind of articles.

It MAY seem well thought and written and MAY seem less inflammatory than usual. This is because it is definitely aimed to those who are NOT bible scholars, and has a construction made out to SEEM solidly based and well thought out.

It is a bit like those advertisements you see on TV to build workout machines or special shoes that will make you lose weight or walk better. You see lots of 'scientific' demonstrations.. infra red scanning of people and many 3D renderings of spinal cords and muscles so to make you think that a group of Nobels had tested those great machines and their effect will be matter of scientific books from now on.

Actually, someone that had made classical studies and has a bit of knowledge of biblism would see in that article holes big enough to have trains pass through. Also this is the kind of stupid attack that is done by people who do not seek dialogue but simply wants to act as demagogues.

Despite being Christian myself I am not here to defend Christianity... so please take this as a generic rant against THAT kind of misinformation be it about religions, politics or whatever....

^^

You'll note I did use a lot of 'seems to' and 'looks like' in my introduction, and mentioned I was not a Bible Scholar myself, for just the reasons you stated.  I never trust any religious tract, not even my own.

The Well of my Dreams is Poisoned; I draw off the Poison, which becomes the Ink of my Authorship, the Paint upon my Brush.

Oniya

It was a few years ago for me as well.  The thing that kept it accessible in my mind was that Leonard Nimoy put out a book of photography by that name, and there was a bit of a stir about it.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Lord Drake

Quote from: Mnemaxa on January 11, 2010, 11:11:36 AM
You'll note I did use a lot of 'seems to' and 'looks like' in my introduction, and mentioned I was not a Bible Scholar myself, for just the reasons you stated.  I never trust any religious tract, not even my own.

I was not referring to you. ^^

I was actually basing myself on what you wrote to construct my little elucubration. Again I am not here to discuss the basics of Christian Faith.... but I find difficult to think that the first moron out there could come out and find such blatant evidence when twenty centuries of study on it did not.

This is not the way to confutate a thing... I should be actually be happy, being Christian, since this kind of attack usually strengthens the target. The problem is... it usually creates also confusion and tension.

So I do not like it.
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Trieste

Picking on Jehovah's Witnesses is a little bit like kicking a legless puppy: it's easy, kinda pathetic, and nobody's really impressed. At least they are out evangelizing and putting the word out. It's better than some of the religions that believe everyone but them is going to Hell.

If you're really worried about my soul like that, why the hell aren't YOU out door to door? Who cares if it's stupid, hokey, annoying? If you can save even one soul from the fires of Hell that way, wouldn't it be worth it? The JWs and other religions that actively proselytize actually garner a lot of respect from me. (And no, that doesn't stop me from telling them unequivocally when they come to my door that I do NOT want them back.)

I enjoyed the alternate point of view of Genesis, but the author sits firmly in the realm of "asshole" in my mind. Do no harm indeed.

HairyHeretic

Possibly because pagans don't proselytize. It's against their beliefs. Or at least against the beliefs of those types that I know about.

I suppose the JW were picked for the story since their door to door activities are pretty well known to everyone. I think they even came to my door once, but that was some years ago. At least they're polite, and better than the guy with the microphone who stands in the city center, haranguing everyone who passes with his opinion that they all fscked.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Beguile's Mistress

#16
No all JWs are charitable in their outlook.  I got a letter from one when my grandfather died commiserating with me over his death and the fact that as a practicing Roman Catholic he was going to hell.  I got another when my grandmother died.  Before that, when members would visit from the neighborhood congregation I would speak with them for a few minutes, offer them something to drink, take their pamphlets and give them information about my religion.

After the letters came I called the office of their local place of worship and asked that they stop coming to my home.  I was so hurt and angry that I was afraid to answer the door if they stopped again.

I don't care what you believe or even if you believe in nothing.  That's your choice and should be respected.  I do believe that if you live a good life as best you can and if there is an after life for you a reward will come your way.

Trieste

I didn't say they are charitable. I was raised JW and I know precisely how mean-spirited some of them can be.

Fortunately for you, Beguiles, the person from whom you received those letters must have been lapsed and probably will not come to your door, because JWs do not believe in Hell as torment for evil people. :P

Paradox

I was a devout Christian once-- so much so that I was planning on attending seminary to join the priesthood; however, I ended up exploring a bunch of other belief systems and finally returned to Christianity with a much more open mind. I believe in forces other than God, though I don't worship them. I mostly stick with Christianity because it's a convenient and familiar framework from which to focus my worship, but at heart,  After having explored those other beliefs, the idea that a being who created the entire universe in all its infinite majesty decided to make himself known to only a select group of desert dwellers just doesn't work for me anymore.

Instead of derailing this by rambling about my own beliefs, I'll recommend an interesting book that talks a bit about what Mnemaxa originally mentioned:

http://www.amazon.com/God-Biography-Jack-Miles/dp/0679743685

It's a great read that explores some of what Mnemaxa originally mentioned. The treatment of God as a literary character is entertaining, enlightening, and refreshing, and some of it deals with the existence of multiple deity figures co-existing with the Christian god.


"More than ever, the creation of the ridiculous is almost impossible because of the competition it receives from reality."-Robert A. Baker

Oniya

Actually, once someone knocks on a person's door, invades their space, and confronts them, they have stepped into the ring, as it were.  I do not go to their place of worship and tell them what I think they should believe. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Inkidu

Eh, not really that controversial. I'm a Christian (though not a fundamentalist) and have said for years that the Bible says their are other gods. Yes they are false gods; God is the only one you may worship and all that.

I do maintain that they would have to be of equal or lesser power though.

The Bible also confirms the existence of witches and demons. Just so you know.
If you're searching the lines for a point, well you've probably missed it; there was never anything there in the first place.

Serephino

I am not a scholar and don't know if it's all true, but it does make you think.  And believe it or not, the Bible does indeed have holes in it you coould fit several dozen trains through, but Christians tend to deny their existence. 

Oh, there was one article I loved that was something like thirteen examples of why if Jesus were on earth today he would be Pagan.  That also used scripture and made a lot of sense.  Using the Bible's own content to argue against it is all too easy.  Some words may have been twisted, but the Bible is open for interpretation is it not?  Christians do the same damn thing to support their views.

Now I'm not knocking Christianity here.  If that is what you want to believe, yay for you.  I'll worry about my soul, you worry about yours.  And I'm sorry... but those people who come to your home are extremely annoying.  I don't take well to threats of burning in a Hell that I don't believe exists if I don't submit to their way of thinking.  I leave them alone and expect the same courtesy.  I'll worship God in the way I see fit, and y'all can do the same as far as I'm concerned.  It doesn't affect me so I don't see any reason to care.  The only way to prove who is right beyond a shadow of a doubt is to drop dead, so why cause trouble?  They could easily be wrong and I could be right.   

Lord Drake

#22
It makes you think... of what the author could have eaten at dinner to came out with such stupidity.

*smiles*

Actually - what I am trying to say - is that there are many things that should make people think, about Christianity or other things. Only this article is not one of those. I can only agree with Trieste about his author sitting in the realm of arsehole. Now the risk for him is to have other people sitting with him in the same realm when they try to find something good in it, out of sheer spite and annoyance for Christianity (at times, by the way, more than justified by the behaviour of some Christians).

One could actually keep it much simpler than that, to go against the Bible. Keep it strictly on scientific proof of Evolutionism and since everyone now accept that theory simply point to the fact thet Bible says that Creation has been done in seven days... it is not like it is written "and in the fifth day Protomatter was created and the Lord said 'let it evolve unto animals'...."

As you see you do NOT need to come up with too much fuss. If this is what the Bible says and it is so scientifically wrong you can simply state that everything else is. Again... keep it simple!

Christians do NOT (or should NOT) 'twist' Bible's words to support their views. The real problem here is what some Christians do... and I am surely thinking that they do that in good faith, but if I was to think about trying to show you how Christianity works I would not surely do it by pointing a Bible at you and stating first that you will burn in Hell! This is unfortunately what some of them do and not everywhere... I could even add that I am not exactly ok on how Christians in the States take the idea of proselytizing... but I also agree with Trieste when she says that if they think this will save even a single soul they are justified. Again, I personally would do that differently...

O.o

Anyway... I don't know if talking about that takes me out of topic to discuss that and to say that yes, thw WHOLE point of faith-based religion is that you do BELIEVE you are right without need of scientific proof and so it is a bit different the way to take it ecc.ecc...

So what I will say is... the way that article does is NOT the right one to 'confutate' a religion. Not Christianity only... whatever kind of religion that is based on something more than a hurriedly pieced together philosophy.
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Beguile's Mistress

I deal with people of many generations.  I work with children in hospitals, their parents and their caregivers.  Other time is spent volunteering with seniors where I come into contact with their children and grandchildren as well as the staff at the residence.  Very few of these people choose unbelieving or disbelieving.  Catholicism, Christianity and Judaism are the preeminent faiths I encounter.  Some curse their god and blame him, others pray for strength and accept their lot.  Parents of small, sick children pray for miracles.  They all find comfort in the belief that there is a higher power that will listen when no one else seems to and that there is a place beyond this one that is better than our lot here. 

The peace and comfort such believing gives them should not be taken away from them nor should the love they find in the all-encompassing arms of their god.  The article I read is a farce, a joke, compared to what I see with these people.

kylie

#24
         The gathering of texts that we call the Bible today was approved by a papal committee around 380 AD.  After much to and fro about how many and which scrolls of various sects and regional minorities to abridge or throw out completely.  A grand exercise in politics, that. 

          I do find the notion of original sin (and less so, simple disdain for nudity) rather odd, to say the least. 

          I don't believe those that have described the web blurb as hopelessly flawed, have offered a positive explanation yet for where anyone apart from the descendants of the garden originated.  The only obvious defense I see there might be a claim that everyone must have descended from Eden somehow, and parts of the story have been omitted to suit God's (to our logic, at least) quite capricious will.  Much as the dinosaurs and many years of evolution seem to have been distorted beyond modernity's ability to account for...

          Rather little seems to be said about Adam and Eve after they supposedly attain divine wisdom of good and evil from that tree -- if in fact, they do?  (Well, they're alright at bearing children and making bloody sacrifices -- I think we can all agree on that.)  If they did attain it and if in fact the Old Testament were supposed to provide a ready moral guide, it seems odd that the authors didn't spend more time on every detail of their lives.  I would expect to see huge volumes.  If they did not attain it, then someone (they, deity, serpent, and/or all of the above) has been dishonest or perhaps deceived.  [rather sarcastic but more and more oddity] Either way, I blame the Great Cosmic Nil that preceded God such that he was able to be first before filling it, etc.  Now that's an enigma not to be trifled with. [/ahem]
     

kylie

#25
Quote
The Bible also confirms the existence of witches and demons. Just so you know.
I was taught in a university Religion course that actually, the Bible only spoke of "sorcery," a more vague and general term than what we understand by "witchcraft."  There were often sorcerous types mixed among the Hebrew peoples, but they had a positive or ambiguous status for many centuries -- including many midwives, folk healers, etc.  Over the centuries, older concepts were reinterpreted bit by bit, until simple sorcery was reimagined in church/court orders as something more and more likely to be sinister.  (Edit: I say "more likely" because they often still had to bring it to trial to find out -- at least as a ritual.) 

          Eventually, the official interpretations (and later Bible translations, I think?) morphed so that what was once "sorcery" turned to "evil" witchcraft imagined as communion with Satan.   From early times on, such rulings were a way for various leaders to marginalize competing sects within the church.  This was done in response to the very early Gnostics (which included through general marginalization of women leaders), on up to the Catherites in the 13th century.     [/digression]

     ---  Notes from G. David Panisnick, Religion 353: Witches and Witchcraft, University of Hawaii.
     

Jude

I don't mind their attempt to criticize another religion, just that it's done misleadingly.  In the spirit of fairness I feel like some of their doctrine should be posted here for scrutiny, so here's a bit of hilarious information from Wikipedia's article on them:

Quote from: WikipediaThe Church of All Worlds (CAW) is a neopagan religious group whose stated mission is to evolve a network of information, mythology, and experience that provides a context and stimulus for reawakening Gaia and reuniting her children through tribal community dedicated to responsible stewardship and evolving consciousness.

The key founder of CAW is Oberon Zell-Ravenheart, who serves the Church as "Primate", later along with his wife, Morning Glory Zell-Ravenheart, designated High Priestess. CAW was formed in 1962, evolving from a group of friends and lovers who were in part inspired by a fictional religion of the same name in the science fiction novel Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein; the church's mythology includes science fiction to this day. The headquarters are presently in Cotati, California.

CAW's members, called Waterkin, espouse pantheism, but the Church is not a belief-based religion. Members experience Divinity and honor these experiences while also respecting the views of others. They recognize "Gaea," the Earth Mother Goddess and the Father God, as well as the realm of Faeries and the deities of many other pantheons. Many of their ritual celebrations are centered on the gods and goddesses of ancient Greece.
Gahahahahahahahahahahaha, is all I have to say.

kylie

#27
Quote from: Jude on January 12, 2010, 02:27:49 AM
I don't mind their attempt to criticize another religion, just that it's done misleadingly.  In the spirit of fairness I feel like some of their doctrine should be posted here for scrutiny...  [snips]  ...Gahahahahahahahahahahaha, is all I have to say.
Excuse me, but I don't see that you actually talked about their doctrine as such to any significant degree.  I see a bit of picking about their history, sources of inspiration, and perhaps formal structure. 

          You seem to assume everyone will draw the same conclusions you do about those and mock them as a result.  That simply falls flat with me.  I don't believe that Christianity is much more solid for claiming an older history.  There are lots of popular human activities with very long histories that are ethically problematic.  Brutal warfare, ignorant or capricious transmission of disease, ritual humiliation of unfamiliar peoples, and building altars over conquered spaces all come readily to mind. 

          Many Christian traditions have, as far as I can tell, been built upon other peoples' and religions' bases quite ad hoc as well.   
     

Lord Drake

Actually the material posted by Kylie is much more interesting - at least the historical part.

About the 'interpretation' part I would like to add that Bible - as it is - it is not obviously to be literally interpretated. It is actually a collection of books that Christians (and not only) believe having been written upon 'Divine inspiration' and so they are used to convey a message that comes directly from God.

So why God didn't have the Bible contain the 'truth' about the universe's story and so on?

This is a complex (and in truth very interesting) topic that has to do with the fact of not interfering with human history and culture... the Deity chooses to spread his Message and the Word through the beliefs and the culture of the people rather than 'setting thing rights' by himself. It ultimately can stand to sense and much of what is written in the Bible is - for Christians - to be intended as symbolic although not for this less true.

All the concept of the 'original sin' intended in his philosophical means is actually one of the most solid assets of the Christian Church. Obviously, there is much more to it than simply eating an apple given by a serpent and subsequent 'disdain for nudity'... and the promise of 'godlike powers' from the Snake was flayed and misleading obviously.

I have read a bit around and for my personal taste I find really beautiful the 'confessiones' of St. Augustine in that matter. It is one of the best neo-platonic philosophical works around...

It CAN be confuted as everything can. But I have this nagging feeling that mr. Oberon Zell-Ravenheart is definitely NOT one who can do that. Maybe I'm wrong, though..

^^
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Lord Drake

Quote from: kylie on January 12, 2010, 02:37:02 AMYou seem to assume everyone will draw the same conclusions you do about those and mock them as a result.  That simply falls flat with me.  I don't believe that Christianity is much more solid for claiming an older history.  There are lots of popular human activities with very long histories that are ethically problematic.  Brutal warfare, ignorant or capricious transmission of disease, ritual humiliation of unfamiliar peoples, and building altars over conquered spaces all come readily to mind. 

Actually the MORE long is a religion's history the more flaws you can find into it. And this because in the past, humanity has had his dark moments... this is another thing that (in my modest opinion) should be taken into account. I am the first to despise the fires of inquisition and find distasteful the idea of a Holy War... the problem is that those have been periods of time where - say - it was considered a right for your lord to deflower your wife the day of your marriage... and wars were done and people was killed for much more trifler reasons.

I mean... wow!

All in all, the fact that a religion survives on the long run means usually that it has a solid philosophical base. This is not exactly true of some of the newer sects that seem like 'made up'.

Quote from: kylie on January 12, 2010, 02:37:02 AMMany Christian traditions have, as far as I can tell, been built upon other peoples' and religions' bases quite ad hoc as well.   

There is a bit of difference here.

Getting into your faith people with different traditions and turning those that you think as 'superstitions' into occasion to venerate your God is something that - for a religion - is perfectly logical.

Putting together a sort of 'frankenstein' taking pieces of Greek Religion and other things because you cannot make up something by yourself is another matter entirely.

Again... Christianity CAN be confuted. I personally don't believe that this is the right ground to do so.

^^
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Jude

They're partly inspired by sci-fi and to this day include science fiction as part of the tenets of their faith; how is that not worthy of mockery?  Obviously by freedom of expression every has the right to say whatever they want about other religions but they opened themselves up doubly so by criticizing another religion while theirs is based on something far more ridiculous.

At least the Christian Faith has a long history behind it and lots of authority in how its members are inducted.  Their traditions and past give them a certain degree of legitimacy which explains why people believe their doctrine.

Not that I am a Christian or have anything against it being mocked, I just think it should be done on honest grounds.  My objection with this particular treatise is that it was misleading and ultimately false.

Lord Drake

Quote from: Jude on January 12, 2010, 03:25:22 AMNot that I am a Christian or have anything against it being mocked, I just think it should be done on honest grounds. 

Actually I do HAVE something about Christianity being mocked. As a religion, Christians are legitimate enough to earn the right to be respected... and so I'd prefer simple confutation than mockery.

I can understand that SOME Christians' behaviour can bring to that but nevertheless...
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Lilias

#32
I have always wondered why so many people (yes, Christians) find it so hard to take the First Commandment as it is worded. It says 'you shall not have other gods before me', not 'there are no other gods before me'. Ergo, God is saying, 'Buddy, you want in on this, I want an exclusive contract.' Nothing more, nothing less. It's no skin off my teeth how many other gods exist out there; since I have chosen to worship the one that my ancestors called 'the unknown god', the rest are irrelevant.

PS: The gods of my people are civil, and they don't punish people if they choose to worship someone else instead of them. All in the name of coexistence! ;D
To go in the dark with a light is to know the light.
To know the dark, go dark. Go without sight,
and find that the dark, too, blooms and sings,
and is traveled by dark feet and dark wings.
~Wendell Berry

Double Os <> Double As (updated Feb 20) <> The Hoard <> 50 Tales 2024 <> The Lab <> ELLUIKI

kylie

#33
Quote from: Lord Drake on January 12, 2010, 02:54:43 AM
All the concept of the 'original sin' intended in his philosophical means is actually one of the most solid assets of the Christian Church.
This is getting far away from the point of the original post.  If a given Pagan doesn't subscribe to a given purpose, then it is only solid for those who do so subscribe.  That is much of the issue that the OP referred to.  I don't recall a claim that no Christian ever accomplished anything valuable, anywhere.

QuoteObviously, there is much more to it than simply eating an apple given by a serpent and subsequent 'disdain for nudity'...
Sure, there is more...  But then, I think there may also be something to the point that policing of the body and sex were a very big deal for Biblical religions.  They have been a big deal for many religions.  One might say some Pagans, certain indigenous faiths, what have you police it aggressively in other ways...  (Are those sweat lodges required to achieve some rank? Who is most encouraged to go there?  Etc.) 

          If you recall, this apparently started as a response to someone preaching at someone else's door.  Whether it's various notions of the "proper" body and sexual relations, or different types of model for how one should be attached to deity (whether through restriction, or celebration of various ambitions and risks)...  The OP point remains that when Biblical faiths choose to press their own terms upon others, well then that is all they are doing.  They're assuming a choir will be out there for them.  When they find the cultural (or educational) ground isn't the same with some people and their myths don't sell, they can get upset or surprised.  I do find that rather amusing.  To me, it's especially amusing (if in a dry, sometimes sad way) because I find rigid, "come with us or it's Hell" interpretations of the Bible a quite insulting and unbelievable choice of door-to-door product. 

          This doesn't mean that followers of the Biblical side can't find scriptures or organizations that may help them along.  Suggesting that the website must mean that is merely an easy defensive reaction.  In that regard, some of the Christians are too quick, when someone describes a different channel for spirituality, to represent it as merely a distortion and parody of the "big" Biblical faiths.  In a historical sense, some of these claims are unknowingly inspired by the institutional reactions of the Christian Churches since at least the Middle Ages.  The claims made about the Catherites having a Black Sabbath are similar to some Christian claims that Pagans must have awful bestiality and animal sacrifices today.  The claims that  gay marriage "must" somehow publicly "devalue" heterosexual marriage may also bear a presumption of intended mockery (and a presumption that defense is "required" against the same).  That is, although there's also the simple fear of losing some followers and coin -- as there has been for centuries.   

          Some people have fussed more about the tone and reactive orientation of the website.  Pointing out the bluster doesn't really address the logic of the arguments.  Nor does saying oh, but this is just a negative reaction to Christianity.  The women's sufferage movement was a negative reaction too -- to male chauvinism.  It also pursued very positive outcomes for women as a group -- and arguably on many important social issues to come. 

          There's little purchase for the evangelists to claim their interpretation is universally better than that of the Pagans.  It may make them feel big or dutiful to draw everyone else's attention to theirs and to make a public show of demanding others' subscription/approval through constant advertising (sometimes terribly aggressively)...  However, some of us are a little prickly about that -- if we were not generations ago -- after the long history of religious-backed colonialism/imperialism/racism etc. and more general pressure and discrimination by choice of faith at home.  We don't respond so well to hearing it shouted on the street and knocked at our doors so often.  And then the variously Biblically-inspired can't handle that others don't take them "seriously enough."  I have to roll my eyes when this stance gets labeled as so "very controversial."
     

Jude

Quote from: Lord Drake on January 12, 2010, 03:42:02 AM
Actually I do HAVE something about Christianity being mocked. As a religion, Christians are legitimate enough to earn the right to be respected... and so I'd prefer simple confutation than mockery.

I can understand that SOME Christians' behaviour can bring to that but nevertheless...
I reserve the right to mock any religion I like, but I'm not so insensitive as to mock the religion of someone who is a complete reasonable human being that can hear my comments.  I don't respect the religion, but I do respect you.  I certainly didn't mean any slight against you.

Lord Drake

Quote from: Lilias on January 12, 2010, 03:57:15 AM
I have always wondered why so many people (yes, Christians) find it so hard to take the First Commandment as it is worded. It says 'you shall not have other gods before me', not 'there are no other gods before me'. Ergo, God is saying, 'Buddy, you want in on this, I want an exclusive contract.' Nothing more, nothing less. It's no skin off my teeth how many other gods exist out there; since I have chosen to worship the one that my ancestors called 'the unknown god', the rest are irrelevant.

Ok getting a bit more 'specifical' here, this depends on the definition that one gives of 'God'. The Christian's God is the supreme principle of 'good' and the origin of everything else... and this despite whichever other beings may or may not exist. Actually all the human life is a struggle between the principle of 'good' (God) and the principle of 'absence of good' (evil, the Devil).

What makes the man nearer to God, comes from God. What makes him be farther from Him, comes from man's flaws and the Enemy. From this, the step to 'your Gods are false, and are Demons ecc.. ecc.. is logical and brief (although not 100% accurate in my opinion).

Obviously those of other religion will NOT like this. I am only showing how it is 'logical' and it is actually a perfectly condivisible point of view if taken from a religion wievpoints.

And obviously, one cannot tell another religion what to take 'as it is worded' and what not.

Quote from: Lilias on January 12, 2010, 03:57:15 AMPS: The gods of my people are civil, and they don't punish people if they choose to worship someone else instead of them. All in the name of coexistence! ;D

This is because your religion does not start from the principle of 'supreme good' the way Christianity does. And this is perfectly acceptable... but also Christianity's view is acceptable, religiously-wise.

Just to add... the Christian God is absolute Love and Christians believe that the 'punishment' for going away from him is... staying away from him. Distance from God brings - for Christians - unfulfillment and pain.

^^
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Lord Drake

Quote from: Jude on January 12, 2010, 04:16:19 AM
I reserve the right to mock any religion I like, but I'm not so insensitive as to mock the religion of someone who is a complete reasonable human being that can hear my comments.  I don't respect the religion, but I do respect you.  I certainly didn't mean any slight against you.

That was not intended as a slight against me obviously... and it was not intended against you. I was simply putting out my vision... I don't mock things that have so long an history and significance (and this means not only Christianity obviously) because it is usually a bad idea.

Many people much better than me have believed in those things and I feel somehow awkward when 'mocking' their beliefs. I can completely disagree on them obviously.

But it is a personal point of view.... ^^
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Lilias

Quote from: Lord Drake on January 12, 2010, 04:17:32 AM
This is because your religion does not start from the principle of 'supreme good' the way Christianity does. And this is perfectly acceptable... but also Christianity's view is acceptable, religiously-wise.

Just to add... the Christian God is absolute Love and Christians believe that the 'punishment' for going away from him is... staying away from him. Distance from God brings - for Christians - unfulfillment and pain.

Drake, I'm Christian myself. Greek Orthodox, in fact; a lineage that goes unbroken back to St Paul. But you can't deny that the flavour of any religion, Christianity included, is different in different countries because religion is part of the culture, not suspended in a vacuum. We Greeks don't demonise our pagan past; the old gods are virtually historical figures for us, and certainly, in a country that was until recently 97% Orthodox, we don't feel threatened by them.

Oh, and we tend to distrust door-to-door preachers even more because proselytising is prohibited by Greek law. Even the JWs just stand on corners holding the Watchtower and hoping to be addressed - if they speak first, they can be arrested. The average Greek, seeing the tactics of American Evangelicals et.al.,  would consider them complete and utter nutjobs.
To go in the dark with a light is to know the light.
To know the dark, go dark. Go without sight,
and find that the dark, too, blooms and sings,
and is traveled by dark feet and dark wings.
~Wendell Berry

Double Os <> Double As (updated Feb 20) <> The Hoard <> 50 Tales 2024 <> The Lab <> ELLUIKI

Lord Drake

Quote from: kylie on January 12, 2010, 04:14:42 AMThis is getting far away from the point of the original post.  If a given Pagan doesn't subscribe to a given purpose, then it is only solid for those who do so subscribe.  That is much of the issue that the OP referred to.  I don't recall a claim that no Christian ever accomplished anything valuable, anywhere.

Actually my aim (and so maintaining the scope of the original post... or at least trying to) was to say that something can be not suscribe to and BE solid. I don't subscribe to Confucianism and Buddhism but all those are religions who have a VERY solid philosophical and historical background so if I want to confute them I prepare myself for a debate... and not an easy one at that! And I usually do not base myself only on 'literal' interpretations of fragments of their sacred texts.

Quote from: kylie on January 12, 2010, 04:14:42 AMSure, there is more...  But ...

- snip -

*smiles*

Getting into all your argumentation would take us actually very out of topic but basically (if you read my previous posts) you will see that I don't disagree with you that much anout some Christian's behaviour backfiring on them.

I was trying to put in some explanation to try and separate the 'canonic' (the part created by Philosophs and wise men in 2000 years of history) Christian faith from what people goes around saying pointing bibles and telling others that they will go to hell.

The debate could start from the 'genersl' concept of monotheistic religions (so encompassing Jews and Islam...) to the particularities of Roman Catholic but again this would be an off-topic.

The sumptus of what I want to say is:

- I am aware that there is much ignorance and - unfortunately - aggressiveness on both parts. Christians have probably more of it because simply there are more Christians around... the more people you have in a thing, the more stupids...

- That article seemed to me on the same (if not lower) level. In a simple post in this forum, Kyla has brought up much a much better worded and argumentated confutation.

^^
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Lord Drake

Quote from: Lilias on January 12, 2010, 04:26:28 AM
Drake, I'm Christian myself. Greek Orthodox, in fact; a lineage that goes unbroken back to St Paul. But you can't deny that the flavour of any religion, Christianity included, is different in different countries because religion is part of the culture, not suspended in a vacuum. We Greeks don't demonise our pagan past; the old gods are virtually historical figures for us, and certainly, in a country that was until recently 97% Orthodox, we don't feel threatened by them.

*laughs*

Live and learn.

And THIS is why I NEVER mock other religions. There is ALWAYS something I do not know. Ok... you got the sense from my incorrect statement, though, I hope.

Quote from: Lilias on January 12, 2010, 04:26:28 AMOh, and we tend to distrust door-to-door preachers even more because proselytising is prohibited by Greek law. Even the JWs just stand on corners holding the Watchtower and hoping to be addressed - if they speak first, they can be arrested. The average Greek, seeing the tactics of American Evangelicals et.al.,  would consider them complete and utter nutjobs.

Well as an Italian Roman Catholic I have seen and heard of things that makes me consider complete nutjobs them too....

I personally dislike 'aggressive' proselytizing.
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

kylie

#40
Quote from: Lord Drake on January 12, 2010, 04:43:58 AM
Actually my aim (and so maintaining the scope of the original post... or at least trying to) was to say that something can be not suscribe to and BE solid. I don't subscribe to Confucianism and Buddhism but all those are religions who have a VERY solid philosophical and historical background so if I want to confute them I prepare myself for a debate... and not an easy one at that! And I usually do not base myself only on 'literal' interpretations of fragments of their sacred texts.
I must admit I have a hard time trying to figure out where you're going sometimes.  It seems to me, that could have been a criticism of either side in the blurb -- or both.

          You really started losing me about when you said that anyone with classical knowledge could poke holes in the writeup.  I don't have a basis to analyze that statement, but I take it as presumptuous to say that without some support.  There's more of that...

Quote
Getting into all your argumentation would take us actually very out of topic but basically (if you read my previous posts) you will see that I don't disagree with you that much anout some Christian's behaviour backfiring on them.
You're saying that without any detail whatsoever.  While I realize people sometimes find reasons to digress just because they see something long...  I'm not convinced they have to pick up every little, slightly rough edge of the flow and build a digression mountain.  I can't help the ones who like to.  I also don't appreciate the stance of oh, but there are issues without even beginning to specify what.  That's dangling the rhetorical "taunt" candy just a bit out of reach, isn't it?

QuoteI was trying to put in some explanation to try and separate the 'canonic' (the part created by Philosophs and wise men in 2000 years of history) Christian faith from what people goes around saying pointing bibles and telling others that they will go to hell.
Perhaps if one could separate a program of actually studying them at length, from merely quoting them out of context?  In that case, sure.  If simply knowing some words they supposedly said were sufficient, well lots of people are "quoting them" (so they believe) for this or that.

QuoteThe debate could start from the 'genersl' concept of monotheistic religions (so encompassing Jews and Islam...) to the particularities of Roman Catholic but again this would be an off-topic.
Well, I agree there's some issue of lumping them all together...  However, I think we could agree that there are similar issues of 1) evangelism and 2) if you want -- claims to "literal" readings in JW and fundamentalist Christianity.  Those are really where most of the discussion I recall has been.  There are lots of places a talk "could" go, but I don't see that much so far requires it to range all that far.  (Why?)  Although I have read rather fast.

QuoteThe sumptus of what I want to say is:

- I am aware that there is much ignorance and - unfortunately - aggressiveness on both parts. Christians have probably more of it because simply there are more Christians around... the more people you have in a thing, the more stupids...
I'm still not clear that the "ignorance" you're trying to spread evenly is of the same substance on both sides.  For one thing, the Pagans claim to be reacting to a knock on their door and -- at least in that writeup -- I don't know that we have reason to believe the Pagans are going out and evangelizing.  I just think you're trying to demand the writing accomplish something I never expected of it, and perhaps you haven't taken time to say exactly what.  I wonder a little if it's among those weaknesses you promise are there by turns but don't show.

Quote- That article seemed to me on the same (if not lower) level. In a simple post in this forum, Kyla has brought up much a much better worded and argumentated confutation.
I have a hunch you were picking on it for things it wasn't designed to do.  Hard to tell for sure without more support.  It may be just that I felt your reaction to the OP was awfully hyperbolic by turns, too.
     

Lord Drake

Quote from: kylie on January 12, 2010, 05:22:19 AM
     I must admit I have a hard time trying to figure out where you're going sometimes.  It seems to me, that could have been a criticism of either side in the blurb -- or both.

          You really started losing me about when you said that anyone with classical knowledge could poke holes in the writeup.  I don't have a basis to analyze that statement, but I take it as presumptuous to say that without some support.  There's more of that...

What basically I read in that article (but correct me if I am wrong) is a debate between two (or more) persons. They debate about the historic significance of a part of the Bible that is widely recognizd as symbolic.

In the first Chapters of Genesis God creates the universe. So one could answer that whatever other people Caine met was created by God, too... but this is not the point. The universe has been NOT created in seven days... AND earth rotates around the sun. This could be enough in my vision to think about those pages of the Bible as symbolic.

Again I apologize for not giving too much detail but I do that out of personal experience. These things tend to go out of hand. By all means feel free to consider me an Hyperbolic sod.

I will try to be more direct: I do NOT find useful to arguee like that when I happen to be the object of proselytizing. If someone tries to show me the shining truth THROUGH the verses of a book I usually don't even hear them. I could be interested in their MESSAGE and their PRINCIPLES. And if what they tell, somehow, answers to what I need.

^^
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Oniya

Quote from: Jude on January 12, 2010, 02:27:49 AM
I don't mind their attempt to criticize another religion, just that it's done misleadingly.  In the spirit of fairness I feel like some of their doctrine should be posted here for scrutiny, so here's a bit of hilarious information from Wikipedia's article on them:
Gahahahahahahahahahahaha, is all I have to say.

Before mocking the source of their religious beliefs, it might be worth looking at the actual tenets that they have derived from the source material.  Just in the spirit of fairness.
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jude

#43
Quote from: Oniya on January 12, 2010, 10:09:12 AM
Before mocking the source of their religious beliefs, it might be worth looking at the actual tenets that they have derived from the source material.  Just in the spirit of fairness.
Uh, did you read the quote I gave at all?  To reiterate.
QuoteThe Church of All Worlds (CAW) is a neopagan religious group whose stated mission is to evolve a network of information, mythology, and experience that provides a context and stimulus for reawakening Gaia and reuniting her children through tribal community dedicated to responsible stewardship and evolving consciousness.
So yeah, I did look at their tenets, ridiculous gibberish, what's your point?

You seem to be honestly advocating respect and deep understanding of a religion which not only treats other religions unfairly (as expressed by the dubious nature of the original bit of writing that started this entire thread), but one that is partly based quite literally on fiction.  I'm not really sure what your point is here.

Oniya

Quote from: Jude on January 12, 2010, 02:01:19 PM
You seem to be honestly advocating respect and deep understanding of a religion which not only treats other religions unfairly (as expressed by the dubious nature of the original bit of writing that started this entire thread), but one that is partly based quite literally on fiction.  I'm not really sure what your point is here.

Leaving aside the original article, which was written in response to a practice (door-to-door proselytizing) that most people here find disagreeable at best, I can't think of a single religion (my own included) that is based on verifiable fact, with the possible exception of the Mormons - provided that someone digs up those golden tablets and retranslates them. 
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Jude

Well, most religions at least try to base themselves on something they consider solid.  Typically unverifiable historical resources serve as the foundation.  And while those cannot be considered a reliable witness as the basis of a dogmatic system of belief without the inclusion of faith, at least they're not entirely manufactured and clearly fraudulent?  I think it's self-evident that a religion centered around something that is uncertain is better than one centered around something that is certainly baseless.  And their religious tenets make absolutely no sense.

I'm profoundly confused as to why we're debating this though.  You called me out for not knowing anything about them, I pointed out that in fact I have listened to their mission statement which is senseless, then you shifted the argument.  Sounds like you're just moving the goalpost and arguing against scrutiny being directed at a religious group which published an article scrutinizing another religion.

HairyHeretic

Religion is always a topic that can get people hot under the collar in no time flat, and it's pretty easy to misjudge tone and intent from text alone, so let's ensure things stay civil, hmmm?
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

kylie

#47
Quote from: Lord DrakeIn the first Chapters of Genesis God creates the universe. So one could answer that whatever other people Caine met was created by God, too...
Yes, I suppose one could.  It seems a rather shallow response to me, in the sense that it's a great deal of playing "what if" on behalf of people who are selling their religion door-to-door.  Sure, anyone can do that with a book but I don't see most of that sort encouraging it.  More often, they are proceeding with great emphasis on the notion of things literally being "in the book."  If they are going to proceed under such justification, then it's fair enough to point out this would be an awfully big omission.  As I understand evangelists who operate in public, they are most interested in talking about primarily sin and their concept of redemption.  If 1) they fail to convince others that they are subject to sin, and/or 2) others don't feel particularly attracted to this model of relationship with deity (with or without the threat of #1), then in my experience much of what they came to talk about most, falls away.  That's where the post is going in my opinion.

          I believe if we go farther into the Old Testament, there are times when God singles out the Jews as descendants of specific people (Abraham?) to be subject to his rules.  I'm not 100% up on the details, but I suspect that on this sort of basis also:  The Pagans could reasonably say, We are other even according to your book, since you come waving that.  It just doesn't apply to us.  Perhaps someone else knows more about this?

          True, it could be simpler to say, "Myeh, we have issues with using the title of that book as an overarching reason to believe anything specific.  Stop making your book play God as hand puppet, and then we'll talk to you."  I can understand that.  However, someone shows up at the door claiming they have a mythos to sell that is utterly sensible and oh so charismatic.  Well, maybe the people inside the door have a certain sense and charisma too.  Why not.  Shrugs.
     

Mathim

My problem is there's no universal consensus on the origins of anything. If there was one explanation, why would numerous ones have originated? I just can't understand why people believe blindly in anything without hard evidence. I mean, obviously some things that are ridiculous are not believed, but religion is just that one rule-breaking common sense killer when it comes to that.
Considering a permanent retirement from Elliquiy, but you can find me on Blue Moon (under the same username).

Lord Drake

Quote from: kylie on January 12, 2010, 04:10:01 PM
          True, it could be simpler to say, "Myeh, we have issues with using the title of that book as an overarching reason to believe anything specific.  Stop making your book play God as hand puppet, and then we'll talk to you."  I can understand that.  However, someone shows up at the door claiming they have a mythos to sell that is utterly sensible and oh so charismatic.  Well, maybe the people inside the door have a certain sense and charisma too.  Why not.  Shrugs.

A more charismatic answer could be going further in the story all the way to the Deluge when the people has forgotten God and started sinning and doing bad things (and hey - your average proselytizer would say - this was probably all those Pagan's fault!). So God sends the Deluge and everyone dies save for Noah and his three son's families. And by the way Semitic (as the writer mentions them) comes from 'Sem' (one of Noah's sons). So since he is not Semitic he is probably descendant of one of the other two??

Ok, obviously this is ridiculous.

Actually the recounting by itself is nothing else than the 'resume' (in a smartass-ish way) of a debate between a Jehowah's Witnesses door-to-door proselytizer and a Pagan with the Pagan ending up the best fast-talker.

Now about the Bible and the hyperbolic things I will tell you what (slightly) pisses me off.

Door-to-door proselytizing is the province of Jehowah Witnesses and Evangelists (and some Jews I gather and some other). There are friggin' MANY Christians in the world that:

A - do NOT do 'aggressive' proselytism (i.e. you WILL burn in Hell!)
B - do NOT come with pieces of the Bible assuming that they are historical truth (SEE? it was an APPLE!)

There are some of us that take theology a bit more seriously than that and that proselytize with the example and the message and try to do their best to draw strength from their faith to face everyday's challenges. There are those who have studied the Bible and have written books about it. And it pisses (slightly) me off to hear that 'Christians' go around pointing bibles and 'Christians' do not teach about sex to their children and so on... and we get the Bible (which is a sacred book for us) mistreated in really stupid ways.

I know that Evangelists are basically Christians... but they are also mainly Americans, for example. Why not use that term? Let's see how Americans will take it!

Ok... sorry for the rant (bows in apology).

I beg for forgiveness... I swear that if I ever try to proselytize you, I won't point against you a loaded Bible!
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

HairyHeretic

There are good people, and there are assholes, within every faith and system of belief.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Lord Drake

Quote from: HairyHeretic on January 12, 2010, 05:32:59 PM
There are good people, and there are assholes, within every faith and system of belief.

This is true obviously.

But the point is still another. I am a Catholic Roman and i can assure you that the majority of Christians does NOT do door-to-door proselytism. I attend to church and I assure you that the clergy does NOT request us that.

Now for small communities I understand the need of proselytism... but again the majority of Christians do NOT go proselytizing with the Bible in hand trying to demonstrate that it is historically accurate!! Catholic Romans DON'T do that... Lutherans DON'T do that... I could go on.

So why one sees Evangelists and says Christians??

Oh well.... :P
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

HairyHeretic

I believe evangelism is more part of some of the protestant sects of Christianity. Then again, there are that many different beliefs, and weight given to assorted doctrines, that it can be easy to reduce it to the simplest denominator .. christian. Because of the culture(s) and countries we live in, the door to door, or streetcorner, evangelicals we're most familiar with are christian.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Trieste

Quote from: Jude on January 12, 2010, 02:01:19 PM
You seem to be honestly advocating respect and deep understanding of a religion which not only treats other religions unfairly (as expressed by the dubious nature of the original bit of writing that started this entire thread), but one that is partly based quite literally on fiction.  I'm not really sure what your point is here.

Respecting a religion like that would be akin to respecting one that's based off a mythological prophet from 2000 years ago, and we can't have that.

Or L. Ron Hubbard.

Lord Drake

Quote from: HairyHeretic on January 12, 2010, 05:51:55 PM
I believe evangelism is more part of some of the protestant sects of Christianity. Then again, there are that many different beliefs, and weight given to assorted doctrines, that it can be easy to reduce it to the simplest denominator .. christian. Because of the culture(s) and countries we live in, the door to door, or streetcorner, evangelicals we're most familiar with are christian.

Actually this happens mainly in the States (I may be wrong in this assumption but the door-to-door problems of this kind I have heard mainly from people of the USA... in Italy at least this is not what happens) what I am saying is that 'Christian' in this case may be a bit too 'large' a definition.

Quote from: Trieste on January 12, 2010, 05:56:16 PM
Respecting a religion like that would be akin to respecting one that's based off a mythological prophet from 2000 years ago, and we can't have that.

Actually He had been probably a historical figure. The mythological part you are referring to should be all the 7-day creation and Eden garden stuff.
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

kylie

#55
Quote from: Lord DrakeA more charismatic answer could be going further in the story all the way to the Deluge when the people has forgotten God and started sinning and doing bad things (and hey - your average proselytizer would say - this was probably all those Pagan's fault!). So God sends the Deluge and everyone dies save for Noah and his three son's families. And by the way Semitic (as the writer mentions them) comes from 'Sem' (one of Noah's sons). So since he is not Semitic he is probably descendant of one of the other two??

Ok, obviously this is ridiculous.
I think that's a logical claim more than an effectively charismatic one.  It's still assuming everyone focuses on Ye Olde (horribly abridged and widely misinterpreted) Book.  I don't see it as particularly charming to insist that someone's favored type of people caused (or were effectively wiped out by -- historical doublespeak, but anyway) this massive flood...  Anyhow...  It is an interesting argument. 

         I actually suspect the notion of Biblical tenets being meant for some and not others is more supported the later history goes -- past Moses, possibly into the New Testament, etc.  There are rules aimed at desert tribes, separate rules for the Philistines, particular demands of the closest followers of Jesus -- it's like reading the IRS (or pick your favorite demanding bureaucracy). 

Granted, though...  If you stay around the early chapters, there is that flood business. 

         I kinda presumed the website originated in the US...  I know the terms are not especially precise, but I've been trying to alternate between JW (where I believe they started) and Christian/evangelism...  It's partly because I don't care to keep spelling out proselytizing -- and partly because I think it does apply to some very vocal Christian sects.  I also think that some of the Christians who are not doing that, are responding to the complaint about it in erroneous and sometimes offensive ways.  Which in turn, tends to make me misread them as being among or sympathetic to the evangelists' position.  Finally: yes, there's plenty of all this in the US -- but it isn't strictly limited to the US.  I had JW coming to my door in Japan.
     

HairyHeretic

Quote from: Lord Drake on January 12, 2010, 06:14:16 PM
Actually this happens mainly in the States (I may be wrong in this assumption but the door-to-door problems of this kind I have heard mainly from people of the USA... in Italy at least this is not what happens) what I am saying is that 'Christian' in this case may be a bit too 'large' a definition.

Quite possibly, but if someone comes along, tells you your beliefs are wrong (or at the least misguided) you're not going to be that well inclined towards them, and remembering their exact denomination probably isn't going to be that high on your list of priorities. :)

I think I've had one or two come to my door, and there's at least one or two of the streetcorner variety in the city centre, but when I lived up North the streetcorner ones were more common.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Trieste

#57
Quote from: Lord Drake on January 12, 2010, 06:14:16 PM
Actually He had been probably a historical figure. The mythological part you are referring to should be all the 7-day creation and Eden garden stuff.

There is no basis in fact for the whole raising from the dead and water to wine thing, either, so that would be the mythological part I was referring to.

Lord Drake

Quote from: HairyHeretic on January 12, 2010, 06:22:53 PM
Quite possibly, but if someone comes along, tells you your beliefs are wrong (or at the least misguided) you're not going to be that well inclined towards them, and remembering their exact denomination probably isn't going to be that high on your list of priorities. :)

Perfectly understandable in the heat of the moment and a bit later also. :)

Maybe - on hindsight - one day someone will find a way to find a better denomination. And also - unfortunately - it is the lot of religions. EACH religion thinks that the other is misguided/wrong... one should expect it.

:)
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

HairyHeretic

Quote from: Lord Drake on January 12, 2010, 06:40:04 PM
EACH religion thinks that the other is misguided/wrong... one should expect it.

:)

I'm not sure I agree with that. My own opinion is that seems more a trait of the monotheistic religions.

I believe that what I believe is right for me. It's not going to be right for lots of others, but what they believe may well be right for them. I don't make judgement calls on what is right for other people .. I have enough trouble figuring out what's right for me ;)

But having someone come along and tell me "Your beliefs are wrong, mine are right, and they're the only ones that are right" ... that's not going to win them any brownie points from me :)
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

kylie

#60
Quote from: Lord Drake
unfortunately - it is the lot of religions. EACH religion thinks that the other is misguided/wrong... one should expect it.
Right then...  Nudist torch and drum procession in front of the Southern Baptist headquarters Sunday morning at 10, with chanting and plenty of spirits.  Since it's simple competitive, natural, individualistic capitalism (or something they could recognize as equally to be expected -- anyway) they'll be more than happy to see us.  They did want us all to come around and worship, didn't they... 

Quote from: HairyHeretic... if someone comes along, tells you your beliefs are wrong ...
I think, there's something to the manner of this 'coming along' part that is central to the problem.
     

Lord Drake

Quote from: HairyHeretic on January 12, 2010, 06:46:06 PM
I believe that what I believe is right for me. It's not going to be right for lots of others, but what they believe may well be right for them. I don't make judgement calls on what is right for other people .. I have enough trouble figuring out what's right for me ;)

But having someone come along and tell me "Your beliefs are wrong, mine are right, and they're the only ones that are right" ... that's not going to win them any brownie points from me :)

Well this is a bit the core of the matter (and Yes obviously this is more easier seen in the monotheistic religions but in my opinion it is present a bit also in the others). Believing in a unique 'greater principle' is to believe in something that affects us all... like gravity attraction? It is not like if you don't like it you can avoid to be affected by it...

NOW one can confutate the single religion as it is... but the fact that a religion may consider itself the ONLY right one stands to reason. Actually I personally consider all religions a bit like that... even the polytheistic ones, although it is more a bit a pet peeve of me probably.
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Serephino

Quote from: Lord Drake on January 12, 2010, 06:56:05 PM
NOW one can confutate the single religion as it is... but the fact that a religion may consider itself the ONLY right one stands to reason. Actually I personally consider all religions a bit like that... even the polytheistic ones, although it is more a bit a pet peeve of me probably.

Actually, you would be wrong in that.  I don't feel that my religion is the only right one.  There are only 2 other people on the planet that share my beliefs exactly.  But I do like to keep my mind open to all possibilities. 

Remember my first post in this subject?  I said the only way to prove who is right is to drop dead.  Could I be wrong?  Sure I could.  Could Christians be right?  I suppose so.  I doubt it for many reasons, but my saying it isn't true doesn't make it so.

Just like the term Christian is a blanket term, Pagan is also a blanket term.  There are dozens if not hundreds of different specific traditions.  For the most part, we agree to disagree.  There are of course bad apples in every barrel...  But for the most part, like Hairy said, what works for me is good, but not the only way to do things.



Lord Drake

#63
Quote from: Sparkling Angel on January 12, 2010, 09:17:57 PM
Actually, you would be wrong in that.  I don't feel that my religion is the only right one.  There are only 2 other people on the planet that share my beliefs exactly.  But I do like to keep my mind open to all possibilities.

*smiles*

We are more similar than you think. Again I am sorry if I seem anal-retentive, definition-wise but you are not a 'religion', you are a 'person'... what you are probably (correct me if I am wrong) trying to say is that tou are not a fundamentalist and that you 'as a person' keep an open mind.

A religion is not exactly a person... it is a series of beliefs that defines a part of the world and of your life that you cannot see or have proof of. And it defines in a specific way and, for that religion, this is the right way. Even those religion who allow everyone their own Gods... well they simply state that the universe is in that way so that everyone can have his God... but even that is a statement of how things are... and is as intransigent as the ones that say that there is only one God.

Now the persons can be a bit more open-minded... and about that Hairy says the truth, it is easier for the non-monotheistic ones. But some of us DO try.

For example, I myself, while believing in an unique God.... I also believe that He is somewhat of a good fellow so to say and likes everybody of us the same. And I think that what makes us His children is mainly how much love for each other and for the creation and for the principle of good we do have... believing surely helps, but I do NOT think that a good, caring, loving person who is not a believer will not have a chance at being happy in his life AND afterlife. And I find difficult to think that said chance would depend on conversion by a bible-toting guy who comes to you explaining the Original Sin.

I hope this can be considered open-mindedness... I really don't know.
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Jude

It's not close-minded to think that other people's beliefs are wrong, it is only close-minded if you come to that conclusion without giving said beliefs a chance.  Open-mindedness is the willingness to consider other ideas, and if you find them to be superior to your own (in the case of truth, more logically sound), be willing to adopt them.

Monotheistic religions are incompatible with more religions than polytheistic religions are because they claim there is only one god at a very high level (it's a simplistic principle), so if you take them at their word all other religions must be wrong unless somehow it can be claimed that the other religions in question refer to the same singular entity as their god (i.e. how Islam views Christianity and Judaism, and how Christianity views Judaism; and even then Islam doesn't say Christians are completely right, just that their basis was correct at one point in time before their views were tainted by history over time, they still believe Islam is the right way).  It's simply easier to draw out the contradictions with monotheistic religions than it is with others, but monotheistic religions are not the only ones that preclude the existence of other religions.

Take Paganism and Christianity for example.  Most Pagan Religions claim that nature is sacred and imbued with "value" similar to how Christianity claims that human life has value; this is in direct opposition to the way that Christians see the world.  In Christianity it's spelled out in Genesis that nature was created by god solely to serve man's needs.  So while a Pagan may object to certain treatment of nature on religious grounds, a Christian would not.

There actually aren't a lot of religions in existence (none I can think of in fact outside of the basic 3 prominent monotheistic religions) that don't have conflicting principles.   I realize that out of a desire to be kind and respect other people's opinions, the religious often like to pretend that what everyone believes can be true.  And I've had this argument before with religious people that reject this but I still don't understand on what grounds they do.  If you view religion as an expression of truth, then it's simply not possible to believe everyone can be right.  And if you don't view religion as an expression of truth, then what do religious statements mean?

When you're dealing with facts, if 2 conflicting statements are given, at least one of them must be false, that's basic logic.  Simply because religion is based on faith does not invalidate this either, in putting faith in something you're essentially making a bet that whatever you've put your faith in is true.

I don't understand why religious claims should be taken any different than scientific ones.  Christians say Jesus existed and was the literal son of god.  Islam says that Jesus existed and was a human prophet.  There's a clear contradiction there.  Jesus can't be the literal son of god and simply a human prophet; granted he could've been a human that was of no real importance, not a prophet, or even a particularly moral man (i.e. both claims could be false), but someone has to be right and someone has to be wrong.

ShrowdedPoet

Who's right and who's wrong doesn't matter to me.  Noone believes the same things I do and I honestly don't care.  One of my best friends is a christian (the real kind) and we respect eachothers beliefs.  When she says she'll pray for me (me, not my eternal soul) I take it as the gift it is.  And when I say I'll pray for her and light candles she takes it as the gift it is.  Someone wants to convert me I tell them no thanks.  They tell me I'm wrong.  I tell them I don't care.  My religion works for MY life and makes ME happy.  If itks not absolute fact, I really don't care.  *shrug*
Kiss the hand that beats you.
Sexuality isn't a curse, it's a gift to embrace and explore!
Ons and Offs


Serephino

Quote from: Lord Drake on January 13, 2010, 12:54:25 AM
*smiles*

We are more similar than you think. Again I am sorry if I seem anal-retentive, definition-wise but you are not a 'religion', you are a 'person'... what you are probably (correct me if I am wrong) trying to say is that tou are not a fundamentalist and that you 'as a person' keep an open mind.

A religion is not exactly a person... it is a series of beliefs that defines a part of the world and of your life that you cannot see or have proof of. And it defines in a specific way and, for that religion, this is the right way. Even those religion who allow everyone their own Gods... well they simply state that the universe is in that way so that everyone can have his God... but even that is a statement of how things are... and is as intransigent as the ones that say that there is only one God.

Now the persons can be a bit more open-minded... and about that Hairy says the truth, it is easier for the non-monotheistic ones. But some of us DO try.

For example, I myself, while believing in an unique God.... I also believe that He is somewhat of a good fellow so to say and likes everybody of us the same. And I think that what makes us His children is mainly how much love for each other and for the creation and for the principle of good we do have... believing surely helps, but I do NOT think that a good, caring, loving person who is not a believer will not have a chance at being happy in his life AND afterlife. And I find difficult to think that said chance would depend on conversion by a bible-toting guy who comes to you explaining the Original Sin.

I hope this can be considered open-mindedness... I really don't know.

I suppose you have a point.  As I said, there are bad apples in every barrel.  There are some very closed minded Pagans, and those that, like the author of that article, have a grudge against Christianity.  Polytheistic religious people do tend to be more open minded though.

And, as strange as it sounds, you and I have similar views about God.  I don't think he cares what religious practice you prescribe to because we are all his creations.  And if we all followed the same religion life would be pretty boring wouldn't it?

kylie

#67
Setting aside the part about Biblical details...

And even leaving alone the moral implications of a belief in original sin, which I think could say much about the difference between these spiritual tracks... 

         I feel like the OP point about bigger name religions pressing their agenda door-to-door has partially gotten lost.  I would imagine, since they don't own the property, it's just another Avon case, where anybody has the right to sell whatever they want on Sunday morning anywhere?  Do Avon or insurance people, or telemarketers for that matter expect to have their brand names represented with solemn respect?  Why the implicit demands by some people here that those who so aggressively (and often presumptuously) advertise should be represented by others with solemn dignity in every commentary? 

          The original context has sometimes been neglected by those rushing to bash the OP article merely for being a tad sarcastic.  As if no movement with a little sarcasm ever produced anything reasonable or useful.  I also feel those posts implicitly demanding more pro-Christian seriousness do not offer much "respect" for fear of insulting those who do live with Pagan and other arrangements in their house and who do take some offense at being visited with inflexible messages of "idolatry" or "hell" etc.  The various altars, snakes, libraries, nudity, and various ritual items are not listed in the writing simply for entertainment value.  They have real meaning for real people, but they have hardly been mentioned in the rush to argue "One of these faiths must be more right!" or "Oh, this [expletive ommitted] is too pompous or snide."  The ritual/lifestyle items are also mentioned to reinforce the point.  Namely, that not every group and space appreciates (never mind takes seriously!) what the JW and some vocal evangelicals have taken to be their right and duty. 

         Some very vocal American movements overlapping with the Biblical sales group have backed up that "duty" by positioning themselves so that they may go on "missions" to knock on others' doors, while employing wealth, legislation, mockery (can you imagine that?), character assassination, and even intimidation/violence to help their standing against trespass or protest for their own bases.  These faiths have enamored themselves better historically with the state apparatus.  If even a small handful of persons created a nude torch and drum event near more conservative churches, I would imagine that attempts at conversion, so-called "counterprotest" and mockery might not be the end of it.  Some calls for the police and threats or acts of violence by ultra-right wing factions would be sad...  But not entirely surprising.  In such a discriminatory and unbalanced social context, I don't think a little mockery of JW/Christian approaches is really surprising.
     

Lord Drake

#68
Quote from: kylie on January 13, 2010, 11:10:12 PMSetting aside the part about Biblical details...

And even leaving alone the moral implications of a belief in original sin, which I think could say much about the difference between these spiritual tracks...

Actually the part about the 'original sin' is a part of a greater construction that makes Christian faith much more 'light' and 'positively oriented' than some detractors think. Again, I'm talking about 'Christians' in the larger sense and NOT about the 'door to door Bible salesmen' as you call them. But let's cast this aside as - I agree with you - this is not the point.



Quote from: kylie on January 13, 2010, 11:10:12 PMI feel like the OP point about bigger name religions pressing their agenda door-to-door has partially gotten lost.  I would imagine, since they don't own the property, it's just another Avon case, where anybody has the right to sell whatever they want on Sunday morning anywhere?  Do Avon or insurance people, or telemarketers for that matter expect to have their brand names represented with solemn respect?  Why the implicit demands by some people here that those who so aggressively (and often presumptuously) advertise should be represented by others with solemn dignity in every commentary? 

Actually the 'original point' of the FORUM THREAD (not the article) was to debate if the article was well-thought and well-written in its content... at least I have desumed that from the first three posts of it. Have I missed something? I answered to that... as a 'confutation' is badly thought. If it is to be considered a mere exercise in words and sarcasm... well I personally (having read iits conclusion) do not think that.

Quote from: kylie on January 13, 2010, 11:10:12 PMThe original context has sometimes been neglected by those rushing to bash the OP article merely for being a tad sarcastic.  As if no movement with a little sarcasm ever produced anything reasonable or useful.

One thing I have learned in life is that it is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to make intelligent sarcasm about a religion without being very knowledgeable about it. Usually when you try that you look like a fool more than a blasphemer, to those belonging to that religion. Also, to be extremely clear here I think that the other religions must have the SAME respect and not only Christianity obviously.

Quote from: kylie on January 13, 2010, 11:10:12 PMSome very vocal American movements overlapping with the Biblical sales group have backed up that "duty" by positioning themselves so that they may go on "missions" to knock on others' doors, while employing wealth, legislation, mockery (can you imagine that?), character assassination, and even intimidation/violence to help their standing against trespass or protest for their own bases.  These faiths have enamored themselves better historically with the state apparatus.  If even a small handful of persons created a nude torch and drum event near more conservative churches, I would imagine that attempts at conversion, so-called "counterprotest" and mockery might not be the end of it.  Some calls for the police and threats or acts of violence by ultra-right wing factions would be sad...  But not entirely surprising.  In such a discriminatory and unbalanced social context, I don't think a little mockery of JW/Christian approaches is really surprising.

Actually we must do a little distinction there.

I agree with you that in front of exasperation this kind of reaction is perfectly understandable. Now the auctor of this particular article strikes me as mainly a flamer and not a very good one... but this is only a personal feeling and anyways there are many other much better ones around who say similar things.

I believe that EXACTLY because this is made out of exasperation it could be a bit dangerous... things that one does while pissed off tend to go out of target at times. I know this is hard to mantain one's cool in these cases but unfortunately an exaggerate reaction could lower them to their level and also bring them to retaliate on unguilty people.

The 'Christian' word encompasses a much bigger reality than the JW and Evangelical American. There are MANY MANY more of them around the world and much different... on my part, for example, I can say that the Roman Catholic do NOT do that kind of proselytism door-to-door and do NOT ring the doorbells of people to warn them that they will go to Hell.

Unfortunately, we share with the evangelical and the JW the sacred texts (ok... they share them with us we usually say) and the definition 'Christians'. And we are starting to see quite often around the net our name and sacred texts put into such articles... and with us, some of the Lutheran, the Ortodoxs and so on... Now obviously it is not like we DON'T say that our point of view is the right one... as I said before, basically every religion do that. But again, we are NOT as aggressive as them. At least I and those I know are not... :P

Now, Hairy is right when he says that "if someone comes along, tells you your beliefs are wrong (or at the least misguided) you're not going to be that well inclined towards them, and remembering their exact denomination probably isn't going to be that high on your list of priorities". I agree on that. But again, this is the dangerous part... since if it is done 'in the heat of the moment' it can be understood... but on the long run, a person with a MINIMUM of culture should know that some denominations encompass a bigger reality.

I'm hyperbolic, I know... *laughs*. I will try to condense my point this way: it is understandable and fully expectable that since they have been attacked, they want to respond in tone. As long as they do that TO THE PERSONS THAT THEY HAVE SLIGHTED THEM I'm perfectly fine. As long as they do their nude torch and drum events under THEIR church I can be ok.

If they put that on the INTERNET they are doing that to ME and under MY Church although (not so) probably unwittingly. And so this makes ME respond. It stands to reason... ^^

Think like that... if a particular sect of Pagans started doing silly things that you disagree with in a country... and they being the only Pagans there (or the most vocal) people starts a counter offence against 'Paganism' in general WITHOUT distinction... what would you think will happen when that hits the Internet?
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

WhiteyChan

I'm gonna stay out of any real religious debates here (woo Atheism) - but I will mention the film Dogma (Smith, 1999). It picks apart bits of the Bible, in a hilarious way; obviously, the 'points' it makes are complete rubbish, but at least it recognises that fact and even ridicules itself at points.

I highly recommend it to everyone in this thread. ;D

HairyHeretic

Quote from: Lord Drake on January 14, 2010, 03:37:44 AM
Think like that... if a particular sect of Pagans started doing silly things that you disagree with in a country... and they being the only Pagans there (or the most vocal) people starts a counter offence against 'Paganism' in general WITHOUT distinction... what would you think will happen when that hits the Internet?

Would you care to examine Christian PR towards any and all pagans for last couple of thousand years? ;)

Pagans, because of lack of a central authority, or a great deal of common doctrine (for lack of a better word) are a lot harder to put into anything other than very broad catagories.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Lord Drake

Quote from: HairyHeretic on January 14, 2010, 02:33:17 PM
Would you care to examine Christian PR towards any and all pagans for last couple of thousand years? ;)

*smiles*

Actually I am not against PR if it is made through less aggressive channels. It is not like I am not convinced of my faith and I am against proselytizing. AND the channels have changed through the years... obviously middle ages ways were different from modern ones. Anyway which kind of PR from catholic Romans comes to your mind?

Anyway... I will try my best to remain to the point. What I am saying is... I am not stating than Christianity in general and possibly even Roman Catholic has not had issues with others beliefs. All the contrary. But those who go door-to-door bible-toting are NOT us. And this was the theme of this particular thread.

So if one wants to retaliate for their behaviour... he should retaliate to THEM. If he also retaliates to ME, I will respond. Unfortunately the Bible is a sacred book for them AND for me.

So. Yes, an aggressive try at proselytizing can understandably cause an equally aggressive response. And no, this does not make of that particular attempt at sarcasm much less of a laughingstock since the author is trying to debate the historical value of something that has SYMBOLIC value.
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

HairyHeretic

Christianity seemed to have a habit, historically speaking, of demonising any worship that wasn't theirs. Where people weren't willing to convert, if christianity was in a stronger position, it literally became convert or die. Have a read up on the assorted conflicts that went on when it spread through the nordic countries, and finally in Iceland.

I'm not saying it was entirely violent .. obviously it wasn't, but there's enough of it that the aggressive proselytizing, the "We're right, you're wrong" attitude can turn people against them very quickly, especially if they are familiar with those bits of history. It's an emotional response, and I think generally speaking if you put emotion against logic, emotion is going to come out on top more often than not. That's human nature for you.
Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

kylie

#73
Quote from: Lord DrakeBut those who go door-to-door bible-toting are NOT us. And this was the theme of this particular thread.
So if one wants to retaliate for their behaviour... he should retaliate to THEM. If he also retaliates to ME, I will respond. Unfortunately the Bible is a sacred book for them AND for me.
You mentioned the intent of the OP at some juncture...  Well, how about like this?
Quote from: Mnemaxa on January 11, 2010, 07:33:19 AM
I am not a bible scholar in the slightest, but this was a very reasonable seeming response by a Pagan household to the Jehovah's Witnesses who came to their door one day. 
If you look at the article, it almost never speaks directly to Christians per se.  It mentions "Christendom" once, only to indicate that the Biblical story still has broader cultural weight.  Some of our responses here have pointed out that there are parallels with the JW involving evangelical Christians (it's very convenient to say just "Christians" for short sometimes) -- I think you're being overbroad in trying to shout those down in defensive terms of, Would you please stop saying anything to do with Christian about that.  No one has described your individual practices or said that is what they mean by Christian here -- at least, as far as I know.  Now, if you want to make an argument that the evangelicals are not Christians by your definition, that might be more relevant and do more for your defense of the term... 

Quote from: Lord Drakea person with a MINIMUM of culture should know that some denominations encompass a bigger reality.
Yes, they do -- but not always an entirely separate reality.  Part of the threat/insult you may be sensing has to do with another fact.  If you are affiliated with or in support of large Christian churches, then the institutions you favor are actually concerned with this issue because they (actively or passively) use the evangelists' agenda to further their own wealth and power.  The legal and institutional structures door-to-door operatives take advantage of, are also part of a range of politics that gives tangible benefits to most Christian churches, including many that are not particularly radical or evangelical.  In that context, a moderate Christian simply saying "Well, I don't do that so I'm not implicated at all," is rather like an average middle class White person focusing on anything except the systemic benefits they gain from racial discrimination.  I just sense a lot of focus in the writing upon distancing oneself from an implied minority of "hotheads," in order to insist "but I'm part of the good bunch" rather than looking at all the empirical connections.   

QuoteI believe that EXACTLY because this is made out of exasperation it could be a bit dangerous... things that one does while pissed off tend to go out of target at times. I know this is hard to mantain one's cool in these cases but unfortunately an exaggerate reaction could lower them to their level and also bring them to retaliate on unguilty people.
Well, it is door to door and perhaps it's a little restrictive to say that people shouldn't be allowed any hyperbole or exasperation even when the discussion is brought to them on a random morning.  I suppose there's a possible argument that we'd be better off with a society based on the more reserved from among the Vulcans.  I think the article's loose style could be more problematic when it becomes a vindictive discourse that circulates through other forums.  However, the people I more often see using both door to door and public (physical) space to proclaim vindictive messages today are more often members of conservative Biblical-oriented organizations.  You're worrying that a few radical Pagans somehow might do something which they generally haven't been.  And they haven't been, despite the fact that the Biblical side has been tossing the muck openly and with greater institutional support.  Where is the proof of this danger you speak of being likely to manifest itself?
     

Kotah

Finally in a rage we scream at the top of our lungs into this lonely night, begging and pleading they stop sucking up dry.There as guilty as sin, still as they always do when faced with an angry mob: they wipe the blood from their mouths and calm us down with their words of milk and honey. So the play begins, we the once angry mob are now pacified and sit quietly entertained. But the curtain exists far from now becasue their lies have been spoken. My dear, have you forgotten what comes next? This is the part where we change the world.

kylie

#75
Quote from: Lord DrakeIf they put that on the INTERNET they are doing that to ME and under MY Church although (not so) probably unwittingly.  And so this makes ME respond.
I suppose you will have a busy enterprise, blasting thousands of web pages very shortly.  How will you decide where to begin?  I guess you could blame the OP for bringing it up, but then the OP was asking specifically about JW.  So, that leaves you complaining at people in the thread who have simply mentioned parallels which do exist in and around Christianity.  Excuse me, but Pagans aren't making you read their pages -- whatever the quality -- any more than the Smithsonian Library is forcing you to load theirs.  If anything, it's more commonly likely that people might feel pressured to load up Christian pages when the Pledge of Allegiance, national currency, and funding legislation all refer preferentially to God and various churches. 

Quoteobviously middle ages ways were different from modern ones.
People are not tortured and burned at the stake as often.  Some are still sentenced to jail through claims that whips and chains mean S&M -- which allegedly stands for "Satanism and Murder" -- with little other evidence than empty talk of violent fantasy (Laura Kipnis 1999, Bound and Gagged Duke UP).  That's fantasy such as is quite common on Elliquiy, actually -- but a mythos of serpent and sin has weight in our courts turning it into "evidence" of terrible crimes.  School teachers whose personal webpages (here we go again about the Net) show nudity and pagan ritual are fired.  People fear for their welfare and reputation instead of their bodies.  The mockery and demonization, intermittent persecution through rigging of government, and general discrimination against non-Christians do persist.  Particularly in the US of the contemporary Christian Right.
     

Serephino

Actually, the author of the article is not a flamer.  As Kylie said, for one, I'm sure that article was meant for Pagan eyes.  Second, that attitude isn't uncommon among Pagans.

How do I explain this....  It's not uncommon for a Pagan to be anti-Christian.  I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it just is.  Often it's because the Pagan grew up as a Christian.  Something happened to make them leave the religion and they're bitter.  It also hurts to have friends that you've known for years turn their backs on you.  It's frustrating as hell to have to hide your religion from your family so you won't be disowned.  It's even worse when you're family does disown you.

As a Christian you can tell anyone you want.  The most you'll get is people telling you that they don't want to be converted.  You have no idea what it's like.  You don't have to hide.  My boyfriend made the mistake of telling his co workers, and now they keep trying get him to admit he's a Satanist.  The Medieval church did a very good job of demonizing us.  To be hounded by someone at your door adds insult to injury. 

Lord Drake

Quote from: Sparkling Angel on January 14, 2010, 08:58:00 PM
Actually, the author of the article is not a flamer.  As Kylie said, for one, I'm sure that article was meant for Pagan eyes.  Second, that attitude isn't uncommon among Pagans.

It is on the net. You may write 'for Pagans only' on something on the net but this does not mean that it is not on the net. It can happen that someone could link it into a forum and ask an opinion about it, for example. Again... I am NOT saying that he should have NOT put it on the net. I only say that if he puts it there, it will eventually be read by others... and also tends to give wrong argumentations to other Pagan i would add.

Quote from: Sparkling Angel on January 14, 2010, 08:58:00 PM
How do I explain this....  It's not uncommon for a Pagan to be anti-Christian.  I'm not saying it's a good thing, but it just is.  Often it's because the Pagan grew up as a Christian.  Something happened to make them leave the religion and they're bitter.  It also hurts to have friends that you've known for years turn their backs on you.  It's frustrating as hell to have to hide your religion from your family so you won't be disowned.  It's even worse when you're family does disown you.

Believe it or not I completely understand that. Unfortunately, when you have an anti-something attitude... even if you feel yourself completely in the right, it is always good to stop and think a little. IF they are aware that by saying 'Christians' they encompass a MUCH bigger reality into which there is people that would NOT disown them, and IF they are aware that by bashing the bible they bash something that it is also sacred to different confessions than the one they have issues with, they can go on... obviously. What I am suspecting is that they are at times not aware of that or consider the thing moot.

Quote from: Sparkling Angel on January 14, 2010, 08:58:00 PM
As a Christian you can tell anyone you want.  The most you'll get is people telling you that they don't want to be converted.  You have no idea what it's like.  You don't have to hide.  My boyfriend made the mistake of telling his co workers, and now they keep trying get him to admit he's a Satanist.  The Medieval church did a very good job of demonizing us.  To be hounded by someone at your door adds insult to injury. 

Again, I know. And believe it or not I would like to offer my help in that. 'Medieval' Christians have their right place in the Middle Ages... not in the modern world. Obviously, bashing the Bible and trying to prove that my own faith is wrong is not the way I would use to help you... I fear you will have to cope with that. :P

Maybe if another Christian lends a bit of help, this will help set things in the right perspective. I am sure I can confutate every kind of biblical remark that your friends' coworker do to him. And you are free to tell them that there is at least a Christian in Italy, who thinks that they are definitely stupid and also are not doing a very good service to THEIR souls with that behaviour.
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Kotah

Something I don't understand... Why is it OK for Christians to put down whatever religion they see fit, however, if anyone of a different religion, even if it is a slight difference, says anything about Christianity... it's a great horror.
Finally in a rage we scream at the top of our lungs into this lonely night, begging and pleading they stop sucking up dry.There as guilty as sin, still as they always do when faced with an angry mob: they wipe the blood from their mouths and calm us down with their words of milk and honey. So the play begins, we the once angry mob are now pacified and sit quietly entertained. But the curtain exists far from now becasue their lies have been spoken. My dear, have you forgotten what comes next? This is the part where we change the world.

Lord Drake

Quote from: Kotah Kringle on January 15, 2010, 04:53:39 AMSomething I don't understand... Why is it OK for Christians to put down whatever religion they see fit, however, if anyone of a different religion, even if it is a slight difference, says anything about Christianity... it's a great horror.

Something I don't understand is where have I said that the content of that article is a 'great horror'. I have said that it is uselessly aggressive and a bit stupid but I also say that about the 'bible-toting' aggressive proselytism.

^^
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Jude

#80
Quote from: Kotah Kringle on January 15, 2010, 04:53:39 AM
Something I don't understand... Why is it OK for Christians to put down whatever religion they see fit, however, if anyone of a different religion, even if it is a slight difference, says anything about Christianity... it's a great horror.
Not all Christians feel that way, and moreover I notice a lot of people of alternate religions who believe equally egregious things.  If you're going to criticize other people's beliefs, you better be prepared to have your own scrutinized, it's only fair.

All too often posts about religion here eventually become criticisms and attacks unfairly aimed at Christianity, while people of other faiths and persuasions either ignore the evil their religions have done or the good Christianity has done.

Christianity certainly isn't a perfect religion, I honestly think that it's factually untrue and self-contradictory in many aspects, we all know that there have been many religious wars and atrocities perpetrated as well, but don't forget also that Christianity is also responsible for a great deal of good in the world.

Christian missionary efforts build schools and houses in third world countries, they run charitable institutions throughout the world, there's a reason religious terms are attached to the name of so many hospitals, Christian monks preserved a great deal of academic documents through the fall of the Roman Empire and the dark ages, and so many other things.  Sure you can cast doubt on many of those good deeds, but can't you argue shades of gray when it comes to any institution?

At least they're putting themselves out there and trying to do good in the world and having a measurable impact on people's lives.  The Church of All Words (the religious group that posted this article to begin with) has its own intiatives it attempts to make the world a better place, most of which seem completely worthless to me based on what I read, such as chaining themselves to a tree which was going to be cut down, but that's the beauty of being allowed to form your opinion about things such as these.

To view any one religion as perfect takes a narrow view and incredible amount of faith, but I think it takes even more bias and tunnel vision to view any theology as fundamentally worthless, oppressive, and inferior while singing the praises of your own religion (except in very very few circumstances, i.e. Scientology).  For as much as I dislike these CAW people based on what I've read about them, I don't think they're evil or dangerous; just wrong and a little silly.

Self-righteousness is disgusting no matter whose mouth it's coming out of, whether that person be an atheist, an agnostic, or a theist.

Lord Drake

Quote from: kylie on January 14, 2010, 04:12:56 PMIf you look at the article, it almost never speaks directly to Christians per se.  It mentions "Christendom" once, only to indicate that the Biblical story still has broader cultural weight.  Some of our responses here have pointed out that there are parallels with the JW involving evangelical Christians (it's very convenient to say just "Christians" for short sometimes) -- I think you're being overbroad in trying to shout those down in defensive terms of, Would you please stop saying anything to do with Christian about that.  No one has described your individual practices or said that is what they mean by Christian here -- at least, as far as I know.  Now, if you want to make an argument that the evangelicals are not Christians by your definition, that might be more relevant and do more for your defense of the term... 

Unfortunately the 'term' Christian is what is widely used in the WORLD to encompass a greater reality. If 'few pagans' use it whit a different meaning, and this gets taken the wrong way, the fault is theirs. And no, I'm sorry but it is not 'very convenient' to use a definition that encompasses people that does NOT do the practises you are having issues with (i.e. door-to-door proselytizing).

Quote from: kylie on January 14, 2010, 04:12:56 PMYes, they do -- but not always an entirely separate reality.  Part of the threat/insult you may be sensing has to do with another fact.  If you are affiliated with or in support of large Christian churches, then the institutions .... "Well, I don't do that so I'm not implicated at all," is rather like an average middle class White person focusing on anything except the systemic benefits they gain from racial discrimination.  I just sense a lot of focus in the writing upon distancing oneself from an implied minority of "hotheads," in order to insist "but I'm part of the good bunch" rather than looking at all the empirical connections.

Actually if you have a minority of 'hotheads' amongst your lot, distancing yourself from them is the most sensate thing you can do. Also what you say is true but it has to do more with society... institutions always try to keep majorities appeased and this is something that you can see at many level. This is bad obviously and I try to do my best every day against it.

What I sense, is the desire to put me amongst the 'bad guys' simply out of the fact that I recognize myself in a definition (Christian) that actually is even wrongly used in this case.
 
Quote from: kylie on January 14, 2010, 04:12:56 PM...the people I more often see using both door to door and public (physical) space to proclaim vindictive messages today are more often members of conservative Biblical-oriented organizations.  You're worrying that a few radical Pagans somehow might do something which they generally haven't been.  And they haven't been, despite the fact that the Biblical side has been tossing the muck openly and with greater institutional support.  Where is the proof of this danger you speak of being likely to manifest itself?

Dangerous for them... not necessarily for society. Since I feel that the attackers (the Bible-oriented organizations) are in the wrong in my opinion, I do not care much what they get back. I only see that the reaction of those Pagans would alienate the sympathy of someone that could actually BE of great help, and those are the less fundamentalistic Christians for example.


Quote from: kylie on January 14, 2010, 04:17:40 PM
          I suppose you will have a busy enterprise, blasting thousands of web pages very shortly.  How will you decide where to begin?  I guess you could blame the OP for bringing it up, but then the OP was asking specifically about JW.  So, that leaves you complaining at people in the thread who have simply mentioned parallels which do exist in and around Christianity.  Excuse me, but Pagans aren't making you read their pages -- whatever the quality -- any more than the Smithsonian Library is forcing you to load theirs.  If anything, it's more commonly likely that people might feel pressured to load up Christian pages when the Pledge of Allegiance, national currency, and funding legislation all refer preferentially to God and various churches. 

Well actually someone MADE me read that page and I commented after that.

AND if people is actually intentionally attacking ALL Christianity then I am ok.

I mean, I am not. But I will respond in tone, without problems. My problem is that I'm not so much convinced that this is being so intentional or that at least there is much awareness of what 'Christian' means world-wise.

Quote from: kylie on January 14, 2010, 04:17:40 PM...  The mockery and demonization, intermittent persecution through rigging of government, and general discrimination against non-Christians do persist.  Particularly in the US of the contemporary Christian Right.

Again, in the US..... ^^
Hey.. where did you put that Drake?
I've taken the Oath of The Drake for Group RPs!
“Never waste your time trying to explain who you are
to people who are committed to misunderstanding you.”
— Dream Hampton

Lilias

'Christendom' as a geopolitical term denoting the Christian world (as opposed to Islamic or pagan countries) fell out of use around the 18th century. Today, when used at all, it denotes the Christian people worlwide, so yes, it does have to do with the faith and not with culture(s). If it were being used in its old capacity, someone would/should have said so. Expecting the modern reader to relate to that automatically is tantamount to misinformation.
To go in the dark with a light is to know the light.
To know the dark, go dark. Go without sight,
and find that the dark, too, blooms and sings,
and is traveled by dark feet and dark wings.
~Wendell Berry

Double Os <> Double As (updated Feb 20) <> The Hoard <> 50 Tales 2024 <> The Lab <> ELLUIKI

Jude

Quote from: Lord Drake on January 15, 2010, 05:35:17 AMUnfortunately the 'term' Christian is what is widely used in the WORLD to encompass a greater reality. If 'few pagans' use it whit a different meaning, and this gets taken the wrong way, the fault is theirs. And no, I'm sorry but it is not 'very convenient' to use a definition that encompasses people that does NOT do the practises you are having issues with (i.e. door-to-door proselytizing).
You make it sound as if Christianity isn't essentially the same in most denominations, which simply isn't true.  Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are really the only people under the Christian banner which differ vastly when it comes to fundamental beliefs.  Otherwise the differences between various sects are fairly minor and/or a matter of application and not dogma.
Quote from: Lord Drake on January 15, 2010, 05:35:17 AMActually if you have a minority of 'hotheads' amongst your lot, distancing yourself from them is the most sensate thing you can do. Also what you say is true but it has to do more with society... institutions always try to keep majorities appeased and this is something that you can see at many level. This is bad obviously and I try to do my best every day against it.
If you're blaming the institution for the way Christianity is given a superior status in many areas of the world, I don't think that's fair, especially in a democratic system.  In a Democratic Society Christian Lobbying is influence peddling is really directly responsible for the ways in which that family of religions is venerated above other religious identities.  It's very common to see religious individuals decrying times when Christianity isn't given special treatment, but you don't see them championing against what is essentially a violation of separation of church and state so long as it's in their favor.  Then there's religious transgressions against science, etc.  Christianity certainly does an awful lot to assert its influence for its own gain whenever it can.
Quote from: Lord Drake on January 15, 2010, 05:35:17 AMWhat I sense, is the desire to put me amongst the 'bad guys' simply out of the fact that I recognize myself in a definition (Christian) that actually is even wrongly used in this case.
 
Dangerous for them... not necessarily for society. Since I feel that the attackers (the Bible-oriented organizations) are in the wrong in my opinion, I do not care much what they get back. I only see that the reaction of those Pagans would alienate the sympathy of someone that could actually BE of great help, and those are the less fundamentalistic Christians for example.
I agree with you here, but at the same time, being that you're "one of the good ones" it's your responsibility to handle the nuttier ones, like you've already said.  I think you won't find a whole lot of sympathy as a whole because a lot of people don't feel like moderate Christians are doing a good job of reigning in their evangelical brothers.
Quote from: Lord Drake on January 15, 2010, 05:35:17 AMWell actually someone MADE me read that page and I commented after that.

AND if people is actually intentionally attacking ALL Christianity then I am ok.

I mean, I am not. But I will respond in tone, without problems. My problem is that I'm not so much convinced that this is being so intentional or that at least there is much awareness of what 'Christian' means world-wise.

Again, in the US..... ^^
The negative influence of Christianity and its lobbying to world governments for favor doesn't stop at the United States.  If someone has beliefs very similar to yours, unfortunately you're held responsible for the ideology.  So when the Pope says ridiculous things, like Condom usage increases the chance of getting AIDs to Africans in the middle of an AIDs epidemic, you're all held responsible for it unfairly.  It's important that other voices out there distance themselves from him and Catholicism by criticizing strongly what was said.  There's just not enough of that going on out there in the world.

kylie

Quote from: JudeAll too often posts about religion here eventually become criticisms and attacks unfairly aimed at Christianity, while people of other faiths and persuasions either ignore the evil their religions have done or the good Christianity has done.
The thread started with a critique much more particular than where most claims of unjust treatment of Christianity in general are trying to take it (which is practically nowhere, except cheerleading or evangelism).  As usual, some have misrepresented what issues were pointed out in the OP because they seem to feel that the mere term "Christianity" must be defended from any negative representation whatsoever.  There's some effort to turn a discussion about door-to-door sale of one's spiritual and moral beliefs into a laundry list of goods and bads about anything Christian.  It's a nice way to distract attention from the initial discussion by claiming abstract victimization.  This is just another form of whose victimization is worse.

          I sense that this sort of response is aiming to force an endless digression from the initial topic.  Like it or not, various groups of Christians and aspects of Christianity happen to share in the problem that the JW exemplified here.  You don't address the specific problem very well by saying it's an insult to even bring it up.  Nor by implying that "all the good things" Christians do either makes it somehow irrelevant, or perhaps requires them to do that too.  One could just as easily dismiss complaints about Blackwater shooting unarmed people by saying that's an insult to all the good Blackwater employees who built a few schools (or oil pipelines, or whatever).
     

Jude

Nope, I'm all for criticism of Christianity or any other belief system.  I was just reacting to what I regularly see on religious threads, as people of other religious persuasions playing holier than thou.

Kotah

1. If I wanted to throw down on Christianity, trust me I would. I didn't say a single thing to argue Christianity at all, really, just made an observation about every day life. Note, I didn't 'throw down' on Christianity.
2. I never accused anyone of getting holier then tho.
3. I never said Christians never did anything good.
4. In this thread, in so far, all I asked was one question, and posted a music video that I thought would lighten the mood a bit.
5. Why is it that you felt the need to go into a long rant over one question? I didn't attack all of Christianity. I just made a broad spectrum observation that didn't even apply to anyone in the thread. It was just a question, buddy. Let's chill out a little.

For one of the most popular religions in the world today, Christian's seem to get upset when anything at all is said about their religion. Case in point, I can't ask a question without some one getting up in the ropes telling me I'm self-righteous. Just because one Christian doesn't do it, doesn't mean that there isn't a significant number that do. If you watch any christian networking on TV you are sure to find a small rant about how prosecuted the Christians are. Pastors and ministers preach about in in church all the time. However, several of the same pastors and ministers are just as easily teaching how wrong other religions are. I'm sure it's something that happens in every religion. However, I have never seen it with the pure seemingly righteous outcry that the Christians have used.
Finally in a rage we scream at the top of our lungs into this lonely night, begging and pleading they stop sucking up dry.There as guilty as sin, still as they always do when faced with an angry mob: they wipe the blood from their mouths and calm us down with their words of milk and honey. So the play begins, we the once angry mob are now pacified and sit quietly entertained. But the curtain exists far from now becasue their lies have been spoken. My dear, have you forgotten what comes next? This is the part where we change the world.

Jude

#87
Quote from: Kotah Kringle on January 15, 2010, 04:05:51 PM1. If I wanted to throw down on Christianity, trust me I would. I didn't say a single thing to argue Christianity at all, really, just made an observation about every day life. Note, I didn't 'throw down' on Christianity.
2. I never accused anyone of getting holier then tho.
3. I never said Christians never did anything good.
4. In this thread, in so far, all I asked was one question, and posted a music video that I thought would lighten the mood a bit.
5. Why is it that you felt the need to go into a long rant over one question? I didn't attack all of Christianity. I just made a broad spectrum observation that didn't even apply to anyone in the thread. It was just a question, buddy. Let's chill out a little.
Didn't mean anything personal by it, I actually just used your point as a springboard to discuss what I was thinking based on other people's comments.  I didn't mean it as a repudiation of what you said, it was just a good starting point, I'm sorry if you felt I was putting words in your mouth or etc.
Quote from: Kotah Kringle on January 15, 2010, 04:05:51 PMFor one of the most popular religions in the world today, Christian's seem to get upset when anything at all is said about their religion. Case in point, I can't ask a question without some one getting up in the ropes telling me I'm self-righteous. Just because one Christian doesn't do it, doesn't mean that there isn't a significant number that do. If you watch any christian networking on TV you are sure to find a small rant about how prosecuted the Christians are. Pastors and ministers preach about in in church all the time. However, several of the same pastors and ministers are just as easily teaching how wrong other religions are. I'm sure it's something that happens in every religion. However, I have never seen it with the pure seemingly righteous outcry that the Christians have used.
I know exactly what you're talking about.  Especially every Christmas when they start the whining over things as simple as stores saying Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.  The War on Christmas coverage on the major news stations is especially disgusting.  Every Christmas, Bill O'Reilly's reporting makes me want to give him a knife to the spine (creatively speaking and worded for humor's sake, not to be intended seriously).  You'd think they'd be plenty happy to have a national Holiday on their big religious day, but that's apparently not enough for them.

I too am sick and tired of Christians crying persecution when in fact they support and demand a great deal of institutionalized persecution against people of other religious affiliations in the United States.

Especially egregious example:  recently I read that there are actually several U.S. states that have laws prohibiting people who do not believe in god from working in public office.

Serephino

Quote from: Lord Drake on January 15, 2010, 02:51:46 AM
Believe it or not I completely understand that. Unfortunately, when you have an anti-something attitude... even if you feel yourself completely in the right, it is always good to stop and think a little. IF they are aware that by saying 'Christians' they encompass a MUCH bigger reality into which there is people that would NOT disown them, and IF they are aware that by bashing the bible they bash something that it is also sacred to different confessions than the one they have issues with, they can go on... obviously. What I am suspecting is that they are at times not aware of that or consider the thing moot.

Again, I know. And believe it or not I would like to offer my help in that. 'Medieval' Christians have their right place in the Middle Ages... not in the modern world. Obviously, bashing the Bible and trying to prove that my own faith is wrong is not the way I would use to help you... I fear you will have to cope with that. :P

Maybe if another Christian lends a bit of help, this will help set things in the right perspective. I am sure I can confutate every kind of biblical remark that your friends' coworker do to him. And you are free to tell them that there is at least a Christian in Italy, who thinks that they are definitely stupid and also are not doing a very good service to THEIR souls with that behaviour.

There's just one problem with that logic.  If your family has disowned you and your friends have turned your back on you, you are hurt and not exactly rational.  Emotion and logic don't go together well. 

In reality, the fundamental hard core asswipes are the problem here.  I find it encouraging that some are opened minded.  I went through a short 'divorce period' because I didn't have it all that bad.  My mom thinks I'm crazy, but that's nothing new.  My grandmother is accepting though.  In fact, she wanted to borrow one of our books so she could study it.  That was cool. 

I think there is always going to be some bitterness.  I will never forget one story in one of my books.  In Medieval England a village's crops failed, and a which was blamed.  the witch didn't step forward, so the entire town was executed.

It's things like that that tend to tug at one's heartstrings.  Lots of horrible things have been done to Pagans in the name of God.  Some aren't quite ready to forgive and forget yet. 

Also, that article was aimed at the door to door people.  After everything, it really ticks us off that they would dare come into our homes and tell us we must repent.  Even after all this time they still can't leave us alone.  Freedom of Religion means freedom of ALL religion, not just the one that's the most popular. 

Think of it this way.  Just as my right to swing my arm ends at your face, your right to preach to me ends at my doorstep.  My home is my property.  I'll live as I see fit.

There is one bright spot for you however.  Even though Pagans complain about people coming to their door, they would be quite willing to listen to you, who isn't so preachy.  Not all, but some.  So really, you shouldn't take too much offense to some of these comments because they really are only aimed at fundamentalists.  The trick is to be able to tell the difference. 

kylie

Quote from: JudeAll too often posts about religion here eventually become criticisms and attacks unfairly aimed at Christianity, while people of other faiths and persuasions either ignore the evil their religions have done or the good Christianity has done.
I've already said the bit about employing a notion of abstract "good" all over the place as a cheap excuse to avoid a particular issue.  As far as others leading events to unhappy outcomes (I'm feeling prickly about hearing "evil" following closely upon a specific mention of "sin")...  Ultimately, I don't think comparing victimizations will get us very far...  I can imagine some people are eager to make it that sort of "contest" since they can rely on the fact that Christianity has been given disproportionate standing in US public forums for a good long time... 

          Now, where the goal is actually to develop a balanced and well-informed public discussion about Pagan lore or related history...  It would make sense to first push for more public institutions to make room for non-Christian ideals (not just mainly Christian ones) all across the American public sector.  Encourage the fewer identified Pagans to actually come out so they can actually talk about deities in public, without sometimes fearing a police investigation or job loss.  Perhaps dedicate some funds so that more Pagans can maintain more bases which would be exempt from taxes and trespass.  Not to mimic the Christian towers, but since apparently that is what it takes to maintain a cozy, private ritual space without others preaching from the doorstep and sidewalk...   A few years of this, and then the general population would be in a more appropriate position to speak on a more even keel about the histories and mythologies of non-Christian ways.  Right now, many people are more aware of Christian ideals, and only partially aware of how much they've been channeled toward giving preferential attention to those and avoiding other possibilities.

          Finally, if you really want to be comparative...  There's also a little problem that "religion" is being spoken of more than spirituality, morality, or ritual, all of which make more sense for me to compare.  I could emphasize that I'm annoyed that some people are insinuating I'm defending other "religions," while the state would probably not recognize any of my own spiritual interests -- nor many small-group Pagan ceremonies -- as anything worthy of the name.  However, I won't draw that out further.  That would be just as diversionary as going on about some quasi-fundamentalist demand for total protection of the single word "Christian."
     

Jude

#90
Of course non-Christians have suffered more victimization than Christians have.  My point was merely that if you're going to criticize a religion, you in turn open criticism of your own religion, and you have to analyze both the good and the bad.  When it comes to judgment of a particular organization or individual, you don't ignore the good or the bad they've done.  I often see people stacking up Christianity's bad end to end in order to claim that it's a "worse" religion than other traditions, with statements like, "Well my religion has never been used to justify genocide."

Often the religions that Christianity is being compared to with such statements are too small and lack the influence to do much of anything.  My point ultimately is that Christianity is guilty of doing good deeds and bad deeds, and ultimately that, who is to say that when you add it all up Christianity is worse than any other religion?  You can still make the argument that it is, I just don't think that's a self-evident or extremely supported conclusion.

What're you basing the comment about job loss and police investigations on?  I've never seen any widespread evidence of workplace discrimination based on religious affiliation.  Even the particular law I spoke of earlier is only against atheists, Pagans can still serve because they do believe in Gods.

kylie

#91
Quote from: JudeWhat're you basing the comment about job loss and police investigations on?
Since you have already admitted that Pagans have smaller numbers and less public standing...  Consider the general disdain for "magic" and "myth" in American culture as often thought to be "opposed" to "God-fearing" virtue and "scientific rule"...   Also, if you but take into consideration the frequent Christian emphasis on trying to categorize people as redeemed or unrepentant...  It seems a bit surprising that you would be skeptical such things could exist.  Logic might readily have taken you at least that far.  Here are a few examples in the ballpark.  If you cared to search, I'm sure you could find more.

http://www.rapunzellstower.com/Pagan/discpaper.php
     " … 11th grade English teacher Sheri Eicher was suspended and ultimately forced to leave her position. On January 10, 2000, Mrs. Eicher was suspended indefinitely with pay because of the website of the coven she and her husband lead." (N. Carolina)

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/pagan-teacher-to-be-disciplined-by-school-698116.html
      "The Pagan Federation's first national youth manager has been suspended from his job as a secondary school teacher."  (UK)

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/298869/being_pagan_in_the_south_different.html?cat=9
     "He is not Pagan. But, he is also not Christian. Some teenagers from his neighborhood spray-painted Christian religious slogans on his car. He called the police, who came out to investigate. When the police officers saw what had been done to his vehicle, they refused to do anything about it because they didn't feel it was a crime."  (Southern US)

http://plutonica.net/2008/04/10/news-discrimination-against-a-vancouver-pagan-involved-in-bdsm/
     [2008] "Hayes said [Officer] Barker wouldn’t give him many details, except to say the concern had to do with paganism, Wiccan magic as well as role-playing, master-slave sexual practices. He was told he posed 'an extreme risk of recruiting passengers/customers into my cult during my work hours if I were granted the chauffeur’s permit.'" (Canada)

http://wildhunt.org/blog/2008/07/satanic-panic-alive-and-well-in-north.html
     [2008] "two (or three) innocent people could be facing jail time and a lifetime on the sexual offender lists. Worse, by spinning tales of Satanism, and by the police releasing those details, we face a new wave of 'Satanic Panic' in the region." (N. Carolina)

http://wildhunt.org/blog/2008/02/mccollum-endemic-religious.html
     "Over more than a decade, I’ve had the opportunity to interact nationally with both administrators and inmates on religious accommodation issues. While practices differ from state to state, I found discrimination against minority faiths everywhere." [includes list of specific alleged mistreatments of Pagan prisoners]
     

Jude

Wow, that's absolutely ridiculous and unfair, I wasn't aware, thanks for enlightening me to those circumstances.

HairyHeretic

You might want to take a look at www.religioustolerance.org as well. I think it hasn't been updated in a while (at least the pagan section hasn't) but it does have some interesting stuff.

For example

   "I don't think witchcraft is a religion. I would hope the military officials would take a second look at the decision they made." G.W. Bush (R), as Governor of Texas. Interviewed on ABC's Good Morning America, 1999-JUN-24. He disapproved of Wiccan soldiers being given the same religious rights as others in the military.

Hairys Likes, Dislikes, Games n Stuff

Cattle die, kinsmen die
You too one day shall die
I know a thing that will never die
Fair fame of one who has earned it.

Jude

His daddy once said that Atheists shouldn't be considered citizens, then reinforced the comment when questioned later about it.  Never retracted it.

Kotah

I'm going to avoid posting some of the stuff I have been told because I'm an atheist, I can deal with that. However, I am going to share what was recently said about my kid.

I took my -2 year old- to McDonald's to have lunch and play in the indoor play area. It just so happened a devout christian was there. Who slapped my daughter and told her not to touch her daughter becasue, well, my daughter wasn't baptized. Therefore, she was unclean.

Far be it, it isn't safe to slap a woman's child when the mother is nine months. I nailed the bitch, and the good people at McDonald's kicked her and her pure little girl right out. Of course, she stood outside, holding the little girl's hand, and screamed about how unfairly Christians were treated while her daughter cried.

I played in the ball pit with mine.

This was about a week and a half ago, 2 Wednesdays ago, right after I got out of the hospital. It might be why I am a little testy about Christians at the moment.
Finally in a rage we scream at the top of our lungs into this lonely night, begging and pleading they stop sucking up dry.There as guilty as sin, still as they always do when faced with an angry mob: they wipe the blood from their mouths and calm us down with their words of milk and honey. So the play begins, we the once angry mob are now pacified and sit quietly entertained. But the curtain exists far from now becasue their lies have been spoken. My dear, have you forgotten what comes next? This is the part where we change the world.

Jude

She's lucky you didn't call the police, that's completely ridiculous.