Per my understanding of what you said I believe we agree completely on this matter. I completely respect followers of Jesus Christ, and have issues with blind followers of the church which is a human organization without spiritual authority.

Since your response seems geniuine and only responds to a small section of statements although I am unsure what you mean I will attempt to clarify.

" It means nothing specific as it did used by those that existed in the geographical area lived in by people who wrote the bible. The Bible was written when people thought the world was small and flat. "

What I mean when I say this, is that in the time that the bible was written and bound the known world was of limited size. As many parts of the world were still undiscovered the ancient populace viewed the world as flat. This had nothing to do with religion itself it simply eluded to human kind's perception of the world they existed on. When any ancient used a term of any kind it was restricted to the world that they understood. Since many cultures that are by modern people considered pagan by modern use of the word, they would be unknown by anyone who had anything to do with writting the bible by the fact that the places and peoples were not even known to exist. A Native American belief system, Latin American belief system, or pacific island belief system would be unknown to the people in the time that the bible was written because per their knowledge the places simply failed to exist. Confirmation that the world was round and largescale knowledge that there was another inhabited major continent only began during the end of the 1400s. Because of this any statements if they even existed about Pagans would be restricted to known pagans. If the purpose of many passages (to address the audience which would be relatively local) is considered if the term pagan, or any other term was used it would be used with local revelance disregarding the unknown. Even if the very well educated knew more than the populace writings of the time were writen assuming the comprehention of the target audience rather than a modern person.

During the time of Jesus the old Testiment was heralded. It was a collection of books, letters, and passages that were at that time the historical teachings (some spiritual some practical) of a local people in a geographical area disregarding the teachings of the rest of the world. Wether the concepts Christ taught were original or not they deviated from these ancient texts and included concepts that were embraced by other cultures that were decidedly not local such as concepts from the Far East. Because the parallelism there has been a long debate whether Jesus actually spontaniously came up with these ideas through divine comprehension or learned them from those that followed Eastern philosophy. It is known that from birth Jesus had visitors from other cultures that may or may not have influenced his views. Without really going into this debate when I said that he embraced many concepts rejected by the old testiment I mean that the concepts that he introduced mirrored what was then "global" thought rather than local thought. Whether they were original or not the concepts he taught were new to most of the target audience of his time. This means that during the time of his life he was indeed a revolutionary in the spiritual context. This says nothing about his teachings really, but speaks of what he was to the world he lived in during the time of his life.

What I said here had little to do with the NT or OT but had to do rather with the obvious differences between them conceptually. What I said about Christ himself and his teachings being a modern thinker of the time I meant as a statement that he was thinking outside of the box for his local geographical area at that time. Personally I think he was probably extremely intelligent and had to be to pull off many of his explainations but this is only opinion.

If I failed here to answer your query I apologize, simply clarify what it is you have problems understanding or disagree with.

FYI Pagan as a word used in the modern world is simply an umbrella term to describe the spiritual systems and faiths of many religions. It means nothing specific as it did used by those that existed in the geographical area lived in by people who wrote the bible. The Bible was written when people thought the world was small and flat. Modern use of the word Pagan generally refers to religions that are based more on nature or ancient customs. The term Neo-pagan is actually much more accurate. Before you think all pagans are evil you may want to understand the difference between what you think a pagan is, and what a actual pagan is. The very word Pagan derives from the term "country folk) which failed to describe a religion but actually described a class of people. This included people that followed ancient ways (most of those found in remote areas when the term was originally used) and was in essense the common folk. Rather than rely on miracles or society these groups had their own spiritual leaders and healers that would use herbalism or ancient rites to heal people or observe spirituality.

So far as passage about pagans there is relatively little in the bible and if the word pagan is considered in it's ancient form it clearly refers to local pagans. Now the KJV of the Bible does state though shalt not suffer a WITCH to live, and the SEV states Sorceress. Now these terms actually originate rather than their commonly used forms in reffering to someone who uses the power gained from assistance or control of Evil spirits. Note here that even then the term sorceress is restricted for some reason to women which is something to wonder about within itself. This is the source of misconceptions about bible verses regarding pagans and only refers to women. If you have doubts or want to think it's my personal tripe look it up. If you re read your posts after reading the third link which is the definition of the noun devil it becomes even more interesting.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sorceress
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sorcery
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devil

In spite of it's modern use the word devil as used in ancient form derives from per Merriam-webster from :"Etymology: Middle English devel, from Old English dēofol, from Late Latin diabolus, from Greek diabolos, literally, slanderer, from diaballein to throw across, slander, from dia- + ballein to throw; probably akin to Sanskrit gurate he lifts up"

While we all know what devil means when used by someone following the christian definition of Devil, in reality the word has roots in slander or deflamation of character which is more or less what you have been doing speaking against pagans.

The connection used in your posts between Pagans and devil worshipers within itself is one that I personally have always considered a simple lack of desire to understand one's own religion. It is I believe a christian urban legend passed down throughout generations without actually having any origin in the bible texts. If you have any actual passages from the bible eluding to this I'm somewhat curious because if used in ancient form of the understanding of the word pagan it would be a proclaimation that all country folk were evil devil worshipers.

So far as being Pagan and not having any truth in me Christianity in it's modern form which is practiced is more pagan than you might think. Eastre was a pagan goddess. Easter is a pagan fertility rite celebrating rebirth. It was a celebration of the fertility of the people, and of the land during a time of planting. The rabbit or hare (which is well known for fast reproduction) hides eggs (another symbol of fertility) and people find them. Finding the egg is symbolic of fertility, and the hunt of eggs by children was so that they would have fertil lives.


Many cultures that have been discovered, found, or interacted with by the general populace of what was then considered the entire human race have or had what are now reffered to as pagan belief systems. Pagan basically is generally used to refer to a minority religion (relatively speaking) that has it's roots or uses concepts similar to that of pre-christian or non christian belief systems. Many pagan paths are very similar to Christianity in it's true form with slight differences or names. The concepts are very alike much like different Christian denominations while being completely distinct.

In truth most modern pagans rather than being true pagans as one might understand the concept without familiarity are actually neo-pagan meaning concepts are borrowed from ancient and modern societies and blended together in an attempt to have a more complete understanding.

By the definitions of the times Jesus was executed basically for heresy and performing non hebrew cermony and in that way has more in common with non-christians over the course of centuries than his own followers.

The concept of Convert or kill (conceptually, physically, or socially) is non-christian in origin and was actually a muslim concept introduced to the populace by Muslim invasions in the ancient world. This is the most modern religion that one can find this behavior set in. The roots of this practice actually are found within ancient pre-christian and quite probably pre-hebrew belief systems. In the Ancient polytheistic world where each city had it's own god societies would war against each other in the name of their god being more or all powerful. The winning culture was considered to have the most powerful god (or set of gods) by ancient peoples in many cases. All of this was taught as ancient history in grade school, high school, and college. It's common knowledge if one studies history and the discussion of theology is left out of this because it is simply known and documented history of the world.

This is an ancient behavior pattern I personally view as barbaric that many modern peoples have never transcended. It involved what I view as cultural genocide leading people to seek to destroy all spiritual belief or culture other than their own.

When Christianity was formed by binding the books of the bible and the teachings of Christ it actually propogated a number of belief concepts that were rejected by writers of the old testiment, because Jesus Christ was a modern thinker or revolutionary spiritualist for his time in his geographical area. Many new concepts he introduced to the peoples of that area were actually concepts well known at that time in the world and practiced by other belief systems such as the Buhdists.

The difference is that Jesus was indeed regardless of his divine origin or lack of divine religion by bloodline royalty. He was well edjucated and very popular by a sector of the Jewish people because his was considred by many to be the correct ruling dynasty or family of the Jews rather than Herod who had unsurped his bloodline. Much of this information was included in the bible if one reads carefully. Part is put openly in the texts, and other parts were written in the form of code because during the lifetime of Jesus anyone speaking against the currently empowered Herod was likely to be executed quickly. What is not clear can easily be found in alternate texts about the times that Jesus lived in not included in the bible. This is how he was known as the king of the Jews because at his time there was a contraversy concerning his royal bloodline. Although many in the modern world see this as a joke by the romans I have read quite a bit outside of the bible that plainly states this was a non spiritual political debate. It is well mentioned in the bible in plain text for any that read the story of Bethleham.

Some of the concepts Jesus taught were secret lessons within the Jewish culture forbiden to be shared with non-Jews per some Jewish sources. The fact that many of Jesus's lessons taught paralleled Buhdist teachings of the time is probably more than coincidence.

Quickstepper I would ask that you give up the name calling, and explain exactly what your beliefs are regarding all of this or allow the rest of us to return to religion discussion which has repeatedly been interupted by all of this. Many of us have been trying to discuss concepts concerning religion while respecting each other's views.

FYI Pagan as a word used in the modern world is simply an umbrella term to describe the spiritual systems and faiths of many religions. It means nothing specific as it did used by those that existed in the geographical area lived in by people who wrote the bible. The Bible was written when people thought the world was small and flat. Modern use of the word Pagan generally refers to religions that are based more on nature or ancient customs. The term Neo-pagan is actually much more accurate. Before you think all pagans are evil you may want to understand the difference between what you think a pagan is, and what a actual pagan is. The very word Pagan derives from the term "country folk) which failed to describe a religion but actually described a class of people. This included people that followed ancient ways (most of those found in remote areas when the term was originally used) and was in essense the common folk. Rather than rely on miracles or society these groups had their own spiritual leaders and healers that would use herbalism or ancient rites to heal people or observe spirituality.

So far as passage about pagans there is relatively little in the bible and if the word pagan is considered in it's ancient form it clearly refers to local pagans. Now the KJV of the Bible does state though shalt not suffer a WITCH to live, and the SEV states Sorceress. Now these terms actually originate rather than their commonly used forms in reffering to someone who uses the power gained from assistance or control of Evil spirits. Note here that even then the term sorceress is restricted for some reason to women which is something to wonder about within itself. This is the source of misconceptions about bible verses regarding pagans and only refers to women. If you have doubts or want to think it's my personal tripe look it up. If you re read your posts after reading the third link which is the definition of the noun devil it becomes even more interesting.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sorceress
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sorcery
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devil

In spite of it's modern use the word devil as used in ancient form derives from per Merriam-webster from :"Etymology: Middle English devel, from Old English dēofol, from Late Latin diabolus, from Greek diabolos, literally, slanderer, from diaballein to throw across, slander, from dia- + ballein to throw; probably akin to Sanskrit gurate he lifts up"

While we all know what devil means when used by someone following the christian definition of Devil, in reality the word has roots in slander or deflamation of character which is more or less what you have been doing speaking against pagans.

The connection used in your posts between Pagans and devil worshipers within itself is one that I personally have always considered a simple lack of desire to understand one's own religion. It is I believe a christian urban legend passed down throughout generations without actually having any origin in the bible texts. If you have any actual passages from the bible eluding to this I'm somewhat curious because if used in ancient form of the understanding of the word pagan it would be a proclaimation that all country folk were evil devil worshipers.

So far as being Pagan and not having any truth in me Christianity in it's modern form which is practiced is more pagan than you might think. Eastre was a pagan goddess. Easter is a pagan fertility rite celebrating rebirth. It was a celebration of the fertility of the people, and of the land during a time of planting. The rabbit or hare (which is well known for fast reproduction) hides eggs (another symbol of fertility) and people find them. Finding the egg is symbolic of fertility, and the hunt of eggs by children was so that they would have fertil lives.


Many cultures that have been discovered, found, or interacted with by the general populace of what was then considered the entire human race have or had what are now reffered to as pagan belief systems. Pagan basically is generally used to refer to a minority religion (relatively speaking) that has it's roots or uses concepts similar to that of pre-christian or non christian belief systems. Many pagan paths are very similar to Christianity in it's true form with slight differences or names. The concepts are very alike much like different Christian denominations while being completely distinct.

In truth most modern pagans rather than being true pagans as one might understand the concept without familiarity are actually neo-pagan meaning concepts are borrowed from ancient and modern societies and blended together in an attempt to have a more complete understanding.

By the definitions of the times Jesus was executed basically for heresy and performing non hebrew cermony and in that way has more in common with non-christians over the course of centuries than his own followers.

The concept of Convert or kill (conceptually, physically, or socially) is non-christian in origin and was actually a muslim concept introduced to the populace by Muslim invasions in the ancient world. This is the most modern religion that one can find this behavior set in. The roots of this practice actually are found within ancient pre-christian and quite probably pre-hebrew belief systems. In the Ancient pagan world where each city had it's own god societies would war against each other in the name of their god being more or all powerful. The winning culture was considered to have the most powerful god (or set of gods) by ancient peoples in many cases. All of this was taught as ancient history in grade school, high school, and college. It's common knowledge if one studies history and the discussion of theology is left out of this because it is simply known and documented history of the world.

This is an ancient behavior pattern I personally view as barbaric that many modern peoples have never transcended. It involved what I view as cultural genocide leading people to seek to destroy all spiritual belief or culture other than their own.

When Christianity was formed by binding the books of the bible and the teachings of Christ it actually propogated a number of belief concepts that were rejected by writers of the old testiment, because Jesus Christ was a modern thinker or revolutionary spiritualist for his time in his geographical area. Many new concepts he introduced to the peoples of that area were actually concepts well known at that time in the world and practiced by other belief systems such as the Buhdists.

The difference is that Jesus was indeed regardless of his divine origin or lack of divine religion by bloodline royalty. He was well edjucated and very popular by a sector of the Jewish people because his was considred by many to be the correct ruling dynasty or family of the Jews rather than Herod who had unsurped his bloodline. Much of this information was included in the bible if one reads carefully. Part is put openly in the texts, and other parts were written in the form of code because during the lifetime of Jesus anyone speaking against the currently empowered Herod was likely to be executed quickly. What is not clear can easily be found in alternate texts about the times that Jesus lived in not included in the bible. This is how he was known as the king of the Jews because at his time there was a contraversy concerning his royal bloodline. Although many in the modern world see this as a joke by the romans I have read quite a bit outside of the bible that plainly states this was a non spiritual political debate. It is well mentioned in the bible in plain text for any that read the story of Bethleham.

Some of the concepts Jesus taught were secret lessons within the Jewish culture forbiden to be shared with non-Jews per some Jewish sources. The fact that many of Jesus's lessons taught paralleled Buhdist teachings of the time is probably more than coincidence.

Quickstepper I would ask that you give up the name calling, and explain exactly what your beliefs are regarding all of this or allow the rest of us to return to religion discussion which has repeatedly been interupted by all of this. Many of us have been trying to discuss concepts concerning religion while respecting each other's views.

I've been seeking my own answers due to a path I was started on when I was young for many years. Once when responding to a aggressive converter I responded by telling her if she wanted to understand her "God" to put down her bible and contemplate a tree.

I've read things from many religions, and spent a lot of times discussing spirituality and religion with people from a wide range of faiths. Because of this I have reached a point where in reality it is almost impossible to define my beliefs with a short explaination. The last time I was asked to define my faith or beliefs it led to a long discussion involving Q&A because in reality belief for anyone who truly is interested in what another human being thinks is more than I believe blah blah blah...

My favorite sources of information were and have been the SCV bible, Voices of our Ancestors, The Four agreements, The reluctant messiah, Voices of the winds, nature, the collective energies of the world we live in, and countless people that I found enlightenment in one form or another in.

My heroes I list in my heart and mind include a wide range of freedom fighters from different times and countries, the truly englightened people both alive and dead that gave gifts of enlightened knowledge to anyone caring enough to pay attention, and some of the more selfless people in history. Even if I can not achieve it completely I try to live up to the lessons they taught.

Most of what I have seen here in your responses is finger pointing, name calling, and better than thou tripe meant to put people down without offering anything of spiritual value to a forum discussing religion. I am unsure who you are, or if your beliefs are genuine or you just use this account to Troll and pound your frustrations out through insults and verbal or psychological assualts. Most of the Christians dropped off supporting your posts long ago when it became clear what was going on.

Actually all people in the matter of faith and religion have their own person experience. Whether you like it or not the God and Savior you worship in your mind are nothing like the God and Savior worshiped by most that proffess to have the same religion.

This is true because of different versions of bibles that exist with different texts, different interpretations of those bibles, different denominations and sub groups that feel differently about interpretations and what is important to them, and different agendas for personal religion.

What I have said here is non contraversial it is flat fact known by all Christians that understand the nature of their own faith. A Lutheran may (or may not) say you must accept the love of God, while a Baptist may (or may not) tell you that you must fear a vengeful "God".

What we each follow as belief as human beings is our inherent birthright give to us to enjoy. When we discuss these concepts we are attempting to share, and learn from one another. When you threaten or with hostility "warn" another human being what you are doing is presuming the position of your god, because their spirit is owned by them and them alone. The Christian faith lacks justification for attempting psychological, spiritual, or cultural slavery.

I personally believe that Christianity as a system composed and propogated by the hostile that do not follow the teachings of Christ is an abomination against Christ, and is a work of the Christian "Devil" if one seeks to define the movement in Christian terms. Although if one looks at Christianity itself everything is right, one must look at what Christianity as a whole has done to non Christians over the course of the last 1500 years to see my point. It is the best advertisement against Christianity. I would rather be a good person than a barbarian. It is a temptation that many Christians simply can not resist because they do not see it as a sin, it's a loophole they have created in their own understanding so that they can do something wrong and not be punished. The problem is that I believe this is an illusion, and that it is a worse sin if judged by it's own merit because one commits Blasphemy by blaiming their sin on their God or Savior.

If anyone disagrees with this keep in mind it is my own attempt to explain a situation that is an oxymoron. I have asked time and time again of Christians how to deal with this type of Anti-Christian christian and most recently I was told by a lifelong stable Christian to just leave it alone, because it's stupidity and no one can make the stupid wake up. I'm seriously asking other Christians for help if you are reading this, because I believe there has to be a way to make people see their own behavior.

The only problem is that this is a behavior set that opposes the teachings of Christ. How can one warn others about following Christ when they themselves refuse to?

Discussing ideas and concepts is the purpose of a discussion about religion. Labeling belief is a easier way to communicate concepts. The problem with Anti Christ christians (people who claim to be christians and attack anyone not believed to be christians) is that they are actually using Christ as a weapon claiming they are superior to others, that they are right, and others are wrong.

This by the teachings of almost all religions is bad. If someone wants to be a Christian I'm all for it. I just have a problem with people who won't accept Christ in their hearts or minds going around telling everyone else they are wrong and need to love Jesus and that he is the way to salvation. If you don't pay attention to the teachings of Christ how can you actually call yourself a Christian?

The sad truth here is that I am guilty of bad behavior on this Forum. I set a trap for you because I am a pagan, and I do follow the teachings of Christ. He taught many things that were worth paying attention to. I believe his lessons and the honoring of his lessons are much more important than claims to uphold him. If one believes anything good about him is he served better by honoring his lessons, or by proclaiming he is everything while ignoring his teachings?

What is more valid, one who proffesses Christ as savior and ignores his teachings, or one that follows his teachings without claim?

Actually I'm growing tired of responding to you because my only question is are you ever going to bother reading what I am saying rather than just picking out parts of what I say to try to start an argument? I believe you have offered more evidence in your responses to my stance against organized religion than I ever could with your replies.

I've had more of them than I can count. That is exactly made me what I am, and made me believe what I do.

I said nothing of studying paganism, I spoke of studying the bible, and the life and times of Jesus in depth with the aid and outside of the actual texts included in the bible.'

I did not take, you offered your hatred and judgement of another which directly denies your Christianity going against the teachings of Christ.

What I found was duplicity within your statements, and I did notice you completely ignored and even refused to quote everything I said other than one little part of it which you thought was the only important thing I said. That I was a pagan, not one of you, therefore fair game to attack or torture in the honored long standing practice of a following that denies Christ and has more blood on it's hands both physical and spiritual than any other religion I know of.

This is the second time in these forums you have implied that your knowledge of God or understanding of it is superior to others and that you alone are correct becauseyou said so. the bible itself is written by men, Proof of this is in the bible itself, and it was written in ways that could be accepted by ancient man disregarding any validity of woman or her spiritual quest outside of doing what she was told. I will reiterrate here that there is a difference between following the word of God, and the word of men claiming to speak for god, which is the same thing you have done here.

Do you really think that rather than believe that the bible was written by or for chauvinists that the hebrew "God" is a chauvenist and would deny the spirituality of women? Do you really sit there typing out an accusation against your own proffessed god?

The only right you have is to speak of your own convictions it is sacrilage to speak for god, or claim that you ARE god, and since GOD per you is a chauvenistic HE by your own explaination he would slap you down and tell you to shut up because you are a woman and have no say in religion.

PICK OR CHOOSE a side, stop playing both. If you have personal religious confusion please discuss them with your pastor, priest, or spiritual leader including the discussion of what was said here so you can understand exactly what I am trying to say, or that they can calm you down and spell out the reality of religion to you.

While you are at it you might pay attention to whether they wear an equal sided cross or one that is longer on the bottom. You see the following of God adopted a equal sided cross as a symbol, but the longer bottomed cross was before Christianity and remains a symbol of violence and pain regardless of how many view it. It is a shape borrowed from two things, archer windows, and swords. A four sided cross signifies equal sides, which encompasses all things, and all creation. The cross with an enlogated bottom has throur all times long before Christ existed represented a single direction ignoring the validity of all others. This is why it is used to remind Christians of Christ not because it has anything to do with his ways, but because it reminds them of his execution which in essense doesn't do much to remind them of what he taught rather than how he died. This is a bit of irony within itself.

If you personally hate everything and everyone that falls outside of your own little view of how the world should be that is fine, but accept this rather than pretend you are doing the work of Christ while actually doing the work of your own Devil.

I noticed this and ignored it for specific reasons. Many people believe that God or gods, or goddesses have spoken to them personally during moments of revelation. Althought this is considered insane by modern psychologists in the world of spirituality it is acceptable. Many Christians might debate this saying it is not true and God only spoke to the writters of the bible and that God turned his back on the human race in silence after the first bible was written. This is a form of human psychology that is spiritually destructive.

I almost did point out one simple fact and will now. If a voice (or presense) is perceived to be male or female it could well be accurate or could be individual perception as the voice would occur in one's perception rather than being a booming voice from the sky that the whole population heard. For that matter when there WAS a booming voice from the sky we do not know if it was within the mind of each individual or an actual sound that could be recorded by equipment. It may have been heard as the same voice accross the board, or with a different perception by each individual.

Per my opinion this simply falls under a catagory of that which we can not know, and even if we believe we are unable to prove using empirical evidence.

I am pagan, does that make me a bad person, or wrong in my convictions about spirituality? Does it make my years of study and research both as a Christian and as a Pagan to understand the nature of both the Christian God and the Christian faith any less valid? This is a Religion forum rather than a Christian forum which I happily stay out of as a unwelcome participant. Many of my beliefs do follow the teachings of Jesus as a spiritual being regardless of my conceptual understanding of him.

Devil worship can only be achieved by someone who embraces all of the concepts of Christianity. To worship the devil contrary to the misconceptions of many in the Christian congregations is actually to worship Satan, who is a part of the Christian system of beliefs. To accuse a non Christian of devil worship is to in essense state that you believe that they are bound by your own beliefs whether you are right or wrong. It is my PERSONAL belief that if you stood before Christ in a manifestation as a human being he would either gently admonish you or slap you in the face for sacrilage and failure to follow his way. When I mention the possiblility of violence from one so obviously superior in spirit and understanding please go read your bible about his actions in the temple where he was anything but peaceful in his outrage against the corruption of religious practice.

If you claim to hear the word of God then hear the words of his son Christ if you are indeed a Christian and follow his ways rather than the hostile teachings of a church created by man. It is per the Christian belief system the right of God and Christ to judge if you have additional passages written by God or Christ contradicting this please offer them right now. hostilitly and accusations are an act of darkness, so when you attack another discussing belief rather than discuss your difference in belief you are in essense per the Christian definition doing the work of the Devil and acting in direct opposition to Christ.

If you are a true Christian I invite you to understand the error of your ways and reject the work of your Devil in order to understand the true sanctity of religion and spiriutuality as well as the divine nature of all life and all souls including Abra's whether you or I personally like him as an individual or not.

Speak not of disobedience to a non christian and instead examine your own disobedience in the act of denying Jesus Christ by attacking and denying the sanctity of another "Child of God" per your own belief system.

If you want to be Christian I invite you to act like one instead of acting like a non believer hiding behind christianity.

IF you were correctly stating your own belief in saying "God does expect us to be patient not only with each other but unbelievers "until Christ is completely & permanently formed within you." how can you stomach then going against this by accusing someone of a non christian religion of worshiping your Devil? This is duplicity in a common example of false christian behavior. Notice I failed to capitalize christian because Christianity is by definition the following of Christ rather than the following of your own convictions.

Faith is an acceptance rather than a denial of. I am unsure where you received your ideas of what Christianity should stand for, but I was required to read three different versions of the bible, later read more from them to better my understanding, and then read additional texts both modern and ancient in origin in order to better understand the Christian God and Jesus Christ.

In invite all "christians" to go with God, and follow Christ if that is their choice, while rejecting unchristian like behavior coming from those who lie and say they follow Christ while they are actually following the prejudice and hatred of man or their own "Devil".

So far as what GOD said, the hebrew god said nothing about pagans, it was men that said these things claiming they represented "God". And for that matter even these men were refering to ancient sects of Pagan worship, probably speaking of particular ones that no modern person has any real knowledge and surity about. ALL texts in ancient form must be taken in context and considered with their proposed meaning rather than modern views of any religion. Some neo pagan systems worship monotheistically just as christians do but with different names. The dual Goddess God nature of many pagan forms differs little in concept from a religion that splits God into a trinity of Father, son, and holy ghost. What is really in a name other than cultural pride or egotism? Has it occured to you that the Christian dogmatic approach to religion has encouraged and forced cultural genocide of almost all cultures throughout the world encouraging people to deny their own spiritual understandings and beliefs to adopt all that is hebrew? This is a form of racism even if done by belief rather than bloodline.

I would suggest you stop thumping the bible or using it as a mousepad, and actually open it and read it rejecting hatred and seeking to understand the teachings of Christ, or admit that you are indeed not a Christian and give up the facade completely.

I blame man for man's imperfections. I blame a system of brainwashing and dogma for the corruption of people's spiritual followings. The Hebrew God had nothing to do with christianity, it's formation, or it's corruption of the spirituality or religion of people. I believe once Jesus had a speech about taxes, coins ect where he said give to God what belongs to God, and Give to man what belongs to man. The belief that God had anything to do with Christianity in it's modern or even ancient form as understood by modern man per my opinion has nothing to do with God, and everything to do with the failings of man. In some ways one can view Christianity itself as a test of spiritual fortitude tempting people to sin in the name of God which is the most appealing sin in existence for a Christian since it allows one to sin and them justify it blaming responsibility on their god. My struggle to get my own family to accept my spiritual differences was not easy, and took years of talking with them time and time again feeling unloved and unaccepted but as good Christians they eventually came to understand that rather than rejecting spirituality I was rejecting a system that was wrong for me. When I recently argued with my mother about her own belief she said something to the effect that it works for her and she is content, and many of the concepts I toy with in my mind are beyond her understanding leaving her content to let me puzzle these out while accepting her more straight forward simple views. This in itself was simply her response though she then later started reading a thing or two about the nature of Christianity and has even asked for my help in understanding a book she read but couldn't quite understand.

My personal belief is that Christianity as a following of Christ is a failure. I acknowledge that the Christian system seems to work for some people, but it is by far relatively few when you consider how many it corrupts per my opinion. I believe this because I personally believe most of the teachins of Christ were simple to understand and propgated love, respect, and spirituality. I also believe when someone steps away from Chrisitanity it has nothing to do with Christ and that they are leaving a system of spiritual dogma (or even slavery) in order to seek their own truth.

Those that can not find their own way are forced to follow others. Those that can find their own path are more likely to accept with totality the teachings of others.

Divorcing oneself from a system or establishment is seperate from divorcing oneself from spirituality or religion in general. Some call it being lost but I think of it as finding oneself, and realizing that an individual's personal path to enlightenment is more meaningful than submission to a system created by other humans.

Any person within this system that truly follows their personal heart and is able to maintain spiritual integrity within this system is fine by me. It is those that let the system warp their spirits or corrupt their religion that I take issue with even if I realize that the source of damage is the system rather than their personal choice. I view them as victims of the system and rather than attack them as spiritual beings simply wish for them to allow themselves enough spiritual freedom and self respect to find themselves and their own true belief.

I once was debating with a Christian who questioned my tendency to give Christians a lot of challenges to face regarding their faith. My answer was that anything I say whether I say it badly or perfectly is simply an attempt to free their mind and their soul. If my statements shake their faith it is meant to be shaken, and when someone is brainwashed by a system of dogma for a lifetime my statements should mean little to a true believer and would only change the views of a false believer without conviction who never took the time to examine their own beliefs realistically. (This is paraphrased I fail to remember the exact words used in the discussion on either side I only remember the concept.)

Agreed, I failed to specifiy what I meant when I refered to the church, by which I meant a body of men or the ruling class within a spiritual organization. It is technically not the church that was guilty of the duplicity but members within it's ranks.

This is simply something I have thought about quite a bit, and seen many hints of being refered to long before the largescale scandle involving members of the clergy. It is something that I had personally thought was well known for a very long time without being spoken frequently of in public.

I would like to clarify that I believe it is unfortunate that a few wrong incidents was again used to justify seperatism against a social class that is simply a part of the greater congregation of the church.

I believe the only fault of the church as an organized system in encouraging this reality was putting men who are subject to desires just as any human in situations where they were forbidden to have sex or pro-create. Many of these men per my personal belief over the centuries were put in situations that encouraged failing in one direction rather than the other simply by being in situations where there only human contact in many cases was restricted to other men.

The bible was written by men, with concepts that were meant to be digested and acceptable in a male dominated ancient society. Because of this the pronoun He was used frequently. In truth if there was ever proof that the "God" spoke of in the bible ever had a physical penis, true gender, or physical lust I missed it. In fact the belief in the gender of god as a man may (or may not) reach back to ancient pagan beliefs that would sacrifice a virgin to the god so that he might enjoy taking her virginity himself. (This is in no way meant to claim people thought so I am simply trying to explain ancient cultural views and workings as I understand them.)

Ancient people were simple and most were uneducated, for them to imagine a god without gender may have been difficult so rather than dehumanize "God" by saying it they were forced to choose a gender in writings. HE was a obvious choice to avoid having a ancient chauvenistic culture reject everything because they refused to bow to a woman.

All of this said although I believe that the whole gender debate is silly I do agree that procreation is by a single gender is more believable as a woman than a man. Even the bible offers Mary as a supposed example of the possibility of spontanious single gender procreation and she was indeed a woman. Nowhere in history or the bible has any hint of a man spontaniously becoming pregnant, gestating, and giving birth to a child. Only a woman has done this, it was only Mary, and the bible is one of the only volumes in spiritual history to ever elude to such a possibility. Only women give birth so it is natural that many people refer to the Christian God as a she. Although some may in error claim this affirms that God would be a male by making Mary concieve this argument would imply that this "God" was a lustful god given to physical lust or the desire for physical pro-creation when indeed the whole point of "God" is supposed to be a spiritual rather than physical manifestation.

It was said in the bible that we were created in "his image" but basically it failed to specify in what way. Some believe this means physical form but I believe if there is any truth to it this is more likely to mean our spiritual form which seperates us from animals. Otherwise one could claim that apes, Chimps, and the like (anything with two arms, legs, and capable of walking upright) would be a close reprsentation of being made in the image of "God".

So far as god goes when I say god (or goddess) I refer to a higher being. God although an incacurate use is usually used to refer to the god of the hebrews as a name. I find it interesting that this is done in the english language because in theory it would be more accurate to use the hebrew word for god as a name or qualifier but this is only my opinion regarding religeous culture.

With all of this said it is my personal belief that when Feral says HE or Abra says She you are both right because it is simply your human tendency to apply known gender concepts to a being beyond our understanding and in essense unimportant. We use labels as a tool to understand things, and ANY god or goddess or higher power without gender is something beyond the understanding of humankind. Rather than define the nature of a higher power these pronouns simply aid us in conveying throughts or our personal views without effecting the higher power itself.

Personally I think it is interesting that a fake account was effectively used to hijack a thread and put a complete stop to a thread that was originally going somewhere important to change it into a social thread while insulting the beliefs of wiccans by representing them incorrectly as being without grace.

Ok Tribo and I are decidedly different people and may have very different views. In spite of this I understand a lot of what he has posted. Being opposed to mindless religious dogma and convert or kill mentaility (culturally or physically) and not believing in religion are two completely different things.

I think at times his posts have indicated frustration and disgust with certain attitudes or could be read to indicate this reglardless of his intent. The truth is I myself have been guilty of the same and the reason is simple. For a Christian the most important concept should be their personal relationship with God. This is true of almost any belief system in essense. (debate of finer points is irrevelant this is the basis of religion) Seeing someone step in between someone and "God" as if they are superior, have direct conversations with God where they are told to interfere with the spirituality of others, or implying that they themselves are superior, closer to god, or even God itself can be very disturbing and fill one with disgust.

It's nothing personal or hateful but we as humans are occasionally subject to emotion or reaction. Some of us may shudder or be filled with disgust, or anger in facing religious seperatism or cultural discrimination because we place a high value on true spirituality, the true following of belief or "God", as well as having a reverence for the Divinity of all people. I equate religious bullying to have the same significance as physical rape, because I believe that that human spirit is divine. When someone tries to take away the spiritual freedom of others, critisize it, or pressure them to change their views I believe they are attempting spiritual rape. This is by far a worse crime than physical rape itself when commited by a Christian because it is in direct opposition to everything Christ taught. It completely boggles the mind to see Christians thumping a bible talking about the joy of acceptance and Christianity while thumbing their nose at Christ who they supposedly follow.

Tribo if I presumed anything here I apologize I can only speak for myself, and voice what I see as a similarity while realizing we may well have very different views and beliefs.

The beginning of the end was the christian congregation itself. I was a Lutheran and heavily involved in my church when I was young and helped found groups within the church. For anyone unfamiliar Lutherans stress the love and acceptance of God. There was in incident where during service some children who were non christian or not required to attend church were playing in the church playground. It is my belief that a house of God belongs to the children of God which includes everyone. If we built a playground it should be open to the community. The adults and even my sister disagreed stating the children could come inside and join service or leave. They reasoned that it was too much of a temptation or torture for the children attending service. I personally thought the congregation had a responsibility to explain to it's own children in the congregation about the choice of attending service and ensure that they enjoyed it rather than forbid others to use the playground. The entire incident implied duplicity to me. If the children had to be protected from outside thought or influence and held against their will they were not willing attendies.

Another incident that happened around the same time involved "Sunday school". One of the teachers went into theological discussion and was teaching finer points of belief. He posed a question. I asked that the question be repeated and clarified. I then answered with my personal belief about the answer and he told me I was wrong. I at that point realized that there was something wrong with the overall makeup of christian congregations because they form based on personal belief, but then teach the children or insist that others agree with their personal understanding.

Later I tried to return, but found that my understanding of a higher power had changed and evolved enough so that if I entered the chapel during service I would start to hyper ventilate because my body knew I was opposing my personal belief. At that time I was about sixteen years old.

So far as what originally made me start examining the church it was a teacher. I was attending a private Baptist school and regularly had debates with the bible class teacher because our views of God as a Lutheran and a Baptist were completely opposed. She taught fear and seperatism and I had been brought up taught the love and acceptance of God. It made me start to examine closely the behaviors of congregations. It was another teacher at the same school that once posed a question to use that I heard a rumor she was later fired for. The question was do you believe what you believe because it is in your heart, or because you were taught to believe it? The discussion lasted for some time and when it started I thought I was on firm ground having a different view from the Baptists I was surrounded by. By the end of the discussion she had made her point to me personally.

Over the years this question served me well driving me to seek the truth of understanding my own existence and my own personal beliefs. My understanding has evolved and the more it lead me towards acceptance of individual belief, the more it lead me away from accepting those that attempt to force their beliefs on othes regardless of what relgiion they consider themselves to follow.

I'm all for relgion, spirituality, and each person seeking spiritual progression. I'm against conformity of the soul, spiritual or cultural slavery, and the use of pressure or threats to attempt to change another's views. I am also set dead against those that justify hatred and seperatism as religeous duty.

This is a good example of clever programing emulating intelligence.

It is my personal opinion that it only uses simple logic. Any well written program developed for specific purpose can quite often outdo a human being much like a machine can. They even have chickens trained to beat humans at tic tac toe...

I personally believe that assuming the human race continues to survive creating a computer powerful enough and programming capable of reaching sentience is possible but we have a long way to go. So far as the talk of using human brain matter for computing that is different from original creation it is slavery which is one reason so many are against it.