Pagans in the UK

[Ahimsa]

SamCA:

Wait, hold on. You’re recommending that people summon the devil and ask to be possessed? Doesn’t that strike you as a tad… unchristian?

Also: I’m tempted to try this. After all, the main reason I’m not a believer is that I don’t have any evidence. I’d call getting possessed by Satan pretty rock hard, in terms of proof.

Offering oneself up as a guinea pig on the altar of spiritual experimentation is a noble endeavour. But how would possession be proved, empirically, objectively? Of course, you would know that you were possessed. Your psychiatrist, however, might have a different opinion.

 

[Ahimsa]

AnAtheist:

Objectivity usually drives the occult away. And that is pretty good evidence that it does not exist.

Garlic usually drives vampires away, but that doesn’t mean vampires don’t exist.

 

[SamCA]

Ahimsa:

Offering oneself up as a guinea pig on the altar of spiritual experimentation is a noble endeavour. But how would possession be proved, empirically, objectively? Of course, you would know that you were possessed. Your psychiatrist, however, might have a different opinion.

Plus, that Satan fellow is pretty tricksy, by all accounts. I wouldn’t put it past him to give me symptoms entirely similar to a mental illness. Or even worse, not show up at all, since he doesn’t want people to know he exists. (When you come right down to it, one might begin to suspect that he isn’t very considerate.)

 

[Brad]

Painstakingly detailed historian Will Durant, by no means a Christian biased source, as he lists pages of criticism of the history of the Gospels by many sources and believes the Gospel writers were prejudiced still concludes this:

“Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed - the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus’ arrest, Peter’s denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human bortherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most facinating feature in the history of Western man.”

(P. 557 “Caesar and Christ” - Will Durant)

As you can see, Durant himself shows some prejudice against some Christian beliefs and yet he maintains Jesus’ character and teachings (one teaching being that He is the only way to God) remain clear and that Jesus is the most fascinating person he has studied.

This alone is enough to shy away from discrediting statments such as “there is no hell” or “Christ didn’t rise from the dead”.

There is no basis for such statements - even from secular historians. There is only basis for such statements from those that have lost their belief and want to be right - therefore escalating and heavily publicizing mere hypotheses - not rooted in historical fact.

 

[Ahimsa]

Brad:

This alone is enough to shy away from discrediting statments such as “there is no hell” or “Christ didn’t rise from the dead”.

“Hell” is one thing. “Eternal hell” is quite another. I suspect many non-Christians (and even many Christians) have no problem with hell itself. It’s when hell becomes an eternal state of punishment that the concept becomes inconsistent with the idea of an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere-present being.

 

[Brad]

Tlaloc:

Close brad, but not quite. We do have historical records of some biblical events but not anywhere near enough to support all of the Bible. Indeed we have historical and scientific evidence that complete countermands the early Bible if taken literally.

Put it this way can you prove Jesus ascended? Of course not. Its a matter of faith, there is no proof and there never will be whether it happened or not. Its not the kind of thing you can whip out a voltmeter to check.

You however claim that it must have happened without proof. I claim only that maybe it did maybe it didn’t. That means the burden of proof is on you, a burden as above you can never fulfill.

Given that it’s a lot better off for you to talk in a much less condescending voice toward those with other beliefs. You can’t prove yours anymore than they can prove theirs but everyone’s entitled to their own.

Or to try one last variation on the theme: I’m not claiming that your religion is wrong, you are claiming that all other religions are wrong. That puts the burden of proof on you, not me.

1. You are discounting the Bilble (namely the Gospels) as historical documents. You are saying that we must have further historical documents to verify everything in the Bible bacause you are assuming the Bible is untrue. Yet we have more historical manuscripts from early times of the Gospels than we do of any other historical document and we have more written history of people attesting to the historiciy of the Gospels than we have history of people attesting to any other historical reality. By your proposed methodolgy, we would have to discount almost all of written history.
2. Do you have any historical or scientific evidence that refutes the claims I made in post #36 or anything else written in the Gospels? I haven’t seen any to date. If you cannot produce any and you still claim they are untrue then I will claim that Caesar, Shakespeare, and Alexander the Great are all imaginary characters.
3. I cannot prove that Jesus ascended. I believe it because it is reasonable in light of Jesus’ other actions that validate that He is God plus the fact that it is recorded in history. Can you prove that Jesus did not ascend or can you prove that George Washington fought in the civil war? I suggest you continue to explore the possibility of written events in the Gospels to be true rather than not investigate simply because we could never scientifically prove that history - I suggest this because of the eternal implications if you are wrong. Sort of Pascal’s wager - what do you have to gain if you are right vs. what will you lose if you are wrong?
4. It’s really not my intention to appear condescendning. I genuinely believe in the Christian faith and I am providing such defense of it. I apologize if this offends you.
5. My apologies again. I thought you were saying the Catholic Church was wrong. At least I assumed you thought another religion was more correct than the Catholic faith. In any event, I am working to provide the burden of proof that my faith is correct, which would, by defintion, prove other faiths incorrect. If you want to go the other route., then I am fair game - propose a belief of another faith that you think is more correct than the Catholic Church

 

[Brad]

oat soda:

besides, how could someone come up with a story like that? Jesus, who is God, died for us on a cross, and is one part of the trinity. also, the bible makes the apostles look like jack-a%$es. if they were trying to sell you a line, why would they make themselves look so incompetent. also, what did making up this stuff get them? beheadings, stoning, and crucifixions upside down. either they were crazy, or telling the truth. looking at all the supporting evidence and the benefit of being a Christian, what do you have to lose?

Yes - and crazy men do not gain a 2,000+ year following that spreads to all ends of the Earth and billions of people. If they were crazy, their ideas and their personalities would have dissipated by now. Surely, people have tried to invalidate these men - but none have come close to succeeding.

 

[Brad]

AnAtheist:

I’d really like to try that. I have no Ouija board, and I don’t intend to spend any money on **** like that, so do you know any other hellish device perhaps found in a normal household to start with?

The problem I see is, I will always be accused of having a closed mind, because when this occult thingy won’t work, I’d either not tried hard hard enough, had not the right attitude or lack of faith. Objectivity usually drives the occult away. And that is pretty good evidence that it does not exist.

I recommend you stay away from the occult(why play russian roulette with your soul) but I do have a question:

How does objectivity drive the occult away?

 

[Brad]

SamCA:

Out of curiosity, what was Hell called by the early Church fathers who hadn’t yet made contact with the Nordic viking tribes? As I understand it, the word “Hell” itself is derived from one of the nine worlds of Norse myth, the world of the dead (and the goddess who rules it).

The Chistians certainly had a Bad Afterlife Place, but I imagine that before they met the vikings they must have called it something else.

(I’m not arguing, I’m honestly curious. This is something I’ve wondered for a while, I figure someone on this forum could probably inform me.)

Unquenchable fire, everlasting fire etc.

catholic.com/library/Hell_There_Is.asp

Jesus called it Gehena - the local foul-stenching and forever burning garbage dump.

newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm

 

[Brad]

SamCA:

Wait, hold on. You’re recommending that people summon the devil and ask to be possessed? Doesn’t that strike you as a tad… unchristian?

Also: I’m tempted to try this. After all, the main reason I’m not a believer is that I don’t have any evidence. I’d call getting possessed by Satan pretty rock hard, in terms of proof.

Run fast from this temptation - better to physically torture yourself than to try to be possessed. If you really want to be possessed, you will get your wish - and you will be severly sorry.

People do recover but it often takes 10 years or so.

 

[Brad]

SamCA:

Wait, hold on. You’re recommending that people summon the devil and ask to be possessed? Doesn’t that strike you as a tad… unchristian?

Also: I’m tempted to try this. After all, the main reason I’m not a believer is that I don’t have any evidence. I’d call getting possessed by Satan pretty rock hard, in terms of proof.

Those that disbelieve due to lack of evidence - a humble suggestion to read “The Case for Christ” by " Lee Strobel - and let me know what you think.

 

[Brad]

Just an aside:

I haven’t always had this conviction that makes me sometimes appear “non-inclusive” or “condescending”. It has taken a great deal of reading, studying, and reflecting for me to have this level of belief. I haven’t always had it. My presence here is truly out of a desire for others to have the same level of belief/conviction because it has only made my life 10-fold better.

 

[Brad]

Ahimsa:

Offering oneself up as a guinea pig on the altar of spiritual experimentation is a noble endeavour. But how would possession be proved, empirically, objectively? Of course, you would know that you were possessed. Your psychiatrist, however, might have a different opinion.

I have to disagree. It is not a noble endeavor. It is a wicked endeavor - not wicked because the disbeliever doesn’t know better, but wicked because it is Satan’s greatest desire and he laught with delight when someone decides to do an “experiment.”

A trained Excorcist would know whether one is possessed or not. It cannot be proven through scientific method because it is in the realm of supernatural. Doesn’t make it 1 ounce less true than physcial reality however. Just think of your soul/spirit/whatever you call it. This is a spiritual entity which is just as real as your physical body.

 

[Brad]

“Hell” is one thing. “Eternal hell” is quite another. I suspect many non-Christians (and even many Christians) have no problem with hell itself. It’s when hell becomes an eternal state of punishment that the concept becomes inconsistent with the idea of an all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere-present being.

It really isn’t inconsistent. Part of this is trust in God’s divine providence and part of it is logical theologically (like that one?).

God made us in His image and likeness. He loves us (as you say) more than we could possibly love ourselves. All true love requires the person of affection to choose to love the other person (in this case God) in a similar manner. For example, a man wants his girlfriend to marry him because she loves him not because she is required to marry him. Thus, God could not fully love us unless we are able to decide whether to love Him back - otherwise he would have made mindless robots that could not know an all-loving God because we could not know Love Himself. If we choose not to love our creator God back then we separate ourselves from Him, similar to when a husband/wife does not make a decision to love their spouse despite all of their imperfections. Any decision not to love brings futher separation in the relationship. This separtion from God is the opposit of Heaven, which is perfect communion with God. It was our choice. If we have chosen not to commune with God, we must commune somewhere other than where God is. There is only one place where that is - Hell. And the great pain in hell is not burning fire - it is the pain of being separated from God - and the reason this is the greatest pain is because our very nature was created in the image and likeness of God - thus we cannot be truly ourselves.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

‘No rules,’ he said.

Not accurate. “No authoritative scriptures” would be accurate, but unwritten rules do exist.

Everyone has their own path, but we all celebrate the same festivals: the summer and winter solstices, spring and autumn equinoxes and four other festivals: Samhain, Imbolc, Beltane and Lughnasad.’

No, not all pagans celebrate these holidays. Hellenic polytheists, for example, have quite different festivals.

'There’s no right or wrong thing to believe,

Are you sure this is a pagan? Sounds more like an impostor. Pagans do believe in right and wrong.
oat soda:

according to neo-pagan doctrine, anything goes. in which case there is no absolute truth.

No, this is untrue. We just have different absolutes thatn the Christians.

how could science even develop without the idea of an ordered universe, or a first cause?

I don’t know, you could ask the pagan Greeks, who pioneered the whole thing (science).

i think serious catholics and orthodox christians should form our own state or country and put into the constitution that there is absolute truth and right and wrong based on natural law and 10 commandments. abortion, contraception, fornication, homo-sex, pornography, homo-unions, and anything that glamorizes it should be illegal. this country is going down the tubes with europe, i say lets have a revolution and kick neo-pagan a@# back to france.

And I’m going to fight for church-state separation.

by the way, pagans who reject the church all go to hell.

No they don’t, there is no hell.

Brad:

Doesn’t matter what you say. There is one truth,

Correct. But we aren’t agreed on what it is.

You said there is no hell.

That’s the truth. God is good, hell is evil, hell is not compatible with a good God, hell does not exist.

Was Jesus Christ a liar, insane, or did he not really exist?

Misattributed. Many words in the Bible attributed to him not actually said by him.

Nope - I’m giving you solid historical documented evidence.

I invite you to argue the historical case on the appropriate forum on Internet Infidels Discussion Board. Have fun!

f you are insinuating the Christian faith spread through lies, cheating, stealing or killing,

Politics and conquest. Pagans never lost the intellectual battleground, they lost only the political one.

genevieve.oz:

God allowed us to choose to follow him, when we reject Him, we are rejecting the prospect of living with Him in Heaven.

No-one chooses to be eternally tortured. Your God made hell, if anyone ends up there it’s His responsibility. See also:

The injustice of Hell by Emery Lee, an ex-Christian

(disclaimer: for the sake of the argument; I don’t believe in that stuff)

 

[Ahimsa]

Brad:

I have to disagree. It is not a noble endeavor. It is a wicked endeavor - not wicked because the disbeliever doesn’t know better, but wicked because it is Satan’s greatest desire and he laught with delight when someone decides to do an “experiment.”

It depends on how you look at “experiment”. By “experiment”, I mean any choice based on religious/spiritual reasons, including the choice of converting to Christianity (or Judaism, or Buddhism, e.g.). To convert to a religion is an experiment, which may turn out to have very positive results, or very negative ones.

 

[AnAtheist]

Brad:

I recommend you stay away from the occult(why play russian roulette with your soul) but I do have a question:

How does objectivity drive the occult away?

There hasn’t been any scientific experiment yet, that proves the existence of something occult. Noone could repeatingly cast a working spell or summon a demon or whatever so far. Once you look deeper into the occult you fund nothing.

And this is the usual explanation of the occultists: You have to believe (sic!) in the occult to use it, you have not tried hard enough, your negative attitude drove the spitits away…

I once met a girl, who thought she was a witch and had the power to appear in other people’s dreams. I asked her to appear in mine, I am still waiting.

 

[AnAtheist]

Brad:

Run fast from this temptation - better to physically torture yourself than to try to be possessed. If you really want to be possessed, you will get your wish - and you will be severly sorry.

People do recover but it often takes 10 years or so.

The problem is, you will only get possesed, if you believe in that. If you are sceptical, then you don’t get possesed no matter what magic words you utter.
There are two explanations for that phenomenon:

1. Possession only works, if you are really willing to be possesed. A neutral approach would not work.
2. “Possession” is a psychologically explanable state of mind. You talk yourself into possesion, there is not outside source.

I take #2. And I’d take the risk to prove that in an experiment. I do not fear any demon, Satan, Cthuthlu, Loki or whatever. But then, exactly that lack of fear (faith) will keep the spirits out, d’uh?

 

[Brad]

AnAtheist:

There hasn’t been any scientific experiment yet, that proves the existence of something occult. Noone could repeatingly cast a working spell or summon a demon or whatever so far. Once you look deeper into the occult you fund nothing.

1. Naturalism does not contain all of reality.
2. You cannot repeatedly cast a spell or summon a demon because you are dealing with real spiritual persons that do not act like robots that are programmed to respond in a particular way. There is nothing objective about how people act. They act in a subjective manner as they have emotions, intellect, and will.
3. Ask people that have been possessed and are now Christian if they found nothing in the occult as it pertains to their life

AnAtheist:

I once met a girl, who thought she was a witch and had the power to appear in other people’s dreams. I asked her to appear in mine, I am still waiting.

You will not find God through self-proclaimed witches. Neither will you necessarily find the devil. You will only find either through an honest search for God.

 

[Brad]

AnAtheist:

The problem is, you will only get possesed, if you believe in that. If you are sceptical, then you don’t get possesed no matter what magic words you utter.
There are two explanations for that phenomenon:

1. Possession only works, if you are really willing to be possesed. A neutral approach would not work.
2. “Possession” is a psychologically explanable state of mind. You talk yourself into possesion, there is not outside source.

I take #2. And I’d take the risk to prove that in an experiment. I do not fear any demon, Satan, Cthuthlu, Loki or whatever. But then, exactly that lack of fear (faith) will keep the spirits out, d’uh?

This is a narrow view of evil spirits. You can be affected quite easily be evil spirits without being possessed. It is the denial of evil spirits and good spirits (God) that will cause a gradual decaying of your own spirit - kind of like a frog slowly boiled in a pot - he doensn’t realize he’s being cooked until he is.

Acknowledgement of good and evil is a critical part of understanding and living life.