This has always somewhat mystified me. After all, that's pretty cool stuff. I'm pretty sure that if people actually COULD worship Satan and throw fireballs, the mass response would pretty much be "Hail Satan!" Obviously there aren't a bunch of pyrokineticists around, and as such, it has always made me wonder what exactly these people are thinking witches are or why they believe they exist. Do they not think that most people would go for it? Would they themselves not go for it if they really thought they could kill people with their minds undetectably? It doesn't really make sense to me.
Can anyone elucidate their thought processes to me? I've never been able to make sense of it.
Can anyone elucidate their thought processes to me? I've never been able to make sense of it.
At the risk of sounding glib, I can't explain their thought process to you because it is fundamentally irrational. The entire idea of blind faith, without any evidence or impartial support for your beliefs, is itself irrational. Religion is by definition an irrational phenomenon, in the sense that it purposely excludes itself from rational scientific analysis.
This is not intended as a value judgment of religions or any religion in particular, because I don't mean "irrational" as a derogatory term. I just mean that religion is not based on logical thought but is instead based in the entirely objective world of "faith".
In the most basic sense, Christians that fear and hate witchcraft do so for the same reasons that they believe Jesus was the son of God: The Bible says so, and the Bible is always right.
At the risk of sounding glib, I can't explain their thought process to you because it is fundamentally irrational. The entire idea of blind faith, without any evidence or impartial support for your beliefs, is itself irrational. Religion is by definition an irrational phenomenon, in the sense that it purposely excludes itself from rational scientific analysis.
This is not intended as a value judgment of religions or any religion in particular, because I don't mean "irrational" as a derogatory term. I just mean that religion is not based on logical thought but is instead based in the entirely objective world of "faith".
In the most basic sense, Christians fear and hate witch craft for the same reasons that they believe Jesus was the son of God: The Bible says so, and the Bible is always right.
Well you shouldn't say Christians but say something like some Christians. I'm certain you could find plenty of Christians who do not believe in witchcraft or magic. Otherwise pretty much right.
Well you shouldn't say Christians but say something like some Christians. I'm certain you could find plenty of Christians who do not believe in witchcraft or magic. Otherwise pretty much right.
Fair enough, edited.
Well you shouldn't say Christians but say something like some Christians. I'm certain you could find plenty of Christians who do not believe in witchcraft or magic. Otherwise pretty much right.
I find it mindboggling that there are those among us* that believe in God yet deny all other supernatural things even when those things have biblical "proof." One of the biggest things that bother me about mainstream Christianity is how utterly mundane it is. A Muggle religion.
*"Us" being Christians.
I've known a score or more Wiccans (Mostly not real wiccans, just pseudo-neo-pagan pseudo-witches) who claim to have magic powers. They can't make fire, can't levitate, can't fly, can't even predict cards reliably...
Can't stop me tweaking their noses with their 'enchantments'.
I've known a dozen Hindu Yogi's who claim they can preform Miracles. Supposedly they could transfigure matter, start fires using water, etc, etc, etc.
But not, apparently, if there's anybody watching.
Hell, they can't even do the stop their own heart trick, or lower their body temperatures...
I've known priests enough to preform an all eclisiatical remake of Ben-hur.
I've yet to see the fermented grape turn into hemoglobin, let alone a man of faith walk on water, or feed a multitude on 5 loaves and 2 fishes...
I still live in hope. Perhaps, someday, I will find true wonder in this world.
But for now? Nada.
Mind you, if the devil really did grant magic to people, I bet the guys on the Character Optimization forum would be banned by hell. Rules Lawyers VS Satan in the case of "Soul VS Infinate Cosmic Power!"
I doubt many, if any, people today actually do such things. Mostly because most of the people who believe in actual demons and such, are Christians, and thus very unlikely to, you know, make deals with them.
But hey, I'm a Christian, which apparently makes me irrational, stupid, and mentally ill, so what do i know. ;) :P :D
I still live in hope. Perhaps, someday, I will find true wonder in this world.
But for now? Nada.
So sad... so terribly sad. I find wonder everywhere, I mean look at this: scotch tape produces 15 keV X-Rays ot the video. That had me all excited all weekend, I reproduced there experiment to see it by myself. It really is a wonderful result.
There is no need for the supernatural to find wonder in the world. Nature is a infinite source of wonder if you actually stop to look at it and think about it. I don't understand christians that don't see this wonder. After all, if God took is time to build the thing, it must be worth it and particularly interesting/wonderful. But then again, I don't believe in god so...
###################################
As for the witches, they are probably the last real heretics. The church cannot persuade people of the wickedness of any other peagan (read atheists/other religions), so they must rely on old beliefs like magic and witches.
Mind you, if the devil really did grant magic to people, I bet the guys on the Character Optimization forum would be banned by hell. Rules Lawyers VS Satan in the case of "Soul VS Infinate Cosmic Power!"
Please allow me to introduce myself; I'm a man of wealth and taste.
Can anyone elucidate their thought processes to me? I've never been able to make sense of it.
Some people are just really stupid.
One: there are less witches to pass their genes and knowledge on to the next generation (much the same as what they did to other religions back then), thus diluting the power and
Two: the witches who didn't get fried were the smart ones who understood that drawing attention to yourself will get you burned, and thus they learned to hide real good.
(thank you very much martin luther you schmuck [note not martin luther king jr, the guy who wrote malleus maleficarium])
Martin Luther wrote the ninety-fives theses, not the witch hunter's bible. He was just as guilty of heresy as the witches the inquisition preyed on. Without Martin Luther, the female espicopalian minister* I know that meets with her coven every full moon would've been kindling.
* She's a herbalist. She'd be the first to tell you that wiccanism is about knowledge, not spells. The magic she practices is no more magical than modern medicine, just less refined.
Back on subject, some people always need something to ***** about and blame their ills and the ills of the world on. They're morons, their religion doesn't even really enter the equation other than their highly dubious claims about things like "doing the will of god". Even if it were true claiming to know the will of the God they supposedly worship strikes me as highly sacreligious.
I'm an atheist btw.
The sticky tape link was fascinating so thanks for that link.
Back on subject, some people always need something to ***** about and blame their ills and the ills of the world on. They're morons, their religion doesn't even really enter the equation other than their highly dubious claims about things like "doing the will of god". Even if it were true claiming to know the will of the God they supposedly worship strikes me as highly sacreligious.
I'm an atheist btw.
.....I do not think that means what you think it means.
Admittedly, there are those who claim religion and give only lip service.
And then there are those of us for whom it actually means something.
But that's kind of beside the point; the question is "what's so bad about witchcraft?". My answer was that, at least once, the term meant that the person was consorting with demons. Fallen angels. Tempters. Those who wish to torment man forever. Etc.
Incidentally, an atheist casually assessing sacrelidge is rather amusing.
No more offense meant here than in your post, mind.
On topic though, people who are schizo (right mental disorder?) can hear voices that tell them what to do, and get adrenaline rushes that give them incredible strength. I uderstand why people would think it's demons. I have heard of stories from missionaries that say a witchdoctor would curse someone, and that person would die. Not that I believe it, but if it's true, maybe a mind over matter type deal.
My answer was that, at least once, the term meant that the person was consorting with demons. Fallen angels. Tempters. Those who wish to torment man forever. Etc.
Well, the explanation is correct, but the whole thing was nothing but a ruse to get ridd of a wide array of "misfits", be they vagabonds, old ladies nobody wanted to feed through the winter, people who had something you wanted (like money or more money), people with strange quirks or hobbies (any similarities, here, hmmm?), and, from time to time, maybe the occasional herbalist or heretic.
Not much magic about the whole bunch if you ask me.
Actually, years ago, I came across a book on occultism written by a protestant priest (living in the 20th century), and the poor delusional sod accused Muslims of serving Satan and being wizards, yes, being the sort of which able to create and thoss fireballs...
To be fair, the other side of the fence, Satanists or wannabe Satanists aren't the brightest bunch either. Crowley was another hoax.
Let me start by saying that the specific rationale differs from person to person. This is for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the many different denominations of the religion that each focus on different matters. I will be addressing the most extreme and fanatic ones in my response, because they're primarily the ones that engage in this sort of behavior; more moderate and rational individuals tend not to fall into these traps, as you can observe in the religious people that participate in these very forums.
The first thing you have to do is completely alter your fundamental perception of the world. Everything is viewed from a different lens that would seem entirely alien to you. Everything works because God made it work that way and continues to make it work that way, and anything can change at any time simply because He wills it. This makes science more of a novelty than fact because it can only observe the right now. Anything that defies this view is a test of faith from God or a temptation into evils from Satan.
Furthermore, events that occur in life are generally because God wills it. God has a great plan for everyone and everything, which is complicated and impossible for us to understand. It is a sort of fatalism, a destiny-based view with a direct controller in God. People can deviate from God's plan for them, but they will suffer for it, and God's plan will somehow make up for it in the end anyways.
Now, witchcraft (in this view) is basically the use of supernatural powers sourced from devils to some end. These ends have frequently included such ideas as inflicting diseases, the sudden deaths of animals (and sometimes even people), and the acquisition of personal pleasure (sex with incubi / succubi). They can also be adjusting fate to acquire fame, wealth, and so forth. These things all fall outside God's plan; they represent devils perverting God's plans for the gains of a few wicked people.
You ask someone who believes that this occurs why it doesn't occur all the time since the benefits are so strong. Your answers will vary slightly, but they'll probably fall along one or more of the following arguments:
1. There is always a great price to pay for this sort of power. The witch cavorting with devils may well not live long, their soul being taken as payment for services rendered. The dangers of this keep many people from making such deals.
2. Outside of Christian civilizations, this is indeed very common. That's why we must keep our country fundamentally Christian at all levels, including government. To do otherwise would invite ruin, just as all other non-Christian civilizations have fallen (and if you point out that Christian civilizations also eventually fall, your response will simply be that the people turned away from God despite supposedly being Christian, or something about God's plan being complicated).
3. God protects those with strong faith from the curses of witches and devils. Thus, they are rarely able to achieve great success because there are too many faithful to counter them.
4. Most people aren't depraved and wicked enough to sink so low that devils would be interested. Of those who are, devils can usually simply tempt and guide them into doing horrific things without having to offer any power to begin with.
Furthermore, events that occur in life are generally because God wills it. God has a great plan for everyone and everything, which is complicated and impossible for us to understand. It is a sort of fatalism, a destiny-based view with a direct controller in God. People can deviate from God's plan for them, but they will suffer for it, and God's plan will somehow make up for it in the end anyways.
So, they see god as a good facist ;)
I apologize if I have offended any one.
When you are in this extreme situations your normal frame rate in regards to vision jumps tremendously which is why it always feels like that car accident happened in slow motion. Your perception of time and space behave different due to these altered frame-rates.
Human body is amazing thing, even outside of the mind. It is also known that through things like biofeedback, mediatation, prayer(ya another form of mediatation,) etc, that people can have greater control over their bodies.
In regards to Wicca...1960s...it is a "religion" invented in the 1960s. Sure they attempt to have claim and say that their roots are from pagan belief, yet for the most part there is ignorance to the pagan part. Really though, what is the big deal? Many Wiccans don't really know the pagan roots nor do most Christains.
So many thoughts, ideals, and beliefs steeped in the history of humanity. Does it make one a better person to focus on one aspect and ignore the rest? There is too much interconnection and getting tunnel vision does you no good.
Fundamentalist christians are the people that believe that a certain individual can make them immortal if they symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that they accept him as their master, so he can remove an evil force from their soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magic tree. If you can believe that I guess you can believe that mass-produced book can teach you how to throw fire and raise the dead.
I apologize if I have offended any one.
...Not quite.
Fundamentalist Christians believe that the forgiveness of sins, and thus the acquisition of eternal life, or more accurately, life in eternity in the presence of God (as opposed to the absence of God) can be achieved through sincere acceptance and belief of the sacrifice Jesus made when he died upon the cross; our hope comes from His ressurection, pointing towards what we too will eventually experience.
Communion, the practice of symbolically partaking in the Last Supper via imbibing a very small piece of bread (or cracker) and a bit of sacaramental wine (meaning it's been diluted; alternatively, many use grape juice). Beliefs on the precise nature of this vary; some, like the Catholics, believe it is physically (through supernatural means) transformed into His flesh and blood. Others (such as myself) do not believe a physical transformation occurs, but do believe there is a special presence of God at the event; it's a difficult concept to put to words such that a believer can understand, let alone someone who doesn't believe in this at all.
The "telepathy" comment would indicate prayer, which can be audible or non-audible, but points to the nature of God always being present, and able to know our heart. It is the typical method of communication with Him.
The acceptance as our master, as you put it, is simply an acknowledgement of a)His status as Creator and Lord of all, and b)wanting the guidance and care of someone who knows better than us, and happens to know best.
The evil force is not removed. Our sin nature stays with us until we die, as it is now intrinsically linked to human nature. What is removed is the stain and penalty for our sins. As well, we now have assistance from God in resisting that sin nature.
Eve was taken from Adam's rib primarily as a symbol of the relationship man and woman are to have; neither rules over the other, and neither has the other under their heel. They are coequal even in differences.
The talking snake is believed in many circles to have at least been possessed by Satan. It was Satan doing the tempting, not the snake. (Incidentally, he did a fine job by appealing to pride).
It is less the nature of the fruit that was important, and more the act of pride and disobedience. It laid the seeds of selfishness, pride, and sin in the hearts of man. Hence our greater tendency since then to mess up.
The belief about mass-produced books (likely referring to Harry Potter, D&D, and the like) is due to a)misconceptions on the part of a few, which led to b)mass hysteria due to the groupthink tendency of the human race, and the natural reaction of a parent of "I must protect my child!".
Not suprising you'd have such an imprecise summary, though. You likely got it off of a bitter former member of the church, probably someone who just went as a kid, and now thinks they're doing the world a favor by spreading hate and distrust for Christianity. I mean, it's not like Christianity's doing any good in the world or anything, right?
Incidentally, perhaps next time you should work to not put your response in so condescending a format; that might convince others of the sincerity of your wish to not offend. Right now, I take your last sentence to be largely sarcastic in light of the body of your paragraph. But mayhaps my reading is colored due to being the (perceived) target of these words.
I don't know how serious he was, dude; I think he got that from an image on the internet.
Anyway, I'm an Atheist, or, rather, an Agnostic, because I agree with Richard Dawkins in that, if we want to go with everything on a scientific level, we can't REALLY say we're "100% Sure" of anything; I mean, I'm ALMOST positive fairies don't exist, but I can't PROVE they don't, ya know? :P
Well, given that people have been setting fire to witches for hundreds of years (thank you very much martin luther you schmuck [note not martin luther king jr, the guy who wrote malleus maleficarium]) that would have had two effects:
1) Martin Luther didn't write the Malleus Malificarum, rather it was written by Heinrich Kramer and Jacob Sprenger.
2) It's rather important to point out that the Malleus Malificarum was ultimately banned by the Catholic Church as being inconsistant with Church beliefs. For all the 'omg they burned witches' that gets attached to it and the Church during the period, it was never remotely an official part of church practice or dogma. They did their best to suppress its publication.
Again, I apologize to anyone I offended.
I have relatives who have tried to force there beliefs down my throat since I was a kid. When I was old enough to make my own decisions about such things and found that religion just wasn't for me and I tried to tell them this, it got worse. And then they found out I played D&D, read fantasy novels, and listened to heavy metal. One of my cousins or somesuch tried to talk my dad into sending me to a church run "institution" so I could be shown the error of my ways. To Knights_Disciple the apology was sincere and thanks for clarifying the differences in beliefs. The wording I used was taken from an image from the internet but it represents my current opinion of what my relatives tried to make me believe.
Again, I apologize to anyone I offended.
I apologize if I seemed a bit aggressive. Some posters here seem to intentionally insult those with faith.
I also apologize that you felt faith was forced down your throat. Faith forced is no faith at all. My one note would be that, quite likely, they had only love and concern at heart for you. That doesn't necessarily excuse the seemingly harsh approach they took, but do try to keep that in mind.
This whole thing is more of a perception issue. If someone defines spell as something then it becomes that to them. For instance a girl I knew could almost enchant guys because she knew how to manipulate us with out ever actually doing anything. In some situations or points in time they would have decreed that she was a witch for these tricks. Of course in my opinion she is more of a ***** since she manipulated her friends and treated people like crap, and then was surprised when I refused to be one of her mind slaves.
Also I am a Jew as my screen name hints at so subtly. I think that some people just need something to believe in, a lot of time it is what they were taught as a child that they grasp, and other times it is something else. Still they grab on and hold on tight to this ideal and thought of how the world works or should work, and everything else is refused as heathenism.
Eve was taken from Adam's rib primarily as a symbol of the relationship man and woman are to have; neither rules over the other, and neither has the other under their heel. They are coequal even in differences.
Not exactly. The implication of woman created from man is that woman could not exist without man but man was just fine before god took a part of him to create woman. Woman owes her very existance to not only god, but man. Man owes his to god alone. There is also an implied "less-ness" as man was a whole being but woman is just a part of him. This is supported by the writings in the Bible. Men had many women, but the oppsite was generally untrue. Men were chosen by god to lead (David) - never women. The Apostles were men. Jesus - the son of god. The 10th Commandment - Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife - is preceded by a commandment admonishing us not to covet said neighbor's house. This places woman after property. It also fails to request that women do not covet their neighbor's husband - implying these commandments were written for man. The Bible was "written" by men. The clergy of the church preaching these messages from men was (and still is in most cases) comprised entirely of men. The Pope - god's conduit to man - must be a man. You get the idea. ;)
This, of course, is simply a product of the times that these writings were composed. The facts of life at the time were that men controlled everything - including women - so these writings really just reflect the status quo. This leaves us to ask if god's message was truly this sexist or if the men that created this religion just dropped the ball. If the former, there are some obvious questions about what sort of god this god is. If the latter, it forces us to ask why we've been following this incorrect interpretation for so long.
Another interesting thing to look at is the fact that many of the major beliefs of religions - with slight modification - change from faith to childishness to mental illness:
-God is watching what I do in this world and will reward me if I do good but punish me if I do evil.
-Santa is watching what I do before Christmas and will give me presents if I am good or coal if I am bad.
-They are watching everything I do and if I don't do everything they want me to they will find me and kill me.
The first is faith in god. The second, a childish faith in an imaginary being called Santa. The third is paranoid delusion leading to a belief that "They" are out to get me. Note the similarities in construct. Faith that a being (or group of beings) will either reward or punish. All of these also reference an unseeable, unreachable entity. God is in heaven - can't get there. Santa? The North Pole. That's a long walk for a kid. "They" are everywhere, man, but they're hidden! Hell, Santa even has "Priests" - his mall representatives. ;)
I'm not making any implications here. I just thought this stuff was interesting and may spark some sort of discussion. It is my firm belief that we all must be honest with ourselves. And that means that we need to look at the less pleasant parts of who we are and what we believe in as well as the good.
Show
"It is not good for man to be alone" doesn't sound like "just fine without woman". "Male and female created He them". Was the cultural patriarchal? Yeah. Is inter-gender strife caused by our fallen nature? Also yeah.
Oh, and there's a separate commandment saying "don't have adultery". The "covet" commandment is more about a state of mind / attitude.
Oh, and as for women chosen to lead: Deborah. Esther. Who were the first two people to see Jesus risen? Women.
Men having many women pretty much uniformly turned out bad. Let's see...Abraham: turned out bad (future strife between descendents). Jacob: bad (strife between siblings). David: bad (civil war, familial strife). Solomon: bad (wives led him astray, which led to the collapse of the united kingdom the next generation). I don't think it's portrayed very positively, do you? I think that's more of the Bible showing us the good and the bad (like with David; we see the good, but we also see his arrogance with a census, and his adultery and murder plot centering on Bathsheba).
I take the "woman from man's rib" still pretty much being "needs God to exist". I mean, He formed man from the dirt, it's not that He couldn't do so with woman, it's that He had a larger purpose and image in mind. I do tend to believe in the "complementarian" view of gender, wherein man and woman each have unique but different roles, but that really only comes into play in the family, and perhaps (but this one's debated) in church leadership. And the leadership of a man in the home? Yeah, according to Paul, we men don't get off scott-free. As my Sunday School teacher (a married woman) put it (this is rough remembrance): Wives submit to the Husbands, Husbands die for their Wives.
If anything, the Bible tends to show us a positive message about women, showing them, at worst, as no worse than men. God used, and uses, both genders. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:28.
Ah well. YMMV.
"It is not good for man to be alone" doesn't sound like "just fine without woman". "Male and female created He them". Was the cultural patriarchal? Yeah. Is inter-gender strife caused by our fallen nature? Also yeah.
Oh, and there's a separate commandment saying "don't have adultery". The "covet" commandment is more about a state of mind / attitude.
Oh, and as for women chosen to lead: Deborah. Esther. Who were the first two people to see Jesus risen? Women.
Men having many women pretty much uniformly turned out bad. Let's see...Abraham: turned out bad (future strife between descendents). Jacob: bad (strife between siblings). David: bad (civil war, familial strife). Solomon: bad (wives led him astray, which led to the collapse of the united kingdom the next generation). I don't think it's portrayed very positively, do you? I think that's more of the Bible showing us the good and the bad (like with David; we see the good, but we also see his arrogance with a census, and his adultery and murder plot centering on Bathsheba).
I take the "woman from man's rib" still pretty much being "needs God to exist". I mean, He formed man from the dirt, it's not that He couldn't do so with woman, it's that He had a larger purpose and image in mind. I do tend to believe in the "complementarian" view of gender, wherein man and woman each have unique but different roles, but that really only comes into play in the family, and perhaps (but this one's debated) in church leadership. And the leadership of a man in the home? Yeah, according to Paul, we men don't get off scott-free. As my Sunday School teacher (a married woman) put it (this is rough remembrance): Wives submit to the Husbands, Husbands die for their Wives.
If anything, the Bible tends to show us a positive message about women, showing them, at worst, as no worse than men. God used, and uses, both genders. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:28.
Ah well. YMMV.
Not exactly. The implication of woman created from man is that woman could not exist without man but man was just fine before god took a part of him to create woman. Woman owes her very existance to not only god, but man. Man owes his to god alone. There is also an implied "less-ness" as man was a whole being but woman is just a part of him. This is supported by the writings in the Bible.
Genesis - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Interesting that "male and female he created them." happened before eve was "created."
Men had many women, but the oppsite was generally untrue.
What about the women portrayed as prostitutes?
Men were chosen by god to lead (David) - never women. The Apostles were men. Jesus - the son of god. The 10th Commandment - Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife - is preceded by a commandment admonishing us not to covet said neighbor's house. This places woman after property. It also fails to request that women do not covet their neighbor's husband - implying these commandments were written for man. The Bible was "written" by men. The clergy of the church preaching these messages from men was (and still is in most cases) comprised entirely of men. The Pope - god's conduit to man - must be a man. You get the idea.
Gospel of Mary anyone? Oh wait...gnosticism. For a moment I had to remember that some people are selective about what "Christian" material they believe in. Go go Nicea!
It is my honest belief that a Christian who puts down paganism is ignorant to the foundations of their religion because both religions use similar foundations, which is why Pagan's and Christains have similar holidays...
Hmm...
"Birth of the sun." - Pagan
"Birth of the son." - Christain.
Could always go into the Feast of Assumption too...
(Zombie was not disputing your post. Just when reading it, typed the thoughts that came to my head. =P)
You ever been in one of those Ochit situations
Sorry, what? I have no idea what "Ochit" is and nothing even remotely applicable (based on context) appears on Google.
Genesis - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Interesting that "male and female he created them." happened before eve was "created."
Alternatively, it could be because the narrative intent of Chapter 1 was general overview, and the narrative intent of Chapter 2 of Genesis was a more specific look at creation, especially the creation of man. That's pretty much always been my take since I've pondered the issue.
I'd also point out that the statement "it is not good for man to be alone" directly proceeds the creation of Eve. Interesting, huh?
(Spoilered for wandering really OT):Show
"It is not good for man to be alone" doesn't sound like "just fine without woman". "Male and female created He them". Was the cultural patriarchal? Yeah. Is inter-gender strife caused by our fallen nature? Also yeah.
Oh, and there's a separate commandment saying "don't have adultery". The "covet" commandment is more about a state of mind / attitude.
Oh, and as for women chosen to lead: Deborah. Esther. Who were the first two people to see Jesus risen? Women.
Men having many women pretty much uniformly turned out bad. Let's see...Abraham: turned out bad (future strife between descendents). Jacob: bad (strife between siblings). David: bad (civil war, familial strife). Solomon: bad (wives led him astray, which led to the collapse of the united kingdom the next generation). I don't think it's portrayed very positively, do you? I think that's more of the Bible showing us the good and the bad (like with David; we see the good, but we also see his arrogance with a census, and his adultery and murder plot centering on Bathsheba).
I take the "woman from man's rib" still pretty much being "needs God to exist". I mean, He formed man from the dirt, it's not that He couldn't do so with woman, it's that He had a larger purpose and image in mind. I do tend to believe in the "complementarian" view of gender, wherein man and woman each have unique but different roles, but that really only comes into play in the family, and perhaps (but this one's debated) in church leadership. And the leadership of a man in the home? Yeah, according to Paul, we men don't get off scott-free. As my Sunday School teacher (a married woman) put it (this is rough remembrance): Wives submit to the Husbands, Husbands die for their Wives.
If anything, the Bible tends to show us a positive message about women, showing them, at worst, as no worse than men. God used, and uses, both genders. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Gal. 3:28.
Ah well. YMMV.
More O to the T ...Indeed. I'll agree we see this differently and move on from here. Like I said, I wasn't trying to create an indictment of religion, I just tossed some stuff out there for discussion. Thanks for the discussion. :D
Sorry, what? I have no idea what "Ochit" is and nothing even remotely applicable (based on context) appears on Google.
Think of it phonetically and look at the context surrounding.
What about the women portrayed as prostitutes?
Prostitution is bad, mmkay? ;) It's quite different to have a harem.
Gospel of Mary anyone? Oh wait...gnosticism. For a moment I had to remember that some people are selective about what "Christian" material they believe in. Go go Nicea!
One of my major problems with the text, actually. And Gnosticism made more sense to me anyway. :P
It is my honest belief that a Christian who puts down paganism is ignorant to the foundations of their religion because both religions use similar foundations, which is why Pagan's and Christains have similar holidays...
Hmm...
"Birth of the sun." - Pagan
"Birth of the son." - Christain.
Could always go into the Feast of Assumption too...
This, though, has some roots in the religious cleansing "missionaries" practiced upon the heathens of whatever new world they happened to find themselves in. The Celtic cross, for example, is an amalgamation of Pagan and Christian symbols. In order to remove pagan practices, Christians blended elements of their faith with elements of the pagan beliefs. It was conversion through watering down pagan beliefs to sort of ease them into it. Still, you're right. A lot of similarities do exist between religions. Part of this, IMO, stems from what religions were created for in the first place - to explain the unexplainable. Since religions all had the same set of goals, it's not surprising to find similarities between how they went about it.
(Zombie was not disputing your post. Just when reading it, typed the thoughts that came to my head. =P)
I'm glad ya did. I was just throwin' some ideas out there for discussion myself.
Was the precession of equinoxes...
If you look into the past you notice that whatever point it was in that sign had a strong influence on the symbolism at the time...
Like in the Age of Taurus you had a ton of Bull symbolism such as Apis...
Age of Pieces...(around Jesus' time) - Fish were used extensively.
To the extent that one author has written "whatever that unthinking robot in the Garden of Eden was, he was not Man"
Another interesting thing to look at is the fact that many of the major beliefs of religions - with slight modification - change from faith to childishness to mental illness:
-God is watching what I do in this world and will reward me if I do good but punish me if I do evil.
-Santa is watching what I do before Christmas and will give me presents if I am good or coal if I am bad.
-They are watching everything I do and if I don't do everything they want me to they will find me and kill me.
The first is faith in god. The second, a childish faith in an imaginary being called Santa. The third is paranoid delusion leading to a belief that "They" are out to get me. Note the similarities in construct. Faith that a being (or group of beings) will either reward or punish. All of these also reference an unseeable, unreachable entity. God is in heaven - can't get there. Santa? The North Pole. That's a long walk for a kid. "They" are everywhere, man, but they're hidden! Hell, Santa even has "Priests" - his mall representatives. ;)
I'm not making any implications here. I just thought this stuff was interesting and may spark some sort of discussion. It is my firm belief that we all must be honest with ourselves. And that means that we need to look at the less pleasant parts of who we are and what we believe in as well as the good.
Hmm, something I haven't thought of/noticed before, surely that's worth a
I would hypothesize that santa is a god figure allegory though. Same time of year, similiar structure. Possibly a training/ indoctrination tool for kids perhaps? He does "exist" in many christian/catholic centric areas. Fascinating.
We are way off topic though.
Hmm, something I haven't thought of/noticed before, surely that's worth a
I would hypothesize that santa is a god figure allegory though. Same time of year, similiar structure. Possibly a training/ indoctrination tool for kids perhaps? He does "exist" in many christian/catholic centric areas. Fascinating.
We are way off topic though.
Interesting. I hadn't thought of that. The Easter Bunny could also be seen that way. Hmm. Is there, then, a good example of childish belief similar to faith and delusion? We have the tooth fairy, but it's more of a neutral party so it doesn't fit the mold as illustrated. Sure, it's impossible to get to, but the reward is simply for losing a tooth and there's no punishment the fairy can give for bad behavior. I still like Santa, but you bring up an interesting question.
One of the questions that puzzles me is exactly what is wrong about knowing the difference between Good and Evil? Maybe its the "you will be like gods" bit.
To the extent that one author has written "whatever that unthinking robot in the Garden of Eden was, he was not Man"
Where once we saw the big picture we now focus on polarities.
lol...
Saying it again...
Bible Code...
Anyone see anything on web-bot?(I think it is called)...that does something very similar except it does it via texts on websites?
Think of it phonetically and look at the context surrounding.
OCK-it
Nope, still doesn't work.
OCK-it
Nope, still doesn't work.
You're not thinking excrementally. Dig deep into the scatalogical portions of your brain and "oh ****", it'll come to you.
it'll come to you.
If you have enough fiber in your diet ...
Kudos
However. . .
The people, at least in the US, who condem RPGs as satin worship, or just condem magic/new age in general, (not that rpgs have anyting WHATSOEVER to do with new age religions, but that is another rant) are usually very conservative christians. These are people who believe that if you pray hard enough god changes reality. I mean that in a literal sense. God will supernaturally intervine in the world in response to people's prayers (in their beliefs). Apparentlly it helps if you are giving alot of money to the ministry, etc, but the point is that magic is not that much of a stretch for them, because they see supernatureal/spiritual forces at work all around them.
They also see the world in polar opposites. Their religion is right, all other religions are wrong. Their "magic" is good (although they would never use the word magic, they would call it the holy spirit or a move of God or some such thing) but everybody else's magic is bad, becuase their spiritual forces are the only "good" ones, and thus by definition all the others are "bad". This brand a christian doesn't have trouble buying the idea that a new age "which" has real power, but they think that power comes from evil sprits, and they are so certain in their beliefs that any aruguments from the witch her/him self are ignored, and written off to the witch being "deceived" by "the enemy".
Personally, I find this incredibly arrogent on their part. The more extreem memebers of this school of though will go as far as to claim that all other world religions (with the possible exception of Judiasm, which is kind of the monkeywrench in their system) are false religions. I really try to be live and let live when it comes to religion and personal philosopy, but honestly when it come to some guy sitting in a mega-church siging checks to some sweaty tv preacher and calling the Dali Lama the tool of the devil, I think its a bit much.
Hmm, something I haven't thought of/noticed before, surely that's worth a
I would hypothesize that santa is a god figure allegory though. Same time of year, similiar structure. Possibly a training/ indoctrination tool for kids perhaps? He does "exist" in many christian/catholic centric areas. Fascinating.
We are way off topic though.
Heh.. however, when you think about it, Santa is an anagram for Satan. Considering the greed that is spawned from christmas now a days, it seems pretty likely in my opinion. If you say otherwise concerning the greed, you've obviously never worked retail or been in a mall around the 'holiday' season. Good will and cheer to all, my arse.
satin worship
"And the Typo of the Day award goes to..."
Unless there's actually a group somewhere who worships a bundle of satin...
"And the Typo of the Day award goes to..."
Unless there's actually a group somewhere who worships a bundle of satin...
Man, that satin worship is just ruining the fabric of our society!
Man, that satin worship is just ruining the fabric of our society!
Heh.. however, when you think about it, Santa is an anagram for Satan. Considering the greed that is spawned from christmas now a days, it seems pretty likely in my opinion. If you say otherwise concerning the greed, you've obviously never worked retail or been in a mall around the 'holiday' season. Good will and cheer to all, my arse.
Santa Claus is Saint Nicklaus. I don't know the exact point at which Saint became Santa, but to make Satan out of it is just silly, considering the origin.
As far as greed goes, you're right. Dead freakin' on. People forget that it was about giving, not receiving. But in our modern world, where instant gratification is so prevalent, is it any wonder that children follow their parents' example?
…satin worship…
I was always more of a Stan worshiper, but to each their own.
One of the things I completely enjoy about the D&D forums thus far. You can have an interesting religious discussion opening up new vistas of thought.... While simultaneously reading about excrement. In the same thread nonetheless.
Kudos
God poops too, ya' know. Everybody poops! ;)
Heh.. however, when you think about it, Santa is an anagram for Satan.
Santa = Saint
Considering the greed that is spawned from christmas now a days, it seems pretty likely in my opinion.
Which is why opinions are so dangerous.
2. People want to put the blame somewhere.
3. People want to blame people.
4. People don't want to blame themselves.
5. People say the people they blame are witches.
6. Church steps in and says to burn the witches.
7. Witches are burned.
8. People are happy.
9. More bad stuff happens.
Genesis - So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Interesting that "male and female he created them." happened before eve was "created."
Indeed. Adam was the first man, Eve was not the first women. The first woman was Lillith, who was booted from Eden because Adam liked Missionary and Lillith liked Reverse Cowgirl. I'm not joking. :P
Indeed. Adam was the first man, Eve was not the first women. The first woman was Lillith, who was booted from Eden because Adam liked Missionary and Lillith liked Reverse Cowgirl. I'm not joking. :P
Actually, I seem to recall her leaving of her own accord. Not much of an exile when you choose to leave, is it?
I know the bible I grew up with made no mention of her.
Anywho, were I to have any kind of supernatural ability, I would not show it to anyone. For fear of the "guilty until proven flammable" reaction so prevalent in stories of "witchcraft" in the past.
Maulorn: "They have more cows than me! The put a hex on my cows to make them have less babies. They witches I tell ya!"
That's as American as mom & apple pie...or not being responsible for what we do, seen now more than ever these days (the war, credit debacle, obesity, poor work performance, some failing marriages, crime, etc).
I'd wager a great many burnings were largely in part due to fools that made ventures & gambles as we're prone to do, didn't work out, and scapegoated as usual, rather than admit failure, embrace humility and the wisdom gleened from the exercise/endeavor and try try again...
Trial and error, not trial and sentencing.
No one likes to be told they're wrong. But I think alot of these wouldn't have necessarilly have happened under more normal circumstances:
1) Living in a new, unfamiliar, and often, hostile new land is often going to indenture alot of failure and frustration that normally wouldn't be there on top of the usual day-to-day angst we endure. You're starting over rather than working w/ an already developed country to give you a kick start. That's a major disadvantage and those make ppl, uh, a bit irritable, yes?
Already were off to a bad start: I mean, it's not like they were fleeing a land that heaped scorn and further frustration upon them initially, right? So, already, they have the burden of carrying alot of that unfairness and injustice = big grudge/angst, not easy to forget. Relatively defenseless girl/woman out in the colonial frontier is an easy target for that angst when not properly externalized in a healthy manner.
2) Moral reactionary outlook. Puritans/Pilgrims were rigid as Hell, but you should've seen England at the time they fled. Decadent is an understatement, even by today's standards. Rampant sex in public areas, massive syphilis #'s, govt. corruption everywhere, etc. This is not to say they weren't messed up by our standards; these are the ppl that invented "bear baiting" (think dog fighting but w/ a tethered bear vs dogs).
Anyway, they were persecuted for not being in the English status quo, so they fled. Unfair, yes, but this only fostered their moral resolve to be the antithesis of those "perverse and injust old world types that unfairly persecuted them."
And yes, history does repeat itself, hence the burnings as a model I guess.
It is perhaps only natural that such depravity and hedonism would be met w/ such a radical moral reaction. This is terribly common in many walks of life even now. You live at one extreme, a balancing correction in its opposite polarity surfaces to equalize so to speak. You might see this today in the following:
-Ex hippies that became corporate powerhouses in the 80's
-Nasty, violent offenders "finding God" in the penn and being very moral outside.
-Rampant drug users going violently straight edge when confronted/corrected
-Outspoken warhawks in the field becoming large proponents of peace and moderation
Newtonian almost, "An action having a simple and opposite reaction." Bigger the action (immorality), the bigger the reaction (Puritanical morality). Not a good maxim, but as an example it will suffice for this point.
Perhaps this is why the southern colonials weren't so caught up in the New England burnings and what not as they weren't as morally rigid as their northern counterparts. Their outlook/morality was fairly moderate (at the time) and not subject to extremes in polarity, hence their geographical area not being infamous for witchcraft/heresy/etc. They left England to make money, not flee under religious pretext. Mercantile vs. religious. Perhaps an oversimplification but it was the "Salem Burnings" not the "Jamestown" ones though I'm sure some existed. Always an exception.
3) Failure hurts, the truth hurts, so we project or externalize all that angst onto a 3rd party whom must bear the brunt of our own inadequacies and innability to internalize and cope w/ life's little injustices and F-U's.
That is, "we failed in England, let's just leave this God forsaken place." Pretty heavy baggage to be carrying, you know? And w/ a clean slate, it's much harder to start w/ less resources, hostile aborigenies, inclement weather, a disdainful homeland, etc.
Those 1st few winters must've been Hell and I trust we're all familiar w/ terms like "famine" and "cabin fever" and "hypothermia". That'll make you a little crazy if not likely to act out, make wild accusations, and flights of fancy.
4) No 1 specific enemy yet: Sad I feel this way, but we are only really united when we have a common enemy. Our history is largely defined by conflict, hence most notable dates in history being battles, but it is said that "war is the ultimate expression of humanity."
Europe wasn't quite "all onboard" until the Crusades. Greeks were infighting constantly until Persia came along. Native Americans fought each other, then whites started landing. And when we "tidied up" the Indian problem, what did we do next? Turn on each other, the Civil War. Etc.
I don't think the planet will be unified until aliens land and we take up arms. Please do not think less of me for this cynicsm/outlook as there is plenty of goodwill that attests to others at least trying to break this mold. I often try and emulate that mindset, but it is quite difficult.
The Pilgrims, anyway, didn't have a specific enemy yet. The local Indians were actually cool for the most part, gave food, advice, bla bla bla. We would later repay such niceties w/ assimilation, alienation, and attrition...
If not for them, they probably would've died and later day witch burnings might not have happened. But it didn't, so, moving on. It wasn't until the Indians/old country helped them get up to speed that they could stand independently and then, and only then, turn on their previous benefactors. Once fighting w/ the Indians (their specific enemy) was under control, they turned on each other, witch burnings being just a sample of the buffet.
Later, when they (we?) were unified against our soverign (England, during the Revolution), that stuff tapered off as we had a specific, common enemy. Even the French joined in and we were pretty buddy buddy w/ them (common enemy). Then we weren't. Then 2 world wars later, and we were again. Then we weren't...bla bla bla. On, off, on, off, 0,1,0,1,0,0,0,1,0,1,1,0...
Anyway, these are just some theories that might have prompted the Witch Trials and burnings. ie)That's alot of extra stress to put on ppl that are taking really big chances at a clean slate in some new land/new way of life when they were previously derided, if not worse.
We're more prone to annoyance/hostility when under the gun. Family moves as a kid often spawn "problem children" acting out, exam time & tax season makes us lash out over dumb sh-t, extensive illness w/ little help (like the settlers), relative peace fostering internal purges/injustice as we seek conflict, etc. I would venture the trials could've been much much worse.
Not forgiving the lynchings, just posing theories.
Don't get all caught up in the Salem hype/injutices though. Yeah, they were rough, unfair, and all that, but Puritans/etc. (not we) burned relatively few. Whole towns in Germany (Weirs I think is a good example) were completely depopulated under pretense of "witchcraft". We're talking thousands of ppl vs. our few hundred, tops, dying by immolation, statistically, the most painful death in terms of physical trauma, not time spent suffering. Like I say, "It could've been worse."
Let's face it. Dungeons and Dragons as an easy target and there isn't much risk of bashing it from your couch at home or even from the pulpit in a church somewhere.
At the same time..let's face it. You'd have to be a real nut job...or a real convert of Jesus Christ to go out and put your life on the line working up close and personal to feed people starving in some foreign land or to try and give a hand to the thousands of children bombed out of their homes and without families in the middle east.
Nobody wants to trouble themselves to go down into the inner city to teach a teenage gang member how to read and write or that there might be some better path for their lives than drugs, guns and prison.
I mean that would take real personal risk and sacrifice and unfortunately its alot easier and safer to sit at home freaking out about satan being in D&D or my little pony or the care bears than it is actually go out into the world and do something real and positive for someone you might not normally care to be around.
Heck that gang kid might be black or hispanic. That guy your helping bring food to might be gay and have aids. Its all well and good that someone out there takes the time...maybe to help those people. Jesus certainly wouldn't have sullied his hands hanging out with a bunch of dice rolling gamer geeks...satans own vanguard those blokes...or is that exacty where you would have found him and not out blasting my little pony.
Just something to think about.
I hear some fundamentalist Christians occasionally ranting about the evils of witchcraft and acting as though magic was a real phenomenon, and that people actually could conjure demons, set things on fire, curse people, ect. with magic.
This has always somewhat mystified me. After all, that's pretty cool stuff. I'm pretty sure that if people actually COULD worship Satan and throw fireballs, the mass response would pretty much be "Hail Satan!" Obviously there aren't a bunch of pyrokineticists around, and as such, it has always made me wonder what exactly these people are thinking witches are or why they believe they exist. Do they not think that most people would go for it? Would they themselves not go for it if they really thought they could kill people with their minds undetectably? It doesn't really make sense to me.
Can anyone elucidate their thought processes to me? I've never been able to make sense of it.
*shrugs* The Christian faith (my faith, just bear that in mind) has always been superstitious, even back to the Middle Ages when the whole "Burn the Witch!!!" was around. Although, there HAVE been cases when witchcraft seemed very real and cases of "curses" that acctually did kill. Probably just coincidence though. Also, the Christian faith does not treat all "magic" as evil. There are things, like exorcisms, that seem like "magic" yet aren't considered evil.
Hope that cleared things up,
Chapien:D
Gospel of Mary anyone? Oh wait...gnosticism. For a moment I had to remember that some people are selective about what "Christian" material they believe in. Go go Nicea!
For what it's worth, the various gnostic gospels appear rather historically late in the history of the early Church, most of them centuries after the earlier works that were formally given canonical status. However there was a working canon well before Nicea.
"Birth of the sun." - Pagan
"Birth of the son." - Christain.
Because really, the early Jews, Greeks, Syrians, and Romans used English...
The comparison only works in english. Sun and son in latin for instance would be sol and filius. Hardly any linguistic link between them.
Where is the Lillith story if one were to wish to find it?
I know the bible I grew up with made no mention of her.
The Lillith predating eve story was never part of the Christian bible, nor was it ever part of the Jewish canon either. It was a bit of obscure hebrew folklore that appears to derive from some mesopotamian legends (in whose mythology lillith was a demon). There's one or two scattered references to a lillith demon in Jewish lore, but not the lillith predating eve story, that was purely from adapted folklore rather than any of their written/canonical works.
Personally, I think God is a scientist (meaning any "miracles" can be explained scientifically), but that does not mean I don't believe in God. To me, that just makes it more interesting, because He works in ways that don't break the physical rules He made.
This was Einstein's view too.
[QUOTE=stompie5;1713579
On topic though, people who are schizo (right mental disorder?) can hear voices that tell them what to do, and get adrenaline rushes that give them incredible strength. I uderstand why people would think it's demons. I have heard of stories from missionaries that say a witchdoctor would curse someone, and that person would die. Not that I believe it, but if it's true, maybe a mind over matter type deal.
Absoultely.
Also if you read the Iliad, you do not get people having "second thougts" you get gods and other entities whispering ideas to them. Subconcious thought was interpreted as an external stimulus (a god/demon or spirit giving you the idea).
I have a friend who works as a psychologist and he had a patient who was a Muslim and believed he was being tormented by Jinn. In the end the most effective treatment was just to go with it and have an Iman read lines from the Koran and that way his torment stopped.
The placebo effect is so powerful that a placebo must be given to the control group when testing any new medical treatment.
Oh and another interesting titbit I read in the paper years ago was a theory that a common mould on bread had an effect similar to LSD. Imagine living with the belief that magic is a real force then eating some bread and tripping your nuts off. What do you think you'd experience?
Good points 1_ton by the way (not so sure about the rampant public sex though).
I don't think the planet will be unified until aliens land and we take up arms. Please do not think less of me for this cynicsm/outlook as there is plenty of goodwill that attests to others at least trying to break this mold. I often try and emulate that mindset, but it is quite difficult.
H.G.Wells's "War of the Worlds" mentions that world peace and brotherhood among nations was one of the results of the Martian invasion.
That was very interesting 1 ton ghost. Good read.
Think nothing of it. Besides, I couldn't have done it w/out (guys like) you.
Werral: Good points 1_ton by the way (not so sure about the rampant public sex though).
...or you. Thanks, much respect and all that.
I think your contention is meritous here though. This (the sexual hedonism, etc) is just stuff I heard when reading about the Jackobites & timeline and so forth, the depravity and all. Pilgrims & Puritans were just fed up colonials is all I'm saying. Alot of that goin' on really.
Happy Halloween everyone. Remember, when trick or treating tonight, that if she has a nose like a carrot, well...
The Lillith predating eve story was never part of the Christian bible, nor was it ever part of the Jewish canon either. It was a bit of obscure hebrew folklore that appears to derive from some mesopotamian legends (in whose mythology lillith was a demon). There's one or two scattered references to a lillith demon in Jewish lore, but not the lillith predating eve story, that was purely from adapted folklore rather than any of their written/canonical works.
Lilith comes to us from both the Zohar and the Alphabet of Ben Sira. The Alphabet would've been written around 180-175 bc if it was written by Ben Sira. The Sirach which is canonical is also attributed to the same writer. Most of the extant copies date from the 10th century or later and not surprisingly, all come from the collections of Rabbis. For non-canonical works, they certainly seem to be common enough in Rabbinical libraries.
Similarity between the names Lilith and the deity Lilitu aren't a coincidence. Most of the names given in the bible are changed slightly to be at the least less flattering and at the most downright insulting. It makes sense, considering that you wouldn't want your enemies' name surviving past his death in your holy texts. Although that doesn't quite jibe with the belief that knowing your enemy's name gives you power over him.
Think nothing of it. Besides, I couldn't have done it w/out (guys like) you.
...or you. Thanks, much respect and all that.
Cheers!
[QUOTE=1 ton ghost;17164894
I think your contention is meritous here though. This (the sexual hedonism, etc) is just stuff I heard when reading about the Jackobites & timeline and so forth, the depravity and all. Pilgrims & Puritans were just fed up colonials is all I'm saying. Alot of that goin' on really.
They must have been pretty fed-up to up sticks to a far-flung and unknown land.
Happy Halloween everyone. Remember, when trick or treating tonight, that if she has a nose like a carrot, well...
... Just don't bite it.
On another note one of the cited evidences for the Lilith legend is the fact the first paragraph of genesis mentions God making man and woman on the 6th day (I think it was the 6th day) and the next one tells the story of the Eve creation AFTER Adam's. Of course it could simply be non chronological repetition, but it does give the impression of two creation stories cobbled together.
Has anyone out there read Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God, Primitive Mythology"?
Has anyone out there read Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God, Primitive Mythology"?
Years ago. Back then I thought he was one of the dryest, most difficult reads I've ever endured.
Cheers!
Prost!
Everyone have a good one (holiday)? Plenty of chills and thrills for the kiddies? Anyone dress as a witch/warlock or are we getting old now?
Hope no one got egged by neighborhood kids (pay your protection money [candy]), needles in their Hershey bars, or forced to watch crap horror films on cable (cuz' I finally saw 5 minutes of Killer Clowns from Outer Space and Friday the 13th XVIMCIII and "suck" does not do them justice).
They must have been pretty fed-up to up sticks to a far-flung and unknown land.
Where: Well, to be fare, it had been discovered and crudely mapped out, but they were way off course. ie)Plymouth Rock was "supposed to be" way the Hell South, think Jametown, Roanoke, etc. The Virginias. But they landed in Mass. So, maybe they would've had the witch trials there, but admittedly, their lives would've been much easier in that more southern climate and perhaps w/ that small concession/leg up, easier times might have lessened the accusations and trials. Just speculation.
As to why they fled, well, England was a cesspool. The open sex and general degree of promiscuity was intense. A backlash was inevitable.
You should watch "The Libertine" (Johnny Depp, art haus, indie film) to get a pretty good measure of the times. Fairly accurate, not too much fluff. Moral decay is just 1 word to describe the homeland. And then, of course, "The Dutchess" (Kira Knightley
) around the times is celebrated as the Dutchess of Devonsire for having an affair/causing a big scandal. ... Just don't bite it.
You can "get better" from being polymorphed into a newt btw.
On another note one of the cited evidences for the Lilith legend is the fact the first paragraph of genesis mentions God making man and woman on the 6th day (I think it was the 6th day) and the next one tells the story of the Eve creation AFTER Adam's. Of course it could simply be non chronological repetition, but it does give the impression of two creation stories cobbled together.
I know very little of "Lilith" save for her rampant citations and appearances in Vampire the Masquerade and of course, "Faiser". Both are pretty evil though ;) .
Has anyone out there read Joseph Campbell's "The Masks of God, Primitive Mythology"?
Not that text, though a metric ton of other works he did for Religion, Ethics, and Religion & Film for college. Initially, he reads like stereo instructions, but once I cut my teeth in those classes, it started to fall into place. Brilliant thinker.
Santa Claus is Saint Nicklaus. I don't know the exact point at which Saint became Santa, but to make Satan out of it is just silly, considering the origin.
I figure as silly as the concept of a jolly fat man handing out gifts with expecting nothing in return. The whole idea seems fishy to me, especially with the wanting kids to sit on his lap.
Santa = Saint
And Lucifer = Angel, and Joke/Sarcasm = not picked up on.
As far as greed goes, you're right. Dead freakin' on. People forget that it was about giving, not receiving. But in our modern world, where instant gratification is so prevalent, is it any wonder that children follow their parents' example?
Not to mention that the whole holiday is built on a lie to allow the pagans to incorporate into the faith with less friction.
Which is why opinions are so dangerous.
But there's nothing that can be helped with that, since there's no truth only perception.
On a side note, has anyone else wondered when political correctness is going to force the ol jolly fat man, I refer to Santa Claus btw or as I like to call him (since he's almost always portrayed as white) the 'Christmas Cracker', will be considered to be promoting bad health and diabetes and be forced to slim down.
Not to mention that the whole holiday is built on a lie to allow the pagans to incorporate into the faith with less friction.
As a Christian heretic, I celebrate Yule as a winter solstice festival. From a Christian viewpoint, of course, but I don't associate it with the King's birth or anything like that.
That is, right before Christmas break, the lesson planning those weeks gave a healthy nod to the those times as they synch up w/ our own (times). Basically, as I recall from the class lectures and translations, Christmas' foundations are in the Roman holiday of "Saturnalia".
I can't remember the specifics, but the namesake is probably a fairly decent indicator given their polytheistic backbone. Probably just another way for a different culture to find a reason to celebrate through the planet's harshest season (a morale booster).
Related: Christmas, in terms of a year's time, has the highest incidence of suicide. Lack of serotonin/vitamin 'D' from low sun exposure? Extra long work shifts? Stress of further human traffic? Colds and ailment more common? Shopping? Bills? Alot of things.
IMO, I think it's the colorful backdrop of goodwill and cheer which only further adds contrast to one's own suffering, etc. ie)When you're down, life sucks, etc., and you see others w/ good fortune and celebrating good times, etc., it often just makes you feel worse. Or, if you rather, "Misery loves company."
Like Chritmas, Yuletide, or whatever else you want to call it. People need to find a way to stay happy and find existential peace-of-mind...
...which is ironic considering Roman culture: orgies, decadent eating (and vomitoriums), many luxuries from extensive trade, a multitude of different entertainments (the theatre, gladiatorial combat, extensive arts & the humanities), etc. It's never enough. Remind you of a similar culture?
As for Christ's birth, I think it was speculated to be around March. The little factoid that was presented to me eons ago was an odd one, zoological in terms of chronology: the sheep had just been shorn of their wool IIRC which, I believe is the indication of Spring. Not easy being a wooly critter in the Middle East and wool was a major commodity.
Don't quote me on this though as it is purely speculation and the spirit of the holiday is more important than pinning down the exact date.
...which is ironic considering Roman culture: orgies, decadent eating (and vomitoriums), many luxuries from extensive trade, a multitude of different entertainments (the theatre, gladiatorial combat, extensive arts & the humanities), etc.
Orgies were a greek custom, the Romans just borrowed it. Mostly because the Romans envied the greeks.
I don't see what's so decadent about a hallway in a stadium (re: vomitorium doesn't mean what you think it does. Literally, the ideas that romans had building dedicated to vomiting is based on a skit from Saturday Night Live. I'm serious.)
Rome was actually dirt poor throughout most of its later days (which helped boost christianity from an upopular jewish sect to a religion in its own right, christianity tends to do better during hard times. But then again Byzantium was wealthy beyond belief and they were more devout than the romans. I don't know how to assimilate that data into my schema yet :p)
Comparing Americans to Romans is a bit unfair. Other than both being republics and being dominant cultures, there's not a lot of similarities. (for example, Americans are nowhere near as militaristic as the Romans. They were a hardcore people, ignore the rumors of decadance. They had a couple decadent emperors, and people think they all were like that. Gaius Germanicus was an exception, not the rule.
Of course, I think Americans like to flatter themselves by comparing themselves to a country that stood for over a thousand years. We got a long ways to go, people.
They had a couple decadent emperors, and people think they all were like that. Gaius Germanicus was an exception, not the rule.
Germanicus? He was one of the good ones. I think you've got Caligula, Claudius, Diocletian, Nero, Tiberius or Hadrian in mind. The best of the Roman emperors were Germanicus, Augustus, Trajan and Marcus Aurelius. Unless, of course, you were trying to say something entirely contrary to your point.
And of the emperors you listed, I can't see what's so bad about most of them. Claudius was a paranoid jerk, and Nero did king of set off a bad precedent of blaming Christians for things after what basically amounts to an early case of Insurance fraud, Tiberius was actually pretty awesome until his son died and he flipped out, and Hadrian is literally known to history as the third of the "Five good emperors". But that's a far cry from the pleasure-mad hedonists that people associate with Rome. Most of those dudes were actually pretty hard-core.
But that's a far cry from the pleasure-mad hedonists that people associate with Rome. Most of those dudes were actually pretty hard-core.
There is nothing wrong with the hedonism of ancient Rome. Yes, it was considerably more liberal in regard to the puritanical beliefs of Christianity, but they weren't Christian, were they? Could ancient Rome be considered any worse than Haight Asbury in the 60s? It was a time of excess, but that's going to be there in any successful and thriving republic.
Romans were christian for the latter portion of their existance, actually. In the last century of the roman empire, it was actually illegal to NOT be a christian.
And that excess is acceptable? I'd rather have the wild sexual expression, to be honest.
And that excess is acceptable? I'd rather have the wild sexual expression, to be honest.
It's no more acceptable than it being illegal to be a Christian, upon pain of a painful death. As in, beaten, stoned, crucified, torn apart by animals, burned as garden lights, etc...
"Belief" with no choice is no belief at all.
Joke/Sarcasm = not picked up on.
I recognized that it was probably a joke, but there is nothing on these boards, irrespective of how completely pants-on-head-retarded it is, that someone won't post and believe with absolute sincerity.
Also, "joke" and "sarcasm" are not synonymous.
...which is ironic considering Roman culture: orgies, decadent eating (and vomitoriums),
These are both largely myths.
Isaiah 34:14...and she is also accounted in the Dead Sea Scrolls...It seems in line with Gilgamesh.
The problem with Lilith being the "first" women is that it is merely speculation.
The Alphabet of Ben Sira is dated from 700-1000AD...
My personal opinion is that
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
Reflects trinity. When you have duality, like male and female...there is really trinity because you really have male, female, and the combination...
I do think the neat thing about Christianity is how it take a gambit of beliefs from many many different cultures...
Besides it is cute when a religion persecutes others yet adheres to similar practices. Hypocrisy is always funny.
Lilith does appear in the bible...
Isaiah 34:14...
Depends on the version of the bible. In King James version, it says "the screech owl" instead of Lillith. The New American Standard bible says "night monster ", while the New International Version says "night creatures". And the Contemporary English version simply says "and creatures of the night will live among the ruins." This list is not exhaustive... but you see the point...
What was I saying about editing??
Depends on the version of the bible. In King James version, it says "the screech owl" instead of Lillith. The New American Standard bible says "night monster ", while the New International Version says "night creatures". And the Contemporary English version simply says "and creatures of the night will live among the ruins." This list is not exhaustive... but you see the point...
What was I saying about editing??
Ya...irregardless whether people hide their head under a pillow or not...Lilith is in there...
Lilith first appears in Sumerian...Coincidentally Isaiah dates to around the 6th century BC...which is about the time when the Babylon had a grip on the Jewish people...
It is like how heaven and hell came to be except that was when the Persians were in power then...
It is kinda funny how the oppressing cultures beliefs trickle and change in the oppressed...
So many different beliefs...so many sources...so many reasons. It is a puzzle that few take the time to look at...and in reality you are only putting a puzzle together with a fraction of pieces available...
While religions burrow mysteries and stuff from others...I am sure the truth's to many allegories were lost to the sands of time.
Depends on the version of the bible. In King James version, it says "the screech owl" instead of Lillith. The New American Standard bible says "night monster ", while the New International Version says "night creatures". And the Contemporary English version simply says "and creatures of the night will live among the ruins." This list is not exhaustive... but you see the point...
What was I saying about editing??
The better question is what version he's using that has the word "Lillth" in it.
The better question is what version he's using that has the word "Lillth" in it.
לילית
The language it was mis-translated from...
It is like that in the Dead Sea Scrolls too...
The only weirdness, though, for me...is why is "she" only referenced once. I wonder what was omitted...
I do not believe she was the "first" woman...but it is interesting to know more. I think the best bet would be to look at how she was used by other cultures and maybe draw the conclusion that she was viewed much the same by the Jewish people.
The Alphabet of Ben Sira is dated from 700-1000AD...
The book that we have handed down to us was indeed penned at around the tenth century. When it was originally written is another matter. Ben Sira lived in the early second century BC. He established a rabbinical school in Egypt at around 180-175 BC, so the question would be whether that particular Ben Sira authored the Alphabet.
And the Contemporary English version simply says "and creatures of the night will live among the ruins."
Ruins? Pardon my ignorance, but what bloody ruins would there be at the beginning of all of mankind? If there were no other people, before, there were no ruins for the creatures of the night to live among. Unless of course Adam wasn't the first man, in which case the ruins make sense and so does the wife Cain took from the people in the land of Nod.
The book that we have handed down to us was indeed penned at around the tenth century. When it was originally written is another matter. Ben Sira lived in the early second century BC. He established a rabbinical school in Egypt at around 180-175 BC, so the question would be whether that particular Ben Sira authored the Alphabet.
I do not think Ben Sira is responsible for the Alphabet of Ben Sira...
another thing to look at...
Nebuchadnezzar and Ben Sira...were they upon the earth in the same time frame? In the Alphabet of Ben Sira it is about Ben Sira and Neb's interaction.
And that excess is acceptable? I'd rather have the wild sexual expression, to be honest.
That's nice. That has nothing to do with my thesis that Rome wasn't as hedonistic as was rumored. But I don't mind you having and expressing an opinion.