A Christian challenge

[Steadfast]

Okay this I have been going from site to site asking and have not gotten a single answer, this challange isn’t anything bad, its just a question

can you prove…without using the Bible, that paganism and anyother relgion is wrong?

blessed be,
cody

Inasmuch as paganism completely misses the central fact of human experience whether you call it failure or sin or brokenness and therefore has no answer for it, I’d say it’s wrong.

Paganism appeals to beauty and nature and in some cases to the possibility of magic but this is all subjective and can only satisfy the individual and then only for a limited time and to a limited degree. There is no cosmology of completion or redemption where everything is restored to perfection probably because again, there is no clear definition of the brokenness so desperately in need of being addressed…

 

[redhen]

Because they saw the beauty of the trees in autumn, or the snowflakes in winter, they felt the warm heat of the sun in summer, or saw the flowers blooming in spring, and thought that there must be a high being that made each one

So they gave them names, worshipped and praised them for their wonders

Then Jesus came along and told them the Truth

Interesting, tell that to the Saxons;

britannica.com/eb/article-58088/Germany

“The Capitulatio de Partibus Saxoniae (c. 785; “Capitulary for the Saxon Regions”) was intended to force the submission of the Saxons to the Franks and to Christianity, imposing the death penalty for destruction of churches, refusal of baptism, and violating the Lenten fast.”

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by kellie forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Because they saw the beauty of the trees in autumn, or the snowflakes in winter, they felt the warm heat of the sun in summer, or saw the flowers blooming in spring, and thought that there must be a high being that made each one

So they gave them names, worshipped and praised them for their wonders

Then Jesus came along and told them the Truth*

Interesting, tell that to the Saxons;

britannica.com/eb/article-58088/Germany

“The Capitulatio de Partibus Saxoniae (c. 785; “Capitulary for the Saxon Regions”) was intended to force the submission of the Saxons to the Franks and to Christianity, imposing the death penalty for destruction of churches, refusal of baptism, and violating the Lenten fast.”

So, you’re saying that if any person or group of persons is “bad” then that utterly disproves the “worth” of their (misinterpreted and misapplied) beliefs?

Judge the “worth” of a belief on the belief itself, not on yahboes (sic?) who might be rather bad about overzealously promoting something that is a good thing.

Are the Officially Stated beliefs of the Church (Catholic) good or not?

Or,… we could get into the whole, “Christianity is evil because Swaggart is evil!” nonsense, which isn’t overly interesting in my opinion.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[redhen]

I wasn’t talking about the present Church, I was referring to that quote from Kellie talking about how the pagans were living in error until missionaries enlightened them with sunshine, lollipops and rainbows, ok I exaggerate a little.

I wouldn’t exactly call Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor “some yahoo”.

Anyways, he brought Christianity to the Saxons with the sword and the flame.

 

[Chancellare]

Since I did not get any reply from KarenNC on my post about Natural Laws and moral/ethical order, such that:

"Natural Laws, ethics, reason and morality are immutable rules of conduct if man should live in harmony and good existence. Violate them and you end up with unfortunate consequences.

Given the above premises, does Paganism as practiced today recognize the immutablity of the above rules?"

having none, is it a sign that Pagan worship is just pagan worship?

 

[Keikiolu]

I wasn’t talking about the present Church, I was referring to that quote from Kellie talking about how the pagans were living in error until missionaries enlightened them with sunshine, lollipops and rainbows, ok I exaggerate a little.

I wouldn’t exactly call Charlemagne, the first Holy Roman Emperor “some yahoo”.

Anyways, he brought Christianity to the Saxons with the sword and the flame.

The only question is whether you believe that the actual message, which could be either augmented or diminished by “the messenger”, was a good thing and the truth?

I call everyone who isn’t me, the grand an glorious idiot you’ve come to ignore and depricate, a “Yahbo”, if they do “not entirely righteous” things.

“I’m a yahbo,… you’re a yahbo,… he’s a yahbo,… wouldn’tcha like to be a yahbo, too…!?”
← Dr. Pepper tune >



Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Since I did not get any reply from KarenNC on my post about Natural Laws and moral/ethical order, such that:

"Natural Laws, ethics, reason and morality are immutable rules of conduct if man should live in harmony and good existence. Violate them and you end up with unfortunate consequences.

Given the above premises, does Paganism as practiced today recognize the immutablity of the above rules?"

having none, is it a sign that Pagan worship is just pagan worship?

Simple answer: No, there are no immutable rules of conduct.

Everything is situational, and to be interpreted individualistically.

Other than, perhaps, “Do what you like, but expect to be ‘paid-back’ in greater measure than you did, in reaction”.

Thus,… the current and future state of “non-neo/neo-paganism” is determined and invariant…

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Chancellare]

Simple answer: No, there are no immutable rules of conduct.

Everything is situational, and to be interpreted individualistically.

Other than, perhaps, “Do what you like, but expect to be ‘paid-back’ in greater measure than you did, in reaction”.

Thus,… the current and future state of “non-neo/neo-paganism” is determined and invariant…

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

Then you have just aligned yourself with moral relativism. One of the consequences of relativism is individual morality.

A prime example is:

“Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism.”
—Benito Mussolini

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Simple answer: No, there are no immutable rules of conduct.

Everything is situational, and to be interpreted individualistically.

Other than, perhaps, “Do what you like, but expect to be ‘paid-back’ in greater measure than you did, in reaction”.

Thus,… the current and future state of “non-neo/neo-paganism” is determined and invariant…
Then you have just aligned yourself with moral relativism. One of the consequences of relativism is individual morality.

I’m not personally a pagan. I’m just giving you the attitude of pagans.

If there are any actual pagans out there who want to disagree with my assessment, go for it.

A prime example is:

“Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism.”
—Benito Mussolini

…which is perfectly pagan,… and paganism is fascism, which is a form of slavery, which produces slaves (the unlucky ones) and masters (the lucky ones).

You want slavery,… go pagan…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[KarenNC]

Since I did not get any reply from KarenNC on my post about Natural Laws and moral/ethical order, such that:

"Natural Laws, ethics, reason and morality are immutable rules of conduct if man should live in harmony and good existence. Violate them and you end up with unfortunate consequences.

Given the above premises, does Paganism as practiced today recognize the immutablity of the above rules?"

having none, is it a sign that Pagan worship is just pagan worship?

Sorry, it got lost in a long string and I have had limited time to access the boards this week.

To include your full original question:
"A sampler:
Aristotelian philosophy emphasizes the reality of Natural Laws and Moral order. For example, Aristotle advocated how moral conduct contributes to the good life for human agents, including the Eudemian Ethics and the Magna Moralia in which he explained his views on morality.

His works influenced all other western religions from Christianity to Judaism with an exception to Islam who considered all pagan thoughts anathema to their religion.

This example shows that Natural Laws, ethics, reason and morality are immutable rules of conduct if man should live in harmony and good existence. Violate them and you end up with unfortunate consequences.

Given the above premises, does Paganism as practiced today recognize the immutablity of the above rules?"

There is not a single simple answer to the above. One needs to define the actual terms of the question. For instance, the above was in response to my asking you what you would consider a rejection of Natural Laws. You have not answered that yet and it would help me to see what you are really looking for with this question.

First, one must define what one means by “Paganism.” You are going to get a very different answer from a Wiccan than from a Hellenic or from a Heathen, and even within a tradition, you will likely get a different answer from a British Traditional Wiccan than from one who practices some form of eclectic worship.

Also, one needs to realize that there were different ethical schools within ancient civilizations. Aristotle was far from the only philosopher and often the views of what composed ethical and moral behavior differed fairly widely within a single society. I would say that the statement that Aristotle’s views were embraced by Western religion doesn’t necessarily mean that these are the only ones, it only proves that those were the views most consistent with the society of the Western religions at the time.

In short, are all religions that fall under the umbrella term “Neopagan” Aristotelian in philosophy in terms of ethics or views of deity or of the nature of humanity? No.

 

[KarenNC]

Other than, perhaps, “Do what you like, but expect to be ‘paid-back’ in greater measure than you did, in reaction”.

I presume here you are referring to the Wiccan Rede and the Threefold Law of Return? Do be aware that those are specific to a particular Neopagan religion and not necessarily shared as guiding principles by all religions under the umbrella term of Neopaganism.

 

[KarenNC]

Then you have just aligned yourself with moral relativism. One of the consequences of relativism is individual morality.

A prime example is:

“Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism.”
—Benito Mussolini

and

…which is perfectly pagan,… and paganism is fascism, which is a form of slavery, which produces slaves (the unlucky ones) and masters (the lucky ones).

You want slavery,… go pagan…!

Thanks for comparing me with a fascist based, as far as I can tell, simply on the fact that I disagree with you. Does Godwin’s Law apply to Mussolini as well?

All idealogies are not of equal value, however, and neither are all claims of possessing an objective immortal truth.

If you want slavery, well, let’s see, for how many centuries was Christianity used to show that slavery was the just and Godly state, particularly for ethnic minorities, because they didn’t really have souls like whites?

Can’t say as Aristotle, who, as Chancellare points out, was a formative influence on Western religion, had particularly enlightened views on the subject of slavery (of body and of spirit) being a part of the natural order of things either:

oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance_arc/las_casas/Aristotle-slavery.html

"It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right. "

 

[Chancellare]

Also, one needs to realize that there were different ethical schools within ancient civilizations. Aristotle was far from the only philosopher and often the views of what composed ethical and moral behavior differed fairly widely within a single society. I would say that the statement that Aristotle’s views were embraced by Western religion doesn’t necessarily mean that these are the only ones, it only proves that those were the views most consistent with the society of the Western religions at the time.

What is YOUR ethical school then? Do you have one?

In short, are all religions that fall under the umbrella term “Neopagan” Aristotelian in philosophy in terms of ethics or views of deity or of the nature of humanity? No.

I did not ask that question.

To rephrase my original question:
Which means YOUR pagan religion does not have one? If you do, what?

 

[KarenNC]

What is YOUR ethical school then? Do you have one?

reread post 276 where I just answered that question. I don’t consider myself bound to a particular school of thought.

I did not ask that question.

Yes you did: “Given the above premises, does Paganism as practiced today recognize the immutablity of the above rules?”

To rephrase my original question:
Which means YOUR pagan religion does not have one? If you do, what?

Does not have one what? If this is not adequately addressed by my previous post as referenced above, please be a bit more specific. It may be more helpful for you to describe what you would see as something that did not recognize the immutability or something that contravenes Natural Law. Currently I have to say that the question is rather vague.

If you mean do I fall into line with Aquinas’ Cardinal Virtues of prudence, justice, temperance, fortitude, then yes, based on my understanding of those terms, I would say so (acknowledging that it would not be the first time the Catholic Church had a different definition than the standard one for a common word ).

Most Neopagan religions that I know of definitely consider reason to be of great importance in understanding our world and they all have a system of morals and ethics. I do not know of any that would not say that both motive and actual action are important when considering the morality of an action.

 

[Keikiolu]

Sorry, it got lost in a long string and I have had limited time to access the boards this week.

To include your full original question:
"A sampler:
Aristotelian philosophy emphasizes the reality of Natural Laws and Moral order. For example, Aristotle advocated how moral conduct contributes to the good life for human agents, including the Eudemian Ethics and the Magna Moralia in which he explained his views on morality.

His works influenced all other western religions from Christianity to Judaism with an exception to Islam who considered all pagan thoughts anathema to their religion.

This example shows that Natural Laws, ethics, reason and morality are immutable rules of conduct if man should live in harmony and good existence. Violate them and you end up with unfortunate consequences.

Given the above premises, does Paganism as practiced today recognize the immutablity of the above rules?"

There is not a single simple answer to the above. One needs to define the actual terms of the question. For instance, the above was in response to my asking you what you would consider a rejection of Natural Laws. You have not answered that yet and it would help me to see what you are really looking for with this question.

So far my assessment of paganism is working just fine…!

First, one must define what one means by “Paganism.” You are going to get a very different answer from a Wiccan than from a Hellenic or from a Heathen, and even within a tradition, you will likely get a different answer from a British Traditional Wiccan than from one who practices some form of eclectic worship.

Once again, infinitely factionalizational organization begets utter chaos.

Also, one needs to realize that there were different ethical schools within ancient civilizations. Aristotle was far from the only philosopher and often the views of what composed ethical and moral behavior differed fairly widely within a single society. I would say that the statement that Aristotle’s views were embraced by Western religion doesn’t necessarily mean that these are the only ones, it only proves that those were the views most consistent with the society of the Western religions at the time.

In other words, the answer is “depends”,… which is the ever present defensive shield of the relativist.

“Need an answer that will get you what you want? Make one up…!”

In short, are all religions that fall under the umbrella term “Neopagan” Aristotelian in philosophy in terms of ethics or views of deity or of the nature of humanity? No.

Correct.

…and I’m still lovin’ 'ya, Karen…! You’re my FAVORITE pagan EVER…!

Keep up the great work of showing us what paganism, non-Christianity, is all about…!!

I can’t thank you enough.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Then you have just aligned yourself with moral relativism. One of the consequences of relativism is individual morality.

A prime example is:

“Everything I have said and done is these last years is relativism, by intuition. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable. If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than fascism.”
—Benito Mussolini
and

Quote:
…which is perfectly pagan,… and paganism is fascism, which is a form of slavery, which produces slaves (the unlucky ones) and masters (the lucky ones).

You want slavery,… go pagan…!

Thanks for comparing me with a fascist based, as far as I can tell, simply on the fact that I disagree with you. Does Godwin’s Law apply to Mussolini as well?

Not yourself, but your “religion”, is being compared to fascism due to the reasons stated, not because we disagree with it.

Though we do disagree with it. Obvoiusly.

Actually,… I didn’t REALLY (here) give the reasons why paganism is a form of fascism,… so I’ll do so now, in brief:

Any form of “religion” which is infinitely variable in “tenet” can justify anything.

Man has a natural inclination to enslave other men (original sin) and given the slightest excuse will do so.

Paganism makes slavery very easy.

All idealogies are not of equal value, however, and neither are all claims of possessing an objective immortal truth.

If you want slavery, well, let’s see, for how many centuries was Christianity used to show that slavery was the just and Godly state, particularly for ethnic minorities, because they didn’t really have souls like whites?

Show me where that was a Catholic Doctrine…!? Not simply the opinion of a (supposedly) Catholic person, or, more likely, a protestant.

Good luck with that one…

Can’t say as Aristotle, who, as Chancellare points out, was a formative influence on Western religion, had particularly enlightened views on the subject of slavery (of body and of spirit) being a part of the natural order of things either:

oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl3…e-slavery.html

So now Aristole is Catholic?

Nice try, uh,… but,… no,… not gonna work…

"It is clear, then, that some men are by nature free, and others slaves, and that for these latter slavery is both expedient and right. "

That is a perfect example of a pagan statement…!

What is you point, as that is a PAGAN thought, not a Christian one…?

Keep trying. I’m lovin’ it…!

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[KarenNC]

Not yourself, but your “religion”, is being compared to fascism due to the reasons stated, not because we disagree with it.

“I’m saying that you are a member of the Communist Party, not that you are a Communist” sort of thing? Rather disingenuous, don’t you think?

**Once again, infinitely factionalizational organization begets utter chaos…

Any form of “religion” which is infinitely variable in “tenet” can justify anything.**

It’s not an “organization.” These are different religions not denominations. Christianity has more factions than any Neopagan religion of which I am aware.

You are continually making the mistake of looking at a diverse group of religions (not denominations of a single religion) and then criticizing that group because the teachings are not identical. This would be similar saying that Catholics believe “anything goes” because their teachings are different from those of Southern Baptists, Sunni Muslims and Reform Jews (though that is not really a perfect analogy as those three all claim to be at least worshipping the same God, which the religions under the Neopagan umbrella do not). One simply cannot speak of “the” Pagan anything, either in terms of the ancients or of Neopagans. There is and was no such animal.

Now if you want to claim that there are specific Neopagan religions that have an “anything goes” philosophy, then I might be more inclined to agree with you and we also might be able to have a more productive discussion because then we could speak of apples and apples rather than apples and oranges. I think there are several that certainly leave themselves open to that interpretation.

**Man has a natural inclination to enslave other men (original sin) and given the slightest excuse will do so.

Paganism makes slavery very easy.
Man has a natural inclination to enslave other men (original sin) and given the slightest excuse will do so. Paganism makes slavery very easy.**

In what way did/does it make it easier than Christianity did/does? Than monotheism did/does? And original sin is your baby, not that of any polytheistic, Pagan, Neopagan or, for that matter, any other monotheistic, religion.

**
Karen: "If you want slavery, well, let’s see, for how many centuries was Christianity used to show that slavery was the just and Godly state, particularly for ethnic minorities, because they didn’t really have souls like whites? "
Keikiolu: “Show me where that was a Catholic Doctrine…!? Not simply the opinion of a (supposedly) Catholic person, or, more likely, a protestant.”**

And are then Protestants and Catholics not both Christian?

christianodyssey.org/07/0704white.htm

"Among those who have accepted the presence of black people in the Bible, several different views as to the origin of blacks were postulated. Let’s look at some of these.

The pre-Adamite view argues that blacks, particularly so-called “Negroes,” are not descended from Adam. This view appears to have its origin in the works of such authors as Paracelsus in 1520, Bruno in 1591, Vanini in 1619 and one of the most prolific writers, Peyrère, in 1655. It reached a high level of development with the 19th-century scholar Alexander Winchell in his book, Preadamites; or a Demonstration of the Existence of Men Before Adam, published in 1880.

These writers (all of them white), argued that blacks belong to a race created before Adam and from among whom the biblical villain Cain found his wife. Cain, by marrying one of these pre-Adamic peoples, the reasoning goes, became the progenitor of all black people. Therefore, it was rationalized, black people, especially “Negroes,” are not actually human, because they did not descend from Adam but from some pre-Adamic creation, having entered the human race only by intermarriage, and that with a notorious sinner. As non-humans, therefore, they did not have souls, but were merely beasts like any other beast of the field. And since the Bible says God gave humans dominion over the beasts, it was concluded that these soulless creatures exist to do work for the humans.

This preposterous theological premise was preached in churches across the United States, particularly in the Southeast, to reassure people that slavery was not only acceptable, but the very will of God, rooted firmly in a “proper” understanding of the Bible. "

cont

 

[KarenNC]

**So now Aristole is Catholic? Nice try, uh,… but,… no,… not gonna work…
**

Well, probably more accurate to say that Catholics are Aristotelian. You might want to examine some Catholic history.

ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/aristotle.html
“In the later Middle Ages, Aristotle’s work was rediscovered and enthusiastically adopted by medieval scholars. His followers called him Ille Philosophus (The Philosopher), or “the master of them that know,” and many accepted every word of his writings – or at least every word that did not contradict the Bible – as eternal truth. Fused and reconciled with Christian doctrine into a philosophical system known as Scholasticism, Aristotelian philosophy became the official philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church.”

Chancellare went to pains to point out, correctly, that Aristotelian philosophy had a profound affect on the medieval Church. Without Aristotle, no Aquinas, without Aquinas, a very different Church.

island-of-freedom.com/AQUINAS.HTM

"Aquinas was influenced by the writings of Aristotle, the Muslim Aristotelians Averroës and Avicenna, and the Jewish philosopher Maimonides. Unlike many theologians, he welcomed the Latin translation of Aristotle’s complete writings. Aquinas meant to take Aristotle’s philosophical arguments to their deepest level, not just to fit them into the existing theological framework…

Aquinas’s accomplishment was immense; his work marks one of the few great culminations in the history of philosophy. After Aquinas, Western philosophers could choose only between humbly following him and striking off in some altogether different direction. In the centuries immediately following his death, the dominant tendency, even among Roman Catholic thinkers, was to adopt the second alternative. Interest in Thomist philosophy began to revive, however, toward the end of the 19th century. In the encyclical Aeterni Patris (Of the Eternal Father, 1879), Pope Leo XIII recommended that St. Thomas’s philosophy be made the basis of instruction in all Roman Catholic schools. Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical Humani Generis (Of the Human Race, 1950), affirmed that the Thomist philosophy is the surest guide to Roman Catholic doctrine and discouraged all departures from it. Thomism remains a leading school of contemporary thought."

 

[Keikiolu]

Not yourself, but your “religion”, is being compared to fascism due to the reasons stated, not because we disagree with it.

“I’m saying that you are a member of the Communist Party, not that you are a Communist” sort of thing? Rather disingenuous, don’t you think?

Are you a communist? Or just a member of the party?

Once again, infinitely factionalizational organization begets utter chaos…

Any form of “religion” which is infinitely variable in “tenet” can justify anything.

It’s not an “organization.” These are different religions not denominations. Christianity has more factions than any Neopagan religion of which I am aware.

That’s true. Paganism is nothing at all. Just a complete fiction. But it’s a useful fiction, as it gives pagans a “Club” to play in.

I don’t speak for Christians. I don’t speak for Catholics.

I speak only for myself as a Catholic, and you speak for yourself as a pagan.

So far what you’ve said describes your “religion” quite well.

You are continually making the mistake of looking at a diverse group of religions (not denominations of a single religion) and then criticizing that group because the teachings are not identical.

I don’t expect present day pagans to be able to organize anything but the occassional kegger.

Pagans are great. They give the rest of us something to laugh about.

This would be similar saying that Catholics believe “anything goes” because their teachings are different from those of Southern Baptists, Sunni Muslims and Reform Jews (though that is not really a perfect analogy as those three all claim to be at least worshipping the same God, which the religions under the Neopagan umbrella do not). One simply cannot speak of “the” Pagan anything, either in terms of the ancients or of Neopagans. There is and was no such animal.

You’re right. Thereis no “pagan anything”, due to the lack of “thingness” inherent in paganism.

Now if you want to claim that there are specific Neopagan religions that have an “anything goes” philosophy, then I might be more inclined to agree with you and we also might be able to have a more productive discussion because then we could speak of apples and apples rather than apples and oranges. I think there are several that certainly leave themselves open to that interpretation.

And I would agree with you.

Man has a natural inclination to enslave other men (original sin) and given the slightest excuse will do so.

Paganism makes slavery very easy.
Man has a natural inclination to enslave other men (original sin) and given the slightest excuse will do so. Paganism makes slavery very easy.

In what way did/does it make it easier than Christianity did/does? Than monotheism did/does? And original sin is your baby, not that of any polytheistic, Pagan, Neopagan or, for that matter, any other monotheistic, religion.

I’m sure you’re a good person, as well as several of your friends. Here’s hoping that you stay that way.

Hang onto the ethics that you got from your forebears, the good parts of which you got from God via “natural law” and God via “revelation” that you absorbed from your Christian upbringing.

Karen: "If you want slavery, well, let’s see, for how many centuries was Christianity used to show that slavery was the just and Godly state, particularly for ethnic minorities, because they didn’t really have souls like whites? "
Keikiolu: "Show me where that was a Catholic Doctrine…!? Not simply the opinion of a (supposedly) Catholic person, or, more likely, a protestant."

And are then Protestants and Catholics not both Christian?

christianodyssey.org/07/0704white.htm

"Among those who …blah blah blah…

Show me the thinking of the Church, coming from the official docs of the Magisterium, which are the only Christian “moral/ethics” I consider representative of actual Christainity,… as opposed to “pseudo-Christianity”.

I don’t defend pseudo-Christians.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[Keikiolu]

So now Aristole is Catholic? Nice try, uh,… but,… no,… not gonna work…

Well, probably more accurate to say that Catholics are Aristotelian. You might want to examine some Catholic history…

So?

A Catholic using the tools of Aristotle, if applicable, in the service of God,… not in the service of Aristotelianism.

Are newly naturalized Americans suddenly prohibited from using knives because knives weren’t originally invented by Americans?

What’s your point?

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.