The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

On the contrary, the New Testament gives both genealogies that depend on Genesis being literal, and establishes doctrinal cases based on the literal understanding of Genesis as history. They would be meaningless if Genesis were allegorical. Can you offer an explanation that differs?

Genealogies, particularly dealing with royalty, are rarely factual. They are intended to establish legitimacy. Many royal houses have traced their descent back to well-known figures, such as Aeneas, or indeed Adam. No-one suggests that these genealogies were literally true - they were a claim to nobility or royalty.

Legal cases can be based on myth, with ease. Sometimes that's the point of the myth - to indicate, in an easy-to-remember and easy-to-tell way, the correct form of judgement.

regards,
Scofflaw

wolfsbane

Excelsior said:

The genealogies were never interpreted literally or to be comprehensive. They are sociological signifiers of identity.

So they are a pious fiction? An invention to give legitimacy to the claimant to the throne of David? In that case, Judas Iscariot could just as easily and legitimately have claimed this genealogy. And this was inspired by the Holy Spirit???

Is any of the genealogy literal? Was Joseph Christ's legal father? Was David His ancestor? Abraham? Noah? Adam? Did any of these people actually exist? Tell us where the real history left off and myth began.

Jesus does not need to explain himself with reference to words written anything up to 1300 years before he taught seeing as he is the source of the ethical code and not Genesis.

Correct - but He did, showing that He was the one who would perfectly fulfill the Law.

However, speaking to Jews he uses the Pentateuch. He also refers to it as "Moses has written..." where no where else in Canon is this claim made explicitly. In that case are you to understand that Jesus is arguing Moses somehow literally wrote Genesis or rather that Jesus is speaking to Jews as Jews would understand him?

What are you talking about? You know that 'Moses' was used not just to refer to the man, but to the books of the Law that were given through him. Genesis is one of those books. How does that indicate that Genesis was not written and understood as plain history?

Are you saying that had Jesus been speaking to Greeks, He would have referred to their mythical origins, to the Olympian deities and their alleged interactions with man?

When Christ says marriage was only one man to one woman in the beginning, was that just using a myth to enforce His position on marriage and divorce?

When Paul rules that women must not exercise authority in the church, and bases that on Adam being created first, is he just spinning a tale to ensure his whim goes? Or was Paul also deluded about how things really were in the beginning?

If Christ and Paul based their ethical demands on myths, of what value are they to us today?

wolfsbane

Scofflaw said:

Genealogies, particularly dealing with royalty, are rarely factual. They are intended to establish legitimacy.

Yes, and they are either accurate or bogus.

I'm the rightful heir to the throne of England or I'm an impostor. Christ was either David's descendant or He was an impostor. The Jewish establishment claimed the latter. He could be a prophet - but not the messiah, the son of David. Matthew and Mark make sure to establish His lineage. If it was pure invention, then anything they write can be taken likewise. That is a valid position for a liberal unbeliever to take - but not for any Christian.

Son Goku

wolfsbane wrote:

Are there no presuppositions applied to the data? For example, how much radioactivity would be present at the time of formation?

In physics alone there are two eighty year old experimental physics journals which concern themselves only with analysis of radioactive materials. Not to mention the palaeontology journals devoted to it.
It would take me a while to explain and it's largely technical, but essentially things can be dated in manner which doesn't depend on a presupposition about an earlier state of the material.

wolfsbane wrote:

The presupposition comes in the ruling out of any Designer. Evolution insists origins must be explained by entirely naturalistic processes right back to the original atoms. It would allow a god to have created them, I suppose. Creationism says that all life forms were created functioning, fully formed. If evolutionism confined itself to interpretation of the evidence, it would be open to the idea that a Designer could have made a mature universe equally as well as an embryo one. They would then argue from the evidence for the latter. But they rule out any such debate.

This is going to sound very harsh, but I'll say it anyway.
In the first regard, there is very little evidence that animals appeared fully formed. That's just the truth, not an interpretation of the evidence. All the animals that date the earliest are simple Radiates like jellyfish and the majority of fossils can be traced in some fashion to these Cambrian animals.

Secondly, although one could interpret the old universe as actually young if it was created old, that's not really a valid working scientific conclusion.

General Relativity predicts the universe's size, age and expansion, as well as how gravity works within it. It's an excellently confirmed framework, to randomly throw out one of its confirmed predications as an illusion for no particular reason other than for the sake of being nihilistically open minded wouldn't really make sense.

For instance nobody actually entertains the idea that drugs kill bacteria because they feel socially awkward around each other in a way that looks identical to chemical reactions.

There shouldn't be a debate because you gain nothing scientifically by it.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

Yes, and they are either accurate or bogus.

I'm the rightful heir to the throne of England or I'm an impostor. Christ was either David's descendant or He was an impostor. The Jewish establishment claimed the latter. He could be a prophet - but not the messiah, the son of David. Matthew and Mark make sure to establish His lineage. If it was pure invention, then anything they write can be taken likewise. That is a valid position for a liberal unbeliever to take - but not for any Christian.

You take a terribly literal view. Of course they are either accurate or bogus - the point is, however, that that's not the point.

If you claim descent from, say, William the Conqueror, the point is not whether it is accurate or not - the point is whether people accept that claim, either literally or figuratively.

Benedict XVI is not a reincarnation of earlier Benedicts. Nevertheless, by using the name, he indicates various 'attributes' that he feels he shares with them, and also that he is a traditionalist.

You equally misunderstand the nature of myth. A myth is, in effect, a parable. Jesus did not expect his listeners to really believe that he was talking about a particular prodigal son (although had you been there you'd probably have wanted a name and address!).


regards,
Scofflaw

robindch

> B]briancalgary[/B I have given you personal examples of people that are
> highly educated that have stated that evolution proves no god. They
> have utilised evolutionary theory to come to this conclusion. And frankly
> you can deny it all you like and close your eyes to it; but it happens.

I'm not denying that it happens, I'm just repeating myself that it's *wrong* to do this. To explain this in detail:

Evolution is a disprovable, tentative explanation for the origin of species (though it's a pretty good one). While, roughly speaking, a proof is an incontrovertible demonstration from one or more axioms and according to formal production rules, that some other statement is true.

You will be able to see the contradiction here. Evolution is tentative which means that anything derived from it is tentative too. This means, that with the theory of evolution, you cannot show that something is true. It's a contradiction in terms.

Does this make sense?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> B]briancalgary[/B I have given you personal examples of people that are
> highly educated that have stated that evolution proves no god. They
> have utilised evolutionary theory to come to this conclusion. And frankly
> you can deny it all you like and close your eyes to it; but it happens.

I'm not denying that it happens, I'm just repeating myself that it's *wrong* to do this. To explain this in detail:

Evolution is a disprovable, tentative explanation for the origin of species (though it's a pretty good one). While, roughly speaking, a proof is an incontrovertible demonstration from one or more axioms and according to formal production rules, that some other statement is true.

You will be able to see the contradiction here. Evolution is tentative which means that anything derived from it is tentative too. This means, that with the theory of evolution, you cannot show that something is true. It's a contradiction in terms.

Does this make sense?

Yes. And I do agree that it is wrong to allow evolution to lead to an unbelief in God.

When it comes to Christianity, there are those who reject Christianity based on their experiences with a particular denomination, which is also wrong.

robindch

> When Paul rules that women must not exercise authority in the
> church, and bases that on Adam being created first, is he just
> spinning a tale to ensure his whim goes?

Many people would suggest that he was. Certainly, he was following a well-trodden path in denying equal treatment and equal social rights to women.

Rights, I might add that are still being routinely denied for religious reasons, in many countries no more than a stone's throw from where I'm writing this, in a hotel in Bahrain.

> If Christ and Paul based their ethical demands on myths, of what
> value are they to us today?

That's a good question. So, given your doubts, don't you think that it would be better to base one's ethics upon rational thought and consideration for the needs of others, rather than selecting bits and pieces from what you quite correctly point out might well be myths?

robindch

Ha, the 1000'th post!

John Doe

Son Goku wrote:

In physics alone there are two eighty year old experimental physics journals which concern themselves only with analysis of radioactive materials. Not to mention the palaeontology journals devoted to it.
It would take me a while to explain and it's largely technical, but essentially things can be dated in manner which doesn't depend on a presupposition about an earlier state of the material.


This is going to sound very harsh, but I'll say it anyway.
In the first regard, there is very little evidence that animals appeared fully formed. That's just the truth, not an interpretation of the evidence. All the animals that date the earliest are simple Radiates like jellyfish and the majority of fossils can be traced in some fashion to these Cambrian animals.

Secondly, although one could interpret the old universe as actually young if it was created old, that's not really a valid working scientific conclusion.

General Relativity predicts the universe's size, age and expansion, as well as how gravity works within it. It's an excellently confirmed framework, to randomly throw out one of its confirmed predications as an illusion for no particular reason other than for the sake of being nihilistically open minded wouldn't really make sense.

For instance nobody actually entertains the idea that drugs kill bacteria because they feel socially awkward around each other in a way that looks identical to chemical reactions.

There shouldn't be a debate because you gain nothing scientifically by it.

Brilliant. Just brilliant. This should be the end of the argument, but it won't be. I'd like to add one point, to try and no doubt fail to forestall any rebuttals: this is science. Most people arguing in favour of Creationism or ID on this thread seem to be claiming that they have a scientific basis. If you are bothering to do so, you must argue your case within the field of science. You cannot accuse scientists of being biased towards what basically boils down to empiricism, i.e. science. Sun Goku's above scientific arguments are perfectly legitimate.
Wolfsbane, why does it matter where the real history left off and the myth began? Surely you don't believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God because he was descended from David, do you? I would have thought that miracles performed by him would be a more important factor, and that the only family tree really worth bothering about would be the one that has one branch: God-Jesus.

Yay, the 1001st post in this thread!

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> When Paul rules that women must not exercise authority in the
> church, and bases that on Adam being created first, is he just
> spinning a tale to ensure his whim goes?

Many people would suggest that he was. Certainly, he was following a well-trodden path in denying equal treatment and equal social rights to women.

Rights, I might add that are still being routinely denied for religious reasons, in many countries no more than a stone's throw from where I'm writing this, in a hotel in Bahrain.

Congrats on 1,000:)

Paul's treatment of women in Ephesians suggested was as such: women for the first time given the opportunity to be taught, as the church devoted itself to the apostles teachings (Acts 2:42-48). The women were treating it as a social outing and were yacking away and shouting out questions, not recognizing the decorum of a classroom setting. Paul had to ask the women to be quiet so that teaching could occur. It was not a situation of putting men over women.

I started a new thread on this topic.

Bahrain. Robin do you ever get around.

bmoferrall

robindch wrote:

Ha, the 1000'th post!

Feck ya! I knew you'd have your finger on the trigger for this.
I had a brilliant poetic rewriting of Genesis drafted that would expose the fallacy of evolution once and for all :v: .

I shall postpone its unveiling until no. 2000 :cool:.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

That's a good question. So, given your doubts, don't you think that it would be better to base one's ethics upon rational thought and consideration for the needs of others, rather than selecting bits and pieces from what you quite correctly point out might well be myths?

I don't have doubts about where my ethics come from. If I believed Christ based His claims to Messiahship on myths, then I would indeed be filled with doubts. It is those who make the genealogies of the gospels non-literal, 'sociological signifiers of identity', who have reason to doubt.

John Doe asks:

why does it matter where the real history left off and the myth began? Surely you don't believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God because he was descended from David, do you? I would have thought that miracles performed by him would be a more important factor, and that the only family tree really worth bothering about would be the one that has one branch: God-Jesus.

If He was not descended from David, then He was a liar and an impostor - for the Christ (Messiah) was to be of David's lineage. So, no, Jesus could not just appear from heaven and claim the throne. That would make His Father a liar too, for it was He who promised Christ, the root and off-spring of David.

All the Scripture must be fulfilled, or it all falls. All must be true or it is just another tale. No picking and choosing allowed.

wolfsbane

John Doe said:

Brilliant. Just brilliant. This should be the end of the argument, but it won't be. I'd like to add one point, to try and no doubt fail to forestall any rebuttals: this is science. Most people arguing in favour of Creationism or ID on this thread seem to be claiming that they have a scientific basis. If you are bothering to do so, you must argue your case within the field of science. You cannot accuse scientists of being biased towards what basically boils down to empiricism, i.e. science. Sun Goku's above scientific arguments are perfectly legitimate.

I have no problem with Son Goku or others making a scientific case for evolution. It is their denial that the rebuttals of other scientists are to regarded as scientific argument that bothers me. One can say, 'That's just the truth, not an interpretation of the evidence', but the other side could say the same, if they were so foolish. Our interpretation may be the truth or not - saying it is doesn't make it so, can't rule out the other guy responding.

Check out the creationists arguments on all the different areas; I've given the sites with the links. The arguments are there, whether one agrees with them or not. For example on dating: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=quicksearch&f_keyword=dating
Seems to me some of those posting have not bothered checking the creationist articles first.

Scofflaw

wolfsbane wrote:

I have no problem with Son Goku or others making a scientific case for evolution. It is their denial that the rebuttals of other scientists are to regarded as scientific argument that bothers me. One can say, 'That's just the truth, not an interpretation of the evidence', but the other side could say the same, if they were so foolish. Our interpretation may be the truth or not - saying it is doesn't make it so, can't rule out the other guy responding.

Check out the creationists arguments on all the different areas; I've given the sites with the links. The arguments are there, whether one agrees with them or not. For example on dating: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=quicksearch&f_keyword=dating
Seems to me some of those posting have not bothered checking the creationist articles first.

We keep trying to hammer this point home - here we go again.

That someone is making an argument does not mean there is a debate, if their argument is ill-founded or incorrect. Dismissing such an argument is not by any means evidence of prejudice - except possibly a prejudice against time-wasting.

No-one is denying that there are Creationist arguments. It's just that so far, they're not just refutable, but easily refutable. No twists or contortions are required to do so, no conspiracy required, just a reasonable amount of scientific knowledge and a bit of logic. Occasionally the ability to detect snake-oil is also handy.

Why do we have to keep reiterating this very basic point?

Scofflaw

Son Goku

There are fossils which date sequentially over three million years and show small sequentially changes and move through four separate species. There are also fossil basins which converge upon the pattern predicted by evolution to within a 0.0001% probability.
If you want to replace evolution you have to beat that level of explanatory power, not give out about how unfair they are for not allowing the debate in the first place.

There is literally billions of pieces of evidence Creationism either doesn't explain or contradict.

99.9999% of radioactive data says the solar system is 4.7 billion years old.
All other data confirms this.

That’s the empirical evidence, you either explain it or you don't.
If Creationism says the solar system is 6,000-12,000 years old then it just doesn't fit the evidence, then end of story.
If you escape out of this by saying maybe it was created old, then that isn't science.

For Creationism to be right the on of the following two sets would have to be wrong:

SET A:
1. Dating Techniques.
2. Quantum Mechanics.
3. Thermodynamics.
4. Statistical Mechanics.
5. A lot of post-ferric chemistry.
,e.t.c. ,e.t.c. ,e.t.c. ,e.t.c. ,e.t.c.

SET B:
The world actually tells the truth in measurements.

Imagine if I said that cells are powered by nuclear reactors.
Then people say that ” there’s no uranium spectrum in cells, cells don't have critical mass, e.t.c.".
Instead of explaining this I make attacks on our theories of atomic elements, which have worked up to now.
Eventually the arguments against me pile up, at which point I say:
” The reactors are invisible and make everything look like they work the way we think cells normally do".
Then when scientists say "Pfff!, there is no point to this", I accuse them of close-mindedness.

It doesn't explain anything, it doesn't predict anything, it doesn't match evidence and it has to say stuff is an illusion to get out of it.
As far as Science is concerned that is dreadful.

End of Story.

Scofflaw

To pick what seems to be the most-cited paper from the search results page wolfsbane points to:

"Excess Argon": The "Achillies' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks (#307)
by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.

Here is a paper in which Snelling claims, inter alia:

For more than three decades potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks has been crucial in underpinning the billions of years for Earth history claimed by evolutionists. Critical to these dating methods is the assumption that there was no radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in the rocks (e.g., basalt) when they formed, which is usually stated as self-evident. Dalrymple argues strongly:

"The K-Ar method is the only decay scheme that can be used with little or no concern for the initial presence of the daughter isotope. This is because 40Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated. Thus, while a rock is molten, the 40Ar formed by the decay of 40K escapes from the liquid."

However, this dogmatic statement is inconsistent with even Dalrymple's own work 25 years earlier on 26 historic, subaerial lava flows, 20% of which he found had non-zero concentrations of 40Ar* (or excess argon) in violation of this key assumption of the K-Ar dating method.

That quote above is the beginning of Snelling's paper. It seems immediately clear that Snelling has found a problem with this dating method!

But wait! Now lets quote from the conclusions to that paper by Dalrymple:

With the exception of the Hualalai flow, the amounts of excess 40Ar and 36Ar found in the flows with anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios were too small to cause serious errors in potassium-argon dating of rocks a few million years or older. However, these anomalous 40Ar/36Ar ratios could be a problem in dating very young rocks. If the present data are representative, argon of slightly anomalous composition can be expected in approximately one out of three volcanic rocks.

Far from ignoring the issue, as Snelling claims, Dalrymple notes the excess argon he has found, and notes that it does not cause serious errors in older rocks. He acknowledges that it may cause problems in rocks a few million years old or younger.

In no way is Snelling's paper scientific. It rests on a lie.

Snelling's work, in turn, is then used, in various Creationist arguments, to falsely give the impression that (a) dates obtained using this method are unreliable, (b) that the 'true' dates would therefore be younger, and (c) that they would be younger by orders of magnitude.

All of these are false - (a) relies on the lie Snelling has told about Dalrymple, (b) would be incorrect anyway, since excess argon would give erroneously young dates, not erroneously old, and (c) would also be incorrect, since the error margin is smaller than the dates by an order of magnitude, not larger (noting Dalrymple's proviso).

This kind of thing is not science, and would correctly not be allowed in any reputable scientific journal. Nevertheless, it sits there on the ICR site, and is used to bolster the claims of a "scientific controversy", or to attack dating results that Creationists disagree with. Those who have no scientific understanding are likely to take it at face value without realising that they are being lied to for the sake of a minority religious agenda.

Scofflaw

Scofflaw

By the way, is the CSF Statement of Faith still in use?

CSF members subscribe to a lengthy, very specific Statement of Faith. Apart from purely religious clauses, not relevant here, several clauses carry serious implications for those in scientific and educational circles, especially for those in the Earth (and other historical) sciences. As the extracts below reveal, to a dedicated creationist, scientific evidence is always subservient to Biblical authority.

"(A) PRIORITIES

1. The scientific aspects of creation are important but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator and Redeemer.

(B) BASICS

3. The account of origins presented in Genesis is a simple but factual presentation of actual events and therefore provides a reliable framework for scientific research into the question of the origin and history of life.

5. The great flood of Genesis was an actual historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect.

(D) GENERAL

The following attitudes are held by members of the Board to be either consistent with Scripture or implied by Scripture

(i) The scripture teaches a recent origin for man and for the whole creation.

(ii) The days in Genesis do not correspond to Geological ages, but are six
(6) consecutive twenty-four (24) hour days of creation.

(iii) The Noachian flood was a significant geological event and much (but not all) fossiliferous sediment originated at that time.

(iv) The chronology of secular world history must conform to that of Biblical world history."

cordially,
Scofflaw

samb

Scofflaw wrote:

Those who have no scientific understanding are likely to take it at face value without realising that they are being lied to for the sake of a minority religious agenda.
Scofflaw

You can tell form the first sentance that it is agenda driven and not scientific. ''crucial in underpinning the billions of years for Earth history claimed by evolutionists''. This clearly shows a lack of understanding of science generally.
Although evolution fits with an ''old earth'' it is not involved in dating the earth. the age of the earth is established by geologists and cosmologists among others. People who study evolution in detail are not involved in dating the earth.

Scofflaw

Alas, we actually have a post from wolfsbane covering this very point:

'Evolutionists' are those who do not accept the Genesis account as being literally true.

The term covers anyone from astrophysicists to chemists - whichever works best in any given context is what is assumed to be being used. You can also throw it at Old Earth Creationists ('theistic evolutionists').

regretfully,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) - The Ohio school board voted Tuesday to eliminate a passage in the state's science standards that critics said opened the door to the teaching of intelligent design.
The Ohio Board of Education decided 11-4 to delete material encouraging students to seek evidence for and against evolution.
The 2002 science standards say students should be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards include a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design.
The board vote represents the latest setback for the intelligent design movement, which holds that life is so complex it must have been created by a higher authority. In December, a federal judge barred the school system in Dover, Pa., from teaching intelligent design alongside evolution in high school biology classes. The judge said that intelligent design is religion masquerading as science, and that teaching it alongside evolution violates the separation of church and state.

John Doe

Thank Garp for that. It appears some people still have sense.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote:

John Doe said:


I have no problem with Son Goku or others making a scientific case for evolution. It is their denial that the rebuttals of other scientists are to regarded as scientific argument that bothers me. One can say, 'That's just the truth, not an interpretation of the evidence', but the other side could say the same, if they were so foolish. Our interpretation may be the truth or not - saying it is doesn't make it so, can't rule out the other guy responding.

Wolfsbane... You're really clutching at straws here. And without any substantial arguments, you're not going to get anywhere anytime soon. The "other guy" is free to respond as much as he likes. But without evidence or research to back up his response, it's meaningless. Which is why the ICR, Michael Behe, William Dembski et al responses are meaningless. They do not have the facts to back them up. That there is no theory of ID despite all the bitching and moaning is testament to that fact.

Check out the creationists arguments on all the different areas; I've given the sites with the links. The arguments are there, whether one agrees with them or not. For example on dating: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=home&action=quicksearch&f_keyword=dating
Seems to me some of those posting have not bothered checking the creationist articles first.

Hilarious. All of them are incorrect for reasons mentioned above, and if you'd like I could go through them one by one.

And that's the crux of the matter. There are people out there who argue against evolution. But such arguments do not automatically challenge the immense veracity of evolution, as *none* of them have the facts to beck them up. But don't take my word for it.... Start posting up individual arguments and watch as they are corrected.

Oh, and you still haven't said why Genesis must be taken literally. As far as I know, Jesus only extracts moral lessons from Genesis, not historical ones.

This reminds me of kids who inisist they're wiccan despite knowing nothing about the religion, and cry discrimination when people point out it's not an ancient religion.

Creationists who are not scientists can try call themselves that if they like when they have no scientific arguments, but they're about as justified in doing so as my insistence that I'm a tree.

hairyheretic

bluewolf wrote:

This reminds me of kids who inisist they're wiccan despite knowing nothing about the religion, and cry discrimination when people point out it's not an ancient religion.

I'm curious why you say that. Do you want to move that comment over to the paganism forum and expand on it?

Asiaprod

bluewolf wrote:

This reminds me of kids who inisist they're wiccan despite knowing nothing about the religion, and cry discrimination when people point out it's not an ancient religion.

Bluewolf, I recommend you read up on Gerald Gardner and Alex Sanders, and check out this site for a quick run through
http://meta-religion.com/Spiritualism/Wicca/wiccae.htm.

Many people misunderstand Wicca, ancient religion, and the Celtic Pantheon
There is a lot to be learned from the Wicca way. Have you read the Wiccan Rede. I also agree with HH that you should take this to the paganism forum, it is worth talking about.

Asiaprod

Asiaprod wrote:

Bluewolf, I recommend you read up on Gerald Gardner and Alex Sanders, and check out this site for a quick run through
http://meta-religion.com/Spiritualism/Wicca/wiccae.htm.

Many people misunderstand Wicca, ancient religion, and the Celtic Pantheon
There is a lot to be learned from the Wicca way. Have you read the Wiccan Rede. I also agree with HH that you should take this to the paganism forum, it is worth talking about.

I have read the wiccan rede.
I have read the 161 rules. I have an idea of what the elemental weapon of ether is.
I'm still telling you it's not an ancient religion. Gardner may well have used influences from the order of the golden dawn and some old pagan religions, but it was nonetheless invented in 1950s. It is a mystery religion, which is why people who insist they are wiccans without being in lineaged covens is ludicrous.

I've spent a fair while learning about it in another forum, because so many questions are asked about it, and my sources come from former wiccans. And the odd link.

Anyway, I've made a thread in the pagan forum.

Asiaprod

bluewolf wrote:

I have read the wiccan rede.
I have read the 161 rules. I have an idea of what the elemental weapon of ether is. Anyway, I've made a thread in the pagan forum.

Great, I will pop over later to talk about it. Thanks.

Talliesin

bluewolf wrote:

This reminds me of kids who inisist they're wiccan despite knowing nothing about the religion, and cry discrimination when people point out it's not an ancient religion.

I think there's a good point here.

The history of inter-religious relations is sadly very often the history of one group getting it in the neck from another, peppered with incidences where numbers were even enough for two groups to really go at each other for prolonged periods of violence.

The perceived history is often even more so, since the periods of relative tolerance don't really stand out in the history books, except perhaps indirectly (e.g. many Qabalic texts come from the Islamic period of Spain's history which indirectly points to the relative degree of tolerance towards Jews in that time and place) whereas the blood and brutality of religious war stands out much more.

This has led to sentiments, such as "the Church is at it's best during times of persecution". And those who would seek the moral high-ground therefore have an interest in claiming (whether as a conscious ruse, or because they genuinely believe it) to be persecuted - even going so far as to deliberately seeking positions of persecution.

As such religious affiliation becomes a tool of the ego, whether the claim is that Christians are persecuted because creationism isn't taught as science, wannabe Wiccans in the Silver Ravenwolf mold (I dislike "well they aren't a real X" as an argument in religious discussion, but Silver Ravenwolf has always struck me as an egotistical anti-Christian using Wicca as a badge because she hasn't the cajones or ethical integretity to go all out and call herself a Satanist), or anyone else more attracted to the double reflection of their perception of others' perception of a religion than to the divine.

Unfortunately these are just the same people that actually would be persecuting others, if they could manage to get the numbers and weaponry (wether actual, political, financial or otherwise) to do so.

Tip on spotting real persecution: They almost never need a conspiracy to carry it out.

Creationism has not presented a case that gives a basis for it to be taught as science. It is struggling to present a case where it can even claim it should be seriously investigated as science.

samb

bluewolf wrote:

This reminds me of kids who inisist they're wiccan despite knowing nothing about the religion, and cry discrimination when people point out it's not an ancient religion.
.

Why should it matter that it is not an ancient religion. I find it strange that in schools religious people can get away with things like crosses and head-scarfs becsuse it is 'a religious thing' yet I cant wear what I like because I BELIEVE I shouldn't be able to. My belief I should be allowed to wear a pink fluffy hat is not as valid because It is not a Religious belief. Can't I call it a religion of my own?
Are we not entitled to hold up any belief we may have or indeed pretend to have (not based on evidence) and expect to be treated like everyone else who holds such a belief.