Hi Jack
Actually I would not worry too much about the landover site: I believe they are a parody site that is involved in poking fun at some of the more fundamentalist christian beliefs.
"Pastor Fred" ( who explains it will take two years on the waiting list before you can get to attend a service in his church, and that the most important thing a christian can do after being saved is get a suit and tie, is rather into dark satiric humor.)
You might want also to look at his bios of the staff, in particular the "ladies club", to get an idea of his (very sardonic) point of view.
All the best, Yasmin



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/19/2007 02:24PM by yasmin.

HI Jack,
I sort of skimmed over what you wrote. I'm going to go back and read it in better detail later. I just want to say quickly that I agree with Yasmin, this Landover Baptist site must be a hoax. I'm a Baptist and I have never and...seriuosly I mean not EVER heard any derogatory comment ever made about ''witches''. I know that to practice wicca is contrary to putting faith in a Creator. That's about it. I mean...it's just a theology and nothing to kill over. As for the inquisition, it's aweful. I couldn't possibly argue that. Actually ... and I'm not preaching here but...historically Baptists are known for getting slaughtered. Seriously. There are writings in some Catholic historical books from around 300ad where the leaders of the church write about the ''trail of blood'' that they left behind after slaughtering untold numbers of Anabaptists(Baptists). I'm not Catholic bashing....at least I hope not. I'm just saying that over the centuries lots of people have been attacked for their ideology. It goes against the teaching of the Bible to kill or torture anyone for their ideas.
Aren't the landover baptists that group that said soldiers deserved to die? If they are then for sure..I think they must be a hoax.

Yeah, the Landover Baptists, as Monty Python wrote in 'Life Of Brian', "they're just a bunch of very naughty boys.' So, I'll ignore their humour.

For a decent start to any research on Wicca or witchcraft, you can't go wrong reading: The Spiral Dance (Starhawk) or the above mentioned text, Women's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets (Barbara Walker). There are many more, but I wholeheartedly recommend any text by Starhawk.

Additionally, and now I'll be arrogant, everyone should study/read the classic mythological texts. Okay, they can be viewed simply as 'fairytales', but, just like the Bible, the soul is in the metaphor. Even 'modern' fairytales, like Three Little Pigs, are a valuable source of metaphor and analogy. I mean, how else can we understand or communicate abstract ideas except through metaphor or analogy? If you have the patience and strength of will, I would also place poets high on the list of literary prophets capable of communicating the whole gamut of our human condition.

Would the Bible be so potent without these metaphors?

In the meantime, I'll do some research on the early Baptists and their persecution.

Baptists were originally referred to as 'ana'baptists because ana means 're' and they were 're'baptising persons that the church had already baptised as infants. This was considered an offense against the principals and sovereignty of the church.
As to analogies, metaphors and poetry yes..without them the Bible could not exist.
Hypothetically speaking...would you 'want' to believe in a Creator? Not just any Creator, but one who loved His creation. I'm just speaking hypothetically and not attributing any absolutes . What if the only thing this Creator ever called his creation was 'good'. What if 'bad' were defined as seperation from a loving Creator and 'good' were defined as closeness to a loving Creator? Would you want that to be a truth?
As to writings from Starhawk..it sounds familiar. I'm going to do a google search right now.

Quote
Sallie
Hypothetically speaking...would you 'want' to believe in a Creator? Not just any Creator, but one who loved His creation. I'm just speaking hypothetically and not attributing any absolutes . What if the only thing this Creator ever called his creation was 'good'. What if 'bad' were defined as seperation from a loving Creator and 'good' were defined as closeness to a loving Creator? Would you want that to be a truth?

What do you mean? Is this just a random question or does it have some context to what we've been discussing?

My gut and reasoning tends to favour the scientific view and process in answering such questions. So, I suppose I have doubts concerning a Godly Creator, especially one titled, Him. There is just too much conflicting evidence (and I mean hard evidence, which I'm happy to share) to suggest that what the Bible says about the world being created in six days or that Eve was created from Adam's rib is nothing but fanciful (even dangerous & controlling). Okay, it is metaphorical, but what do the metaphors suggest?

The more I study world mythologies, including Jewish and Christian texts, the more I am convinced that the Bible is anything but fact. It certainly isn't historical fact. I mean, anyone who had anything to do with writing the Bible had no first-hand experience. In fact, most of what constitutes the Bible was written 400 years after the fact. Most scholars believe the earliest book of the New Testament was 1 Thessalonians, written perhaps 51 AD by Paul, who never saw Jesus in person and knew no details of his life.

My questions to you: 1) Do you think that the idea of god is diminished by giving it a sex? 2) Do you think that the Holy Bible was written by God? 3) Was Jesus and his 'miracles' unique (meaning: were there earlier examples of this type of hero and his actions)?

HI Jack,
The question is sort of random. I'm projecting a little. I actually 'want' to believe in a benevolent Creator and sometimes assume that everyone else does as well. I hadn't heard that Thessalonians was the first NT book. I did hear that John's gospel was written in 90AD. I also find it interesting that many scholars think the first of all the books was Job, even pre-dating Genesis.
As to God being referred to as a He...no I don't think He is diminished by that. I believe He is triune and the Holy Spirit is referred to as neuter. Also...the bride of Christ which is the church is referred to in the feminine. I don't think that diminishes anything. Also I do think the Holy Spirit authored the Bible and men wrote it as they were led by the Spirit.
The miracles of Jesus..unique..definitely. I believe he performed all of those miracles and that they were unique...raising the dead, walking on water, ...definitely unique.
One type of Christ hero that is definitely echoed in other mythological tales is the conquerer of the beast. Christ was supposed to conquer the serpent and the tale of a hero conquering a serpent is found all throughout civilization. Also..... the flood story. Almost every ancient civilization tells a story of a 'great people' destroyed by a flood. In Atlantis brilliant mighty men who lived for hundreds of years were destroyed in a flood. Genesis gives the same account. The men and women were living as many as 900+ years and civilization was thriving...then the flood.
I agree that the Bible is metaphorical. I also believe it is pure and perfect fact. That may seem contradictory but, that's because I believe the things of the Spirit are made manifest in the flesh. So great factual stories can often reflect deep spiritual truths or...as you say...abstract ideas.
I don't think God was angry at his creation for persuing knowlege(which is what I had once been taught). It was not the tree of knowlege. It was the tree of knowlege of good and evil. Big...huge difference. And they had permission to touch and view the tree...just the fruit..they were not to ingest it. Metaphor? I think so. I think that tree symbolizes self-righteousness.
I think the Creator wanted to teach us about good and bad rather than have us determine..based on our own carnal nature...what is good and bad. You know an omnipotent and omnipresent being who loves us would be objective. We are subjective and prone to impulsive, flesh driven and self centered acts which are of less value to the universe.
Hope I didn't ramble too much..

I suspect we've strayed quite far off topic...

I also suspect that many of your 'strong' beliefs are based on faith, i.e. wanting to believe something regardless of any debate or contrary information. I think there is a whole body of work that would upset your world view and I suspect you're conditioned to think that this work/information is either blasphemous or the work of the Devil.

My view is that 'truth' cannot be obtained when we have a vested interest in a set of results. As I have stated many times about myself (on posts scattered here and there), I will not follow a reasoning that I consider flawed. I'm not suggesting that Biblical knowledge is fundamentally flawed. What I am saying is that I will always weigh the pros and cons, and, with regard to Biblical knowledge/authority, there is so much supposed misinformation that I can only shake my head (at the supposed ignorance of those who believe in Biblical absolutes).

Now, I'm not saying that I am right, but from your answers it would seem fairly clear that you have come to accept Biblical information as 'pure and perfect fact'. That statement alone gives me a nasty sting in the bum! In fact, from my limited experience, it is dangerous to think what you think.

As I have already suggested, visit Amazon or your local library (not a Christian one - a decent, well-stocked one) and do some reading that challenges the purity of the Bible. It's gonna be hard because, no doubt, accepting some of the diligent research of many learned folk may bring on new meanings for the flood (my stupid metaphor for tears and sadness).

The bottomline for me is that I refuse to just believe something because it sounds right or makes me feel better (or, more importantly, because it was instilled in me at an early age by those who love me). No doubt you'll have to deal with a fairly well-developed sense of fear to make that first step. Yeah, I'm being presumptious, but please know that I do not harbour any negative feelings toward you or anyone else in your position.

If all else fails, just call me an arrogant pr!ck!

Hi Jack,
We did get way off topic. I'm going to try and steer the discussion back to Wicca but first, let me say sincerely that we are not saying anything so different really. Definitely a belief in the Bible takes a leap of faith. I never deny that. I love the public library. You are right in that science can validate anything and....my 'faith' causes me to favor the evidence which supports my beliefs. But also you know...scores of people will mis-interpret the Bible because of their faith. My interest on the thread entitled ''what the Bible says about race''...was because I have heard proffessing Bible believers try to say that ... the Bible prefers one race over another. It says no such thing. But some people have ''faith'' in their own superiority and ''read into'' the Bible something which does not exist. Cult leaders do that(so we're getting back on topic). Cult leaders have faith in their own god-like superiority and will often take and twist statements out of the Bible to support their perverted views and, because of that the ''way of truth is badly spoken of''(that's a Biblical paraphrase).
About Wicca...my understanding was that these are practices which empower an individual to control or manipulate their environment in a supernatural way. If the practitioner takes into account those around them and tries to positively affect them it is considered ''white'' and if the practices are intended to do harm it is considered ''black''.
Anyway this implies a lack of faith in God's ability and desire to do it for you... nothing to kill over. Your original post mentions Christians killing practioners of Wicca. That's horricble. You know I believe there was a sorcerer in the book of Acts who wanted to ''buy'' the power which the Apostles seemed to possess. They preached at him. No violence...no killing.
I do really and sincerely..with all my heart believe that to kill ''in the name of Christ'' ...is just not possible....unless a person is a David Keresh type liar.
BTW I don't find your views to be arrogant because they seem well thought out.
Back on topic...
I don't know why a person who practices Wicca would want to do violence against someone of the Christian faith. If there is a history of animosity between the two groups then I still don't see it as a cause for violence.

Sallie, I have to say that you're refreshingly open-minded for a Christian. I say that only because I've spent a lifetime thinking that Christians and other believers are narrow-minded cretins. I use that word cretin on purpose because its root comes from the very word Christian. Let me explain.

From that blasphemous text again:

Certain words reveal by their derivation some of the opposition met by missionaries. The pagan Savoyards called Christians "idiots", hence "cretin" or "idiot" descended from Chretien or "Christian". German pagans coined the term "bigot" from "bei Gott", an expression constantly used by the monks. Christians were the first to insist that there was only one god, and it was theirs. This attitude tended to produce resentment among worshippers of other gods.

Now, I'm not saying I believe 'anything' until it is confirmed by 'hard' evidence. Hard evidence, like history, can be a slippery thing because it is important to understand the agenda of the person or institute that provides this evidence. Having said that, weighing up all the evidence, usually provides some sort of 'truth'. But, as I said, this truth can be slippery because time and time again this 'truth' can change. Scientific fact is a good case in point - and all to its credit.

Getting back on topic, I think anyone, including Wiccans, who commit acts of violence are immature individuals. I agree that it often takes a very irresponsible but charismatic leader to instigate such things. I can't help but compare it to the rise of cyber-bullying in our communities. The peer group can be a dangerous phenomena. And the biggest peer group of our present age are our leaders and politicians, who have proved recently to be very violent role-models.

HI Jack,
Which is the text that you were quoting from? They mention Christians being the first to insist on one god....? Monotheism is also a Jewish and Islamic concept. Also...it is not ''our'' god...because the Christian God is the Creator of the Universe. Christians pray to what we believe is ''everybody's'' Creator. Perhaps they were reffering to the belief that Jesus is the ''only'' way to heaven. Jesus is what/who seperates Christianity from the other monotheistic religions.
The peer grouop is and has always been a dagerous phenomena. Pilot crucified Jesus, who he believed was innocent, because of peer pressure. I think in almost every age there have been violent leaders and politicians who are violent role models. The difference between a cult and a wicked fascist regime is not so big. I am so grateful to be living in a democracy. Even though an immature and irresponsible (though charismatic) leader may be voted in...at least there is a limit to their term in office.
I actually don't call cult leaders immature, I call them narcissists. A narcissist is a person whose self-centerdness is actually infantile. They define 'good' as that which pleases them and 'bad' as that which displeases them. It stands to reason that they would want to be godlike(determiners of good and bad). Such a subjective view of the world we live in cannot make us productive members of society. The more objective a person is, the more able they are to be a benefit to others.