Just have to jump in on a few points here.

Krim, Jesus DID say that many are bound for hell, but he was not NECCESARILY referring to "non-believers". Read the passage regarding Jesus and the Centurion. I'll paraphrase here. Essentially, a Roman Centurion approached Jesus because his servant was sick. When Jesus told the man to take him to his home, the Centurion's response was esssentially, "You don't have to come to my house. Say that he is healed and it will be done." When Jesus commented on this, this was the Centurion's response, as near as I can remember, from the King James: "I recognize that you are a man under authority, as am I. If I tell this man to go, he goes. If I say to this man "come", he comes." Essentially, "I don't know where your authority and power is derived from, but I know that it works." At this point, Jesus turned to his disciples and said, again as near as I remember, "Verily I say unto thee, never have I seen such faith, even among the faithful. When I am seated at my Father's right hand, many will come from the east and the west to eat at my Father's table, while many who call themselves sons of Abraham will be cast out where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth." The East and West are obvious references to other cultures, most notably the Samaritans, who were "unclean". So, Jesus wasn't nearly as concerned with labels as he was with who a person is inside.

Abra, the Bible does NOT state "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.", in much the same way it does NOT state "Thou shalt not kill" as one of the commandments. The commandment is "Thou shalt not commit murder", a fine, but profound, distinction. Both of these are through linguistic corruption and mistranslation. In Old Testament Hebrew, depending on dialect, the word that is translated as "witch" has one of three meanings. Poisoner, assassin, or farmer. The closest translation would be poisoner. This was corrupted during translation, in that the word for herbalist or apothecary is very similar to the word for poisoner, because they, in Hebrew, share the same root. In England, during the translation into English, most herbalists were older women with a large store of folk knowledge, and most were viewed as being witches. Hence the translation as such. There are several other examples of these types of mistranslation, but one of my favorites has always been the Hebrew word "Abba". Biblically, Abba is always translated as "father", which, while technically correct, misses the EMOTIONAL meaning entirely. A better translation would be "daddy". A HUGE emotional difference. "Father" is a disciplinary figure. "Daddy" is the person into whos lap you climb at the end of a long day, you tell him all your sorrows, and he "makes it all better", which are the emotional connotations invoked, in Hebrew, by the word "Abba".

So, is it obvious yet that I was "this close" to being a minister? :)

Abra, you're absolutely correct in that it's up to the practitioner how tough it is. I personally find it to be one of the simplest things I've ever done. Sacred space, for me, is very simple. I am Sacred, therefore, wherever I am is sacred space. As for tools, for the most part, they are simply props to help put one into the proper mindset, and to provide a physical focus for the energy being used. Crystals are a bit different in that they can actually store energy to be released into a working later. As for charging them, I've never worried about time tables or rituals. I simply directly charge the stones with the energy I want them to contain, and renew the charge as needed.

Personally, some of the best spellwork I've ever done was performed with nothing save a pocket knife and a zippo.

Scott

You know, I personally have never pulled this as self, but it's interesting how close it is in meaning to myself. I usually get Strength, The Sun, or the Hanged Man.

Thanks, Jeannie!

Well stated and very true, but I tend to think he was going a bit deeper than just "What you will is what you create." What many people misunderstand about Crowley is that he was a large proponent of consequence, and I believe what he was stating was more along the lines of "There are natural consequences to everything. You can DO whatever it is you want, as long as you are willing to accept those consequences." He knew the creative power of thought, and he knew that what some would chose to create would have some pretty severe results. It was a warning, as much as it was giving license to act.

Okay, so, I decided NOT to read through 30-odd pages of posts right at the moment and just throw something out there, just to get in the flow of things. Now, I am not going to give my opinion until there have been a few responses to this so that I can get an accurate feel of what people think. Here it is:

"Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."

WHAT was Crowley's intended meaning when he stated this, and how do people feel about this as an alternative to "Do as thou wilt and Harm None"?

Well, maybe not enlightened, but at least educated. :) I've studied a LOT regarding world religion, both modern and ancient. It's actually really interesting to look at everything, and see the parallels between other cultures' myths and those of the Sumerians, even though there is NO link between Sumerian and any known language. I made reference to that in my post in the "Challenge to the nonbelievers" thread, with the connection between the ressurection of Jesus and the descent of Inanna into the underworld. In case you hadn't noticed, religion is one of my favorite topics of discussion. :)

Scott

I understand the point about anthropologists, but the anthropological evidence actually tends to support my viewpoint. The evidence shows that the Spartans were NOT male dominated. Most of the sources we have to draw on show that Spartan diety and worship was female in nature. The "angry male dieties" were NOT a major portion of the religion. From the accounts I have seen and read, the Spartan women had near absolute control of the home life, while the men's word was law when it came to military matters. In essence, for the men, the army was their primary, almost their sole, province. Any religious practice they had was akin to the modern "I go to such-and-such church because that's where mom always took us as kids." The widespread practice of bisexuality is telling, in that it shows that NEITHER sex was overly dominant in society, but that each had their own areas of society in which they were supreme.

And Thomas, the movie got it's idea from a graphic novel (a comic book), which in turn was based off of an account of the Battle of Thermopolae written, if I remember correctly, by the Roman historian Herodotus. The "300" was merely the number of Spartans involved in holding the pass, there were roughly an additional 1000 to 5000 other Greeks involved. Also, the actual number of Persians involved in the fighting was probably between 10,000 and 50,000. Furthermore, the Battle of Thermopolae is fairly well documented, happened at a completely different time than the battle of which you speak, and in a well known location several THOUSAND miles from Israel with two TOTALLY different groups of people. If you choose to believe that the book of Judges is correct and accurate, that's fine, but please try and refrain from attributing verified historical incidents to a book that has no supporting historical evidence when posting about a topic which involves history, rather than religion. I'd be more than happy to discuss the relative merits of the Bible with you in a thread designed for that purpose.

Scott

Krimsa, your post hinted at a very important aspect of Spartan belief, which is that what the men believed and what the women believed were very different. The driving force behind the "religion" of the Spartans was the women.They were the ones who held the festivals and put names to diety. For the men, War was their religion, and Death their diety, and the way of life for Spartan men was specifically designed to perpetuate that.

Personally, I've always enjoyed the view presented in the opening of the Niel Gaiman/Terry Pratchett novel "Good Omens":

"God does not play dice with the Universe. Rather, He plays an ineffable game of His own devising which, from the viewpoint of the other players (i.e., everybody), can be likened to playing a game of high-stakes poker, in a pitch black room, with blank cards, with a dealer who won't tell you the rules and who SMILES ALL THE TIME."

Scott

Personally, I feel that, as in many other areas, people are making far too big a deal regarding a person's religion and beliefs, and the concept of "sin". Now, I am *NOT* a Christian, and haven't been for many years. Being what would be considered a "pagan", I tend to resent the assertion in an earlier post by the author of this thread that pagan equates to demonic or devil worship. I don't believe in your concept of the devil for reasons which I will explain in a moment. First, I will tell you that, though I am not a practitioner of the Christian faith, I *DID* devote seventeen years of my life to the study of the Bible and the various Christian faiths with the goal of one day becoming a minister. I would like to direct the various Christians' attention to various passages out of the New Testament. It should be noted that the entire passages are worth consideration in this, but I will limit myself to the more salient verses. First is Romans Chapter 14, the following verses:

"Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To his own master he stands or falls."Romans 14:4 NIV

Verse 9 is of interest to some, bearing as it does references to several myths out of that area regarding descent into the underworld, and is followed by other verses pertinent to the discussion:

"9For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat." Romans 14:9-10 NIV

and finally:

"22So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the man who does not condemn himself by what he approves. 23But the man who has doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin." Romans 14:22-23 NIV

From here, I'll move on to 1 Corinthians:

23"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others. 1 Corinthians 10:23-24 NIV

Now, that seems to me to be pretty common sense, but I understand that common sense isn't all that common, so a lot of people need it spelled out for them. The fallacy in the arguments presented thus far is in the fact that it has been presented that the only place to get this is from Christianity. With a little bit of research, I could find a similar passage in the sacred writings of most religions. For many pagans, it is summed up by stating "do as thou wilt, but harm none."

"31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved." 1 Corinthians 10:31-33 NIV

All these verses are pretty much stating ONE thing. Don't worry about the actions or beliefs or others, for they will be judged by the one they serve. If, as the thread author posits, those who run things worship "Satan", then it won't be God, but Satan, who judges and punishes them. Personally, I believe that they are simply greedy and that they are amoral from the ONLY quantifiable measure of the word, each man's actions towards his fellow man.

As to why I don't believe in the Christian concept of the devil, it's pretty simple. Satan is "the Adversary". He is supposedly in rebellion against God, and unwelcome in Heaven, according to the current Christian mythos. And yet, in the beginning of the book of Job, he shows up in heaven. God's reaction is not one of "get the hell out" or "what are you doing here?" Indeed, the dialect of Hebrew that is used for God's response is one of a king speaking to a trusted advisor. His reaction could be most readily said to have been one of "where have you been, I've been waiting for you?" *IF* Satan exists, then it is simply as contrast, to show the difference between "good" and "evil" for the benefit of the Judeo-Christian God, and he is doing EXACTLY the job that God assigned him.

I've always enjoyed discussions like this. Please, continue.

Scott