Religious Debate Thread

[artemis-lady-warrior]

my, aren't we feeling mean today? I wasn't laughing at the belief system I was laughing at something different entirely because some of the stuff they believe sounded silly. Besides, I apologized for being rude.

It's not my fault 7knightwolf is calling peoples ideas insane. and sinead might be calling your stuff ridiculous but YOU'RE doing the exact same thing!

and sugar pills have nothing to do with CANCER! How can you explain CANCER suddenly disappearing without kemo OR an operation? Have you ever seen a demon cast out of somebody? No I don't believe you have. I have and it's the last thing you'll ever want to see

You know people SANE people act? I'm sure you do. The way these people act and talk is beyond explanation. Unless you see it for yourself you won't understand but you cannot tell me I am lying about it and if you do you don't have any grounds to say such things.

as for faith and proof. I have faith he exists because I KNOW he exists. My proof is in nature. The proof is all around you.

Let me ask you something. You say science explains everything. Okay then. How come science STILL can't explain what causes a cat to purr? There's nothing unique that would cause such a thing to happen yet it does.

[Sinead]

To comment briefly because I'm waiting for a ride to go to the ER and get a bad cold taken care of, I'm just going to say something about this:

Those that have faith in god should not require proof of god to have faith in god.

My beef, as it were, are people who search for proof of God whilst having faith in god. In my view it shows a certain weakness of faith, though it is entirely possible I'm mistaken.

I have ti insist that it is indeed entirely possible that you are mistaken. I have faith in God. I have faith that He exists. I want to know more about Him. So I search for proof of Him to STRENGTHEN that faith. Faith is the skeletal structure. Proof are the muscles and tendons. And why don't doctors want to have people in the hospitals, praying for the sick to be healed? Well, multiple reasons.

Patient-doctor confidentiality.

Conflict of faith systems.

Disbelief that the healing is true.

Atheism.

For those who are in the hospital and ask their pastors and/or church family to pray for them, it's recorded that they have something in the area of a 75% greater chance of getting better faster.

As for your argument about "seek and you shall find," did I specifically say that it was ONLY for finding God? No! But I said that seeking brings answers. The formatting makes it look like I was referring only to seeking God. That was not my intended message. If you want to nitpick my words and what you perceive as my intentions, well, I'm gonna nitpick yours where you are clearly wrong. If you want to quote the Bible, be my guest. But do us all a favor and research what you're quoting. Go back to the Greek for the New Testament and find out what it really means.

BTW.

Jesus made things easy to understand and used stories and examples to explain the Kingdom of Heaven. That's the explanation for the second scripture you decided to quote. It was for the Jews to begin to understand the Law of Moses in a new light.

[Nurann]

You might say that our soul's capacity for existence is the same as God's. That we never had a starting point. But then... what significance does God have in Wiccanism or reincarnation? Did he create our souls? Or were our souls as infinite as his, not only in the henceforth, but the previous? … But this gets back into my idea of God's necessity to exist, because He is the only One with enough power to go beyond human comprehension and exist forever (and either the universe, or God needed this power. The universe does not have it). But in terms of reincarnation, this raises a ton of questions. Is your god all-powerful? Are our souls (recognize, they must be powerful enough by themselves to break the laws of time, or they must be empowered by God to be eternal)? The ability to break the laws of time ourselves should endow us with a lot more power than we have now, shouldn't it? And if we break the laws of time along with god, then how in the world is he the lucky won who managed to get all the rest of the power and regulation necessity? And how come we have to work our way towards Nirvana if we are timeless? For if we are indeed timeless in a backwards sense of motion, shouldn't we have learned every possible lessson already?

Lol oh Blazemane, I'm not gonna have to go find the Charge of the Goddess to explain this, am I?
Simply put, yes, the Goddess made the universe and us. It's actually waaaay more complex than that, but I'm not sure how to put it in a way that won't either a. make people angry or b. create unnecessary confusion. I guess I'll try anyways… and maybe throw in some play time to demonstrate.

The Goddess and God made us. At the same time, we are the God and Goddess. The divine energy that is our souls is a part of Them, just like how our bodies were made from our parents and are a part of them.

Is that okay, or should I reframe that again?

Here's a couple of fun exercises to demonstrate just what kind of gifts we were given:

1. The Energy Ball exercise

a. Close your eyes. Take a few deep breaths. Now notice your breathing, your heart rate, the chair you are sitting in, etc. Now notice any tingles or vibrations in your body. Just sit there and contemplate on them for a moment.
b. Next, "grounding;" imagine you are a tree. Sink your roots down into the depths of the earth. Imagine all those vibrations and any distracting thoughts or emotions going down through your roots and into the ground, being purified by the earth. When you're done, pull your roots back up and notice how you feel.
c. Now you can open your eyes, or not. Put the palms of your hands together and rub them together really fast for about 30 seconds.
d. Pull your hands apart slightly and try to make that tingling energy into a ball. Visualize, feel, and hear, the energy forming into a ball.

Do this exercise as often as you want, as many times over as you want. Once you get the hang of it, you can do all sorts of things with the ball. The club I was in once even tried playing catch with it!

2. Time Bending

a. This is for the next time you are running late for something. I use this all the time when I'm running late for class. Take a few deep breaths. Repeat the grounding exercise from exercise 1. After pulling up your roots, notice your mind opening up to the world around you. One way you can help this process is by imagining you are listening the way you do when you are listing to God.
b. Imagine yourself getting to wherever you need to be, a few minutes before you need to get there. Picture your arrival, what time the clock will say when you get there, whatever you need to do to make the scenario complete in your mind. Hold this image in your mind as you start to walk, drive, ride the bus, etc.
c. Now just go! Know that you will get there on time. Obsessing over the time will break your concentration, so turn off any clocks in the vehicle, or put your watch away until you get to your destination. It takes a little bit of practice, but once you get the hang of it you will be amazed at how well it works!

3. Chameleon

a. This one isn't to be used frivolously, because it invokes the energy associated with Dragons. If you are doing something wrong, and you know it, a dragon "won't snort a nostril" to help you. Ground as in the previous exercises.
b. As you say the following chant, imagine the edges of your body blurring and fading into each other.

Dragon fog and chameleon sight
I command the shrouded sea
I blend the mist I mix the light,
Refract, around, behind me.

This one won't make you invisible per se, but if you don't want someone to notice you then as long as they aren't thinking of you then they won't notice you. This one also takes practice to hold the image of blurring yourself. It's the image you create of yourself that really holds the power here. I've used this in a number of unsafe situations. It's a wonderful tool to have in your aresenal of skills.

The point of all this is to show that we don’t give ourselves enough credit. The very cores of our beings are a part of the Divine, and we can tap into the power that was given to us and IS us.

People can choose to stay in the Summerland forever? Where's the cycle in that? We go through a few cycles maybe to learn our lessons, but I mean if you can choose to stay in the Summerland forever, you might take one life and never go back right? That definitely wouldn't be cyclical.

Okay, I didn't say it was mandatory to reincarnate. We're all about free will; it's the greatest gift we were given. I'd feel sad if everyone didn't do it, but it's their prerogative. I'd like to believe the Goddess and God would like us to do it, but They aren't going to make us. Were are Them and They are us, so the more we learn and grow and love, the more we give back to Them and to ourselves. The more we work to perfect ourselves, the more we contribute to the perfection of the whole. We are all One, after all.

One thing I noticed, between both source 3 and 4... why does this all take place in Southeast Asia? Why does nobody from, for example, America, seem to remember previous lives? And why no memories of lives, as say... animals?

Well, lemme give you a glimpse of what it's like over here in the Minority peanut gallery! Christianity is the majority here. We aren't. You can find the statistics on just how many Christians there are for yourself. Fact is, there are a lot more of you in the world that I think you're giving yourselves credit for. Historically, majorities have a habit of squashing minorities. Here in Western culture, anything that isn't either Christian or scientific usually gets repressed. If it isn't repressed subtly, it's labelled as evil or wrong and is destroyed or heavily persecuted. Take your statements towards Rakshash; you've been saying Islam has a number of condemning factors in it, such as getting into heaven is a maybe, and that it promotes war with other religions. You've been… fairly… civil in your arguments in saying that. A lot of people aren't. Generally when people hear the word "Muslim" they think of terrorists and bombings, and will say as much. Over here in the West, Islam is a minority and is subjected to discrimination and ignorance. Over in the middle-East, it's an every-day part of life. Same with reincarnation in the East and West. It ain't Christian or scientific, so repress it. Point is, you don't hear about it in the US because most of the kids get so pumped full of anti-psychotic medication that don't know which end is up anyways. Then the kids are told they are wrong and to never speak of it again. Reincarnation is not a Christian or scientific subject, and is ignored here. In Asia, it's more accepted. That's why the research is done there – because they haven't squashed it like the West has. It’s possible to find families willing to cooperate over there.

This could be a trick by evil forces to confuse the world.

I find it really unfortunate that you believe that, Blazemane. It must be challenging to have to worry all the time about being tricked by the spiritual forces you believe in.

I know I skipped over a good deal of your reply. I'm a bit short on time myself, actually. If there is anything specific you would like me to address in my next reply, please let me know and I would be happy to respond.

Put yourself in my shoes and think from my perspective.

Razor, the true meaning of what you say isn't only the words you put forward, but also how others perceive those words. Even if you didn't mean offence, someone may still take offence. Understand that it happens. If you ask someone to put themselves in your shoes, you do it too.

Next, don't stick words in people's mouths, please. For example:

If YOU can laugh at an entire belief system.
If 7Knight can call a subset of humanity insane.
If Sinead can call my arguments ridiculous.

Why is it that it only becomes objectionable when I use the term correctly and in the correct context? If it's okay for you to laugh at others, their arguments and so on, why is it NOT okay for me to do the same?

They did not say that, so don't say that they said that. Show some respect for your peers by asking what they mean before making assumptions.

I challenged Nurann when she stated the moon does not rotate

Prime, but leave me out of your dodging of responsibilty, please. If somebody misunderstood you, clarify in a way that person will understand instead of pointing fingers at other people's misunderstandings.

I know the desk in front of me exists. I know the chair beneath me exists. I can see them, I can touch them, were I to hit them I could hear the sound they would make, and if I were so inclined I could smell and taste them as well.

Knowing that God Exists, as incontrevertibly as this chair or this desk is what destroys faith in my argument. You seem to be stating that knowledge ABOUT God, who he is, as opposed to whether or not he exists.

Someone that is blind has no reason to believe the colour blue exists. To that person, it doesn't. A person with sight can argue that of course the colour blue exits, its right there! But how does the blind person know? Can you give objective proof to a blind person that the colour blue exists? From the blind person's point of view, the simplest answer is that blue doesn't exist because it simply isn't a part of their world. Just because someone can see something you can't, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Five pages and three hours later... X_X

[artemis-lady-warrior]

oh boy! New age stuff. woooo! XD

meh. I've heard about all this stuff before. Frank Peretti mentions a lot of this stuff in his Darkness books.

No offense but I can assure you that I am NOT a god or goddess. I'm an imperfect human who can't create a masterpiece much less an entire universe.

*reads the stuff you wrote again* oh man.. my mind is melting... are you SURE you're Wiccan?

NOTE: I'm not trying to make fun of you so please don't think that.

[Rakshash]

Hey Blazemane.

Rakshash! Hello there, hope you didn't think I'd forgotten about you, hee hee hee.

Hello

God gives time-specific commandments to the Israelites also. But in the Old Testament, it is always given, in the text, what context the commandment is from. My problem with the verses in the Qu'Ran is that they seem to give timeless commandments because they don't explain the context the commandments are given in.

Mmm. I think if one reads the verses one after the other then you’d get it’s referring to an event. If you go a couple of verses back there are mentions of “When God promised you…” and “On that day when…” which refers to some incident or occurrence.

The Quran I have (and most of the ones I’ve seen) have the margins filled with the interpretation by its side. I’ve never seen one in English though otherwise I would have recommended it.

But there are clues if you look for them. For example the eighth chapter is called “Anfal” meaning “the accessions.” A lot of the verses there are related to the battle of badr.

Muslims don’t have a problem with this since along with the Quran we’re supposed to follow “sunnah” which comes from studying the life and behaviour of the Prophet and by extension his followers. That requires a knowledge of history which is prevalent in our culture.

As it stands, I can't exactly debate with you on the verses right now, because I don't have enough basis in Islamic history to verify which verses were from which battles.

This is a complete chronology of Islamic history. http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/history/chr ... tury7.html

This is about the impact where the chapter was revealed had on its content.
http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Sate ... FLSELayout

If he seems to disagree though, I really won't know what to say.

Me neither.

He is extremely experienced with Islamic theology, but I mean- come on- so should the scholars you mentioned be.

But you know, it needn’t be that hard. When it comes to religions Islamic history is relatively recent. I mean, I’ve seen the graveyards of the people who died in those battles and the battlefields themselves. The survivors have had their sayings recorded. If you read the works of any historian (Muslim or not) they will have mentioned two major battles. Badr and Uhud.

http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Battle-of-Badr
http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Battle-of-Uhud

As for the myth you presented, I don't know that anybody said that Allah would through you in hell if your good outweighed your bad. I don't think... anybody thinks that. The closest person to asserting that was me, and what I did say was that our good deeds, in and of themselves would never outweigh our bad deeds.

Erm. *twiddles thumbs*

You haven’t read all the posts here, have you? That myth was actually a quote word for word for something another honourable member said. That was me talking to her.

Notice, you said "That means any Muslim with a good heart, a compassionate nature, who does good deeds for others etc can and will wind up in Heaven."

Um. Stop me if this sounds funny but I think you’re taking me out of context! Lol.

Do read the conversation before that. The issue was whether Muslims thought they could go to Heaven or not. Non-Muslims didn’t enter into it. And it’s a very good example of what I said before: what precedes and follows a statement has drastic effects on its interpretation. Whether it’s the Quran or a normal conversation. Lol

Secondly, Allah will have mercy if bad outweighs good?

If appropriate, sure. Why not.

But not on everyone?

Depends on what that person is like. A mass murderer claiming to be Muslim will be treated differently from a Muslim who was rude to his neighbour. Similarly a non-Muslim mass murderer will be treated differently from a little old lady who loves Jesus and feeds the birds.

And it's based on intention?

I don't think I can say anymore on this, but yes. A lot of it does. A good guy who does good for worldly gain aint gonna look too good.

So... my problem here is that I see no guarantee, not even for Muslims, and especially not for those who aren't Muslims.

To get into Heaven a Muslim has to avoid the greater sins. This is broken down to the sentence: every Muslim who believes in God, that they are answerable to what they do and does good deeds on this earth will go to Heaven. And repent truly for whatever wrong they've done.

Taking it from that very minimum requirement, a worthy Muslim builds on that. Belief in God in Islam means believing in all the Prophets, angels, heaven, hell etc. It’s a spiral beginning starting with a basic but very necessary belief and reaching out to encompass every aspect of life.

Now what about those who don’t have that necessary belief? Not having the necessary belief is a sin. But its not that simple. If you read the dissertation I posted earlier it mentions the view every school of thought in Islam has on the issue of Heaven for non-Muslims. You can skip to the conclusion if you like. And it ties in with 2:62. .

[2.62] Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve.

Those who believe- The Quran refers to its own believers here, the Muslims.

The Jews, the Christians and the Sabians cannot refer to actual Muslims. As in they do not believe in everything the Quran stands for. Everyone who believes in one God, that they are accountable for their acts and do good have nothing to fear. In the garb of a different religion they may be going through the right motions. Yes, the Quran thinks they should be Muslim. But if they aren’t Muslim and are still somehow on the same track, they have nothing to fear. Not that they’ll be elevated to the highest levels of Heaven next to the believing and practicing Muslims. But it’s a start.

In essence (the answer to your question on what it takes for anyone to get to heaven) the three requirements stated in the verse are how to enter heaven on the basic level. For everyone, especially Muslims and including certain non-Muslims.

BUT having said that, yes, you are right that the Quran is not too happy with non-Muslims. But allowances can and will be made for incapability allowing their intentions were to worship a true creator being.

See, there are non-Muslims and there are non-Muslims. There’s a non-Muslim who while being a non-Muslim believes in God, holds him or herself accountable and does good. This is the code of Islam, if not the actual religion.

Then there are non-Muslims who don’t do all of those three things. The best chance they have is that here and there they’ve done some good out of a natural compassionate nature common to human beings. Muslims believe that we are programmed to practice a good life and that even if someone didn’t hear about the message of Islam they would come to the conclusion that there’s one God if they thought about it. (I think Christianity believes sin is inherent to us and we must fight against that tendency - correct me if I’m wrong.) So if a non-Muslim lived their life as they think a good person should, that’s a point scorer. That will help. And then if they weren’t capable of being Muslim anyway (like I mentioned before, see the two classes of non-Muslims) they wouldn’t be tormented in the hereafter. Out of divine mercy. According to Islam and the statements of scholars I’ve posted before.

And if it is about belief, and we are to conclude this verse refers to any god, does that mean athiests are the ones in the most trouble?

Yes, actually. According to Islam people who believe in an absolute deity have a much better chance.

But only Allah knows the intention of the heart, right? Even we, who held the intentions, how are we to know that in the end, our good intentions were what were prevalent? Haven't we all sinned?

I’ve read what I’ve written again and I see I wasn’t clear. When I said “God alone knows your intentions” I mean God alone is the audience of your inner thoughts. I know the intention of my heart and so, I believe, does God. But you have no way of knowing what my ulterior motives are.

And for non-Muslims, there is still risk, even if you somehow knew you were pure of heart?

Um. I'm sorry but I don't understand this question. Cuz a non-Muslim by virtue of being non-Muslim wouldn't care about the risk, wouldn’t even think there’s a risk. If he/she thought they had the purity of heart necessary to get into Muslim heaven they wouldn't be non-Muslims. Non-Muslims don’t believe the Muslim Heaven exists. The view of non-Muslims in heaven is taken by Muslims who have been told that despite non-Muslims not being on Islam's prescribed safe-and-narrow, there are several factors involved and they may not all go to hell.

But… since all of us obviously have our faults (which is also, completely logically true- don’t we always say nobody’s perfect? So why are people afraid to accept that when they get into a theological discussion? Haven’t we all wrongfully offended someone in our lives?), doesn’t that mean we have all offended whichever God is real in an irrevocable way?

Irrevocable? If you accidently hit me then yes, I’d be hurt but if it was an accident I wouldn’t sue you. Or if you are talking about wrongfully offending someone then…say I wrongfully offended someone but the person I offended forgives me. If I, a mere human being can show mercy, how much more an all-powerful being. Having ultimate power doesn’t mean being terrifying. Only God decides what is irrevocable and what is not.

If we sin against someone so high above us, we have committed an ultimate defiance. And our good acts could never make up for that, not only because we sin more than we do good, but nobody that powerful could be impressed by our good deeds in and of themselves, because God is perfect.

God knows our capabilities and we are His creations. Impress? To impress anyone means to amaze, astound, make an impact on. I doubt a creation can amaze its creator, although the creator will love it. The creator would know its limitations and the heights it can reach.

It’s not about impressing God into canceling our sins. Its about whether we ourselves can be forgiven.

Righteousness in itself is not impressive to God, because since He is completely righteous, we’ll never come close to Him anyways.

I think there’s a very different concept we both mean even while talking about the same thing. It seems as though you’re suggesting that God asks us to be righteous and then compares this with His. Why…where does it say that we have to come close to Him in righteousness? How could we anyway, He isn’t tempted by anything. Stealing, lying, lust aren’t subject to Him.

Sin however is an ultimate defiance, because God is perfect, and because He is so high above us. Think about it- what if I was to disobey my parent? Defiance right? Relatively unlikable consequences. What if I were to disobey President Bush (Well, I am an American), or national law in general? It's an even larger defiance right? I am in much less of a position to threaten him than a parent, and there would be *severe* consequences right? So take that up even more. How about if I sin against God, Who is all-powerful? Considering His eternal position above us, there is actually no limit to the consequences.

If God was a machine who had a predictable response to every situation. You sin this X much you get X much. No compromise. That in effect is what happens in blind justice.

But say you sinned that much. But you’re sorry. And you try to make up for it. You can’t make up for it but you try your best. A loving parent would forgive you if you tried to replace that priceless, irreplaceable vase you broke, so why shouldn’t God forgive you if you sin against Him and repent? Your sin against God cannot hurt Him. He’s above that. You hurt yourself. You dig a pit beneath your feet. If you repent God pulls you out.

I’m gonna ignore the Bush and national law comparison because legalities aren’t merciful. There’s a reason they say “justice is blind.” The parent comparison is much more apt. (Islam says the love of God for us is more than that of seventy mothers- seventy being a number meaning many).

Would you obey God, if God said that obedience meant going to hell, and disobedience meant going to heaven? You must still accept that God wants us to love and obey him, but that love and obedience will still put us in hell.

The answer, from a stand-point of love, would dictate that we obey God regardless. But the answer from a logical, and completely honest stand-point would dicate... well... we're human. Of course we'd opt for heaven.

I realize its an extremely hypothetical situation, but only a just and merciful God would be worthy of such extreme sacrifice. And a just and merciful God wouldn’t condemn one to damnation for loving Him. Suggesting that implies the said God isn’t worth the effort. Like a parent who says “you have to do your homework because its good for you and then I’m going to take your play station away and make you write “I’m a bad person” a hundred times.” There’s no point in loving such a being. It’s madness. I repeat, I realize its hypothetical but I consider it a self-defeating argument.

Between Christians and Muslims, when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son do you honestly think he went ahead with it, the deliberate killing of his own flesh and blood, just for Paradise? Or because he loved God? I don’t think a (loving) parent would sacrifice their child just for eternal happiness. There’s more to that, methinks.

It is very Biblical to have heaven as a motivation. God wouldn't have made it a motivating factor if it was only meant to be a temptation.

To want to go to Heaven and to fear God’s displeasure are good things according to Islam. Everyone who worships God wins. But the worship of one who’s just got their eyes on the prize can not be equal to one who worships out of love. They’re both worshippers, but the latter is more pious. There are people like that, few though they are.

Now, why would a reward be offered, if it wasn't meant to motivate us?

Certainly we should be motivated. And rewarded. But that should not be our sole intention. It’s like…getting legal benefits when you get married. It doesn’t mean you marry just for the benefits.




Nurann:

Someone that is blind has no reason to believe the colour blue exists. To that person, it doesn't. A person with sight can argue that of course the colour blue exits, its right there! But how does the blind person know? Can you give objective proof to a blind person that the colour blue exists? From the blind person's point of view, the simplest answer is that blue doesn't exist because it simply isn't a part of their world. Just because someone can see something you can't, it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

I really like that argument. It's what people of different faiths scream at each other. Little do they know, everyone feels like that!

Razor One:

Patients were given a pill that they were told would make them better. Lo and behold it did! The pill, however, was made from sugar. Belief does have a power on the human mind. Believing that a pill will cure them cured them of their condition in at least half of the cases tested.

Given that I dont believe god exists, I can see how that could happen instead with prayer. The people believed that prayer would cure them and lo it did. Good for them.

I think its interesting that humans are wired to fluorish on hope. I know you don't believe it but personally I feel like its another proof of why prayer exists. *shrugs* I believe so anyway


Sinead:

Searching for proof of God strengthens faith in God

I fully believe that.


-------------------------------------------------

Phew! Lol.

And my exams are over and I'm dancing on clouds!

(Until January....more exams )


(EDIT: Before anyone else said anything to clarify a point)

[Sinead]

Just have time for a few quick notes. Two, to be exact.


Nurann, good point on the color blue. I haven't heard that argument before. I guess that a blind person is then relying upon a supernatural faith that the color exists. Very interesting concept to think upon.

(I think Christianity believes sin is inherent to us and we must fight against that tendency - correct me if I’m wrong.)

Yeah. That about sums it up, but since Christianity is also based off of Judaism, there's the similar background of that working to keep sin at bay. Another interesting thing about the part of Jewish faith that works into Christian faith is the age of accountability. Yes, we're babies born into a fallen world, and will continue to sin because that's in our nature. (Example: Children learn more to be selfish than to share, and one of their first words is "Mine!" Human ((or fallen)) nature is to turn away from being good, to be self-centered, rather than focusing upon the needs of others.) But until the age of accountability (which is traditionally the age of 13 or 14), they are still considered "innocents." After that point in time, whether it's celebrated or not, then they are then responsible COMPLETELY for their own deeds, words, thoughts, and so forth. It's the parents' job to raise their children right by God, train them so that once they're responsible for their own actions, then they will strive to sin as less as possible, if that makes any sense.

This wasn't quite the short note I had wanted to make it out to be, lol. My point is that I believe that everyone does have to make that decision to either take the easy road, or the hard road in life. The easy one seems to be fine, but really is filled with traps to snare you (which is sin). The hard road has no traps, but it's uphill, the path is rocky and dusty, and it's tough to keep going. And yet it's the more satisfying one, in my own experience.

[Nurann]

meh. I've heard about all this stuff before. Frank Peretti mentions a lot of this stuff in his Darkness books.

Sorry, who and what? Is that the full title? I'd like to know what it is you've read. It sounds interesting.

No offense but I can assure you that I am NOT a god or goddess. I'm an imperfect human who can't create a masterpiece much less an entire universe.

Tbh, I'm not sure I agree completely with the idea myself. If you don't mind me using a bit of a metaphor, I prefer to see it as levels of energy on the light spectrum. I'm waaaay down here at infra-red, and the God and Goddess are waaaay up there at whole, complete white light. I'm still a type of light, but not as powerful or as complete a form of light. I've had long discussions with other Wiccans over it, and I still hear different takes on it every time I meet soomeone new. I acctually royaly ticked of a shaman once while debating the finer differences in our beliefs.

*reads the stuff you wrote again* oh man.. my mind is melting... are you SURE you're Wiccan?

I'm... not sure I understand. As I've stated before, I'm Eclectic Solitary, so I don't really fit into a cookie-cutter decstiption of Wiccan anyways. I've tried to use the most common explanations, but if you've heard something different I'd love to hear it! What was it that you were expecting me to say?

And thanks Rakshash and Sinead. I don't have a clue where the inspiration for that blue thing came from (other than staring at the board for three hours lol) but I'm glad it gave you something to think about!

[artemis-lady-warrior]

The Books are called This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness they're real good.

I guess we're all purple on that scale. XD

I'm not sure what I'm talking about either.

[Blazemane]

Hey Razor, Nurran and Rakshash.

I've been working on a response, but mainly just what I'm going to say (I have some things written out as a response to Razor, but that's about as far as I've gotten. But between fiction writing and previous discussion on here, I've been kinda's busy on here.

This is just to stay, I'm still here, but it might be a little bit.

[Nurann]

Whoa, WHAO there Artemis. I just went to look up those books you mentioned. Now I think I know what you were refering to.

Number one: Fantasy novels. Not authorities on anything, nevermind witchcraft. Using his books is like saying Tolkien is well-versed in swrod fighting just because he wrote about it in LOTR. Peretti may have some valid points based on experience, but it doesn't change the fact as a fantasy novel, those facts are overstated for entertainment's sake.

Number two: The author's credentials in terms of spiritual counselling appear fairly limited. He's a Christian author, not an experienced leader, researcher, etc. in either religion's scope of practice. This limits the validity of his claims regarding the other side of his story's conflict. Now, if he's spoken to a few New Age and theological experts before writing his books, I'd be willing to give him some credit. Until I see some reference to his research, I'm staying skeptical.

Number three - a bit of clarification: New age, and specifically Wicca, has plenty of room for angelic work but very limited tolerance for demonic work. In fact, there are plenty of books in Chapters in the New Age section that talk about working with angels. I have yet to see a valid demonic one outside of brief references to The Key of Solomon. That's because of the Law and Rede, and the idea of Karma. I myself have worked fairly well with Rapheal on occasion; in fact, he's the one that reafirmed my first magick name. A good portion of the healing spells in my Book of Shadows involve calling him for help. Doing harm is against everything I am and believe in. The thought of doing harm literally makes me weak and sick to my stomach. That's why it frustrates me when I see someone associating new age, paganism, Wicca, etc. with demonic forces. It implies harm.

*shudders*

Just trying to give some clarification here. Let me know if there's anything else you've heard that isn't congruent with what I've been saying, and maybe we can clear some things up together?

Blazemane, I'm anxiously waiting to see what you're cooking up!

[artemis-lady-warrior]

i was ust saying he mentiones stuff like that in his books. i never said i took it at face value. sheesh.

[Blazemane]

Hey Razor One, Rakshash and Nurran.

It seems that with Christmas break around, I finally have the time (and motivation) to write a response to you all.

But here's the the thing. This thread has sat dead for over two weeks, and was already slowing down (the post before the last was posted five days before the last one). Perhaps that's because you guys have been waiting for me, but it seems like other nuances of the debate would have continued anyways.

So here's the thing: this debate would have to end at some point. Now, if you guys want me to post a response, then I will be perfectly willing, and for many reasons, I would want to. But I'm just saying that it seems like people wanted this thread to calm down. At least, I can also admit that for many reasons, I would also not want to post. The main ones being just how long it takes to make a response, and how much mental energy gets expended by doing so.

I'm just wondering if you all were feeling the same thing. If you think this debate will go anywhere, go ahead and ask me to continue. If you think it will not, and there is relief in this thread's death, than also tell me.

EDIT: Threads as a possessive certainly is not threads, but rather thread's.

[Nurann]

I feel divided about it too, Blazemane. On one hand, I'd love to hear what you have to say. On the other, I also get the sense interest has waned. If that's the case, I'd be willing to set this debate aside with the knowledge that this is one of the few, if not only, religious debate threads on the internet to meet its end on fairly good terms. If you have something ready for us, I'd still like to see it. If not, don't worry about it.

[Rakshash]

*scratches head* We-ell, I haven't lost interest. I would love to read what you've got. I don't often get the chance to speak like this with someone of a different religion and culture. It's only a better way of looking at what you already know and adding to it. But perhaps the tone of what we're discussing isn't suitable for Bwint forum. I dunno.

I mean, I'm NOT suggesting that Bwint isn't supportive of expressions of different beliefs, its the most awesomely inclusive place I know, online or offline. I'm just saying maybe the tone is too...well, to put it like some other people have said, its not casual. I don't want people to feel uncomfortable. I wouldn't feel "relief in this thread's death" but perhaps others will. *shrug* That's the impression I get anyway.

But since you're asking ME (and not everyone else) I'll echo Nurann's

If you have something ready for us, I'd still like t
see it. If not, don't worry about it..

Perhaps if we made more rules, like no pressure as to when to reply (I've got major exam trauma coming up in January myself) and only so many points to be taken up per post. That would take the edge of the mental energy expended. I think its worthwhile but only if we make it so.


Enjoy your Christmas, Blaze.