cuchulain

I have been persecuted by Christians for being Pagan. The people in question attended the Catholic school across the street from where I lived, made a wrongful accusation against me and later admitted it was because I had a pagan bumper sticker. They told the prosecutor it was because their teacher put them up to it. The prosecutor, even having this information, refused to drop the charges. On the other hand, I have never heard of a pagan making wrongful accusations against a Christian for having a Christian bumber sticker. This is Illinois, by the way, in case anyone wondered where at in the United States. The people made a complaint against me to the police, which was picked up by the prosecutor and I had to go to court. Nothing was done against them, nothing was done to the Catholic school, the teacher the principle, anything. I had to go to court for something I didn't do, because Christians thought that I was evil. Guess they never heard of not bearing false witness. The case was dismissed because the witnesses failed to appear in court. It wasn't dismissed due to a lack of evidence, or anything like that. The arrest sits on my record, because the witnesses failed to appear, because the prosecutor when presented with testimony to the actual facts failed to drop the charges. I know this doesn't rank with beheading, but persecution is there nonetheless. Pretending that it doesn't exist in the United States is kind of silly. As far as Christians being persecuted historically, Pan, I agree. I think if you go back far enough in ANY groups history, they were probably persecuted at some point. Still, doesn't make it right to keep it up now, does it? Two wrongs don't make a right? Aren't Christians supposed to turn the other cheek, and all that? Just my opinion, of course, about the two wrongs not making it right.

What I am saying is if God is all powerful, there is no power left over for anyone else, therefor nobody else has any power to alter the course of events. It seems built into the definition for me. In order to be all powerful, God must by definition have ALL the power, right? Leaving none for anyone else? And will wouldn't come into it at all, because will is a form of power.

If God is all powerful, all knowing and all loving, then he loves witches, witchcraft, satanism, and everything else too. If he is all powerful, no other being could have created magic or witchcraft, God being all powerful means he is responsible for the creation of EVERYTHING. Since God can do no wrong, then creating witchcraft must not have been wrong. Since everything God does is good and we are supposed to emulate him, and everything God does is a type of magic, then we should all take up the practice of magic. Just some considerations.

If she's a witch, she burns. Wood also burns. Wood floats. Ducks also floats. Therefor if she weighs the same as a duck, she must be a witch, and should burn. (hopefully everyone understands this isn't my real opinion, but a monty python reference?)

I agree with that Pete, except for it being right to challenge others. I believe it is right, under the right circumstances of course. But, under the wrong circumstances, such is inadvisable at best. Some people do not want to be exposed to the thinking processes of those who don't believe like they do, and I believe it is their right to be left alone if they so choose, and if they acknowledge the right of others to be left alone from their beliefs as well. Lots of Christians seem to be drawn to me, can't honestly say why. They like to come up and preach at me, hopeful that I will convert I suppose, and I cannot fault their good intentions. But they always, without exception, have taken offense when I preach back. Seems to me if someone wants me to be willing to listen, they should be as well.

I can agree with Dan as well, but I have to ask...what if the religion in question has a religious tenet of intolerance? Do we tolerate the religion and their views, even though they are intolerant of several other groups, if not all? Clearly, I don't think allowing them to cross legal boundaries is a good thing, so things like assault and the such would be just out altogether, I don't view that as needing to be tolerated personally. But what about hate speech? I suppose a person has to break it down into public and personal views, like Dan has. Hate speech in public is protected, hate speech in a personal manner, such as on a forum like this one, is guided by the rules of the owner, and not allowed. Almost a paradox, though...allow all religions, but do not let anyone be intolerant, whether their religion says so or not. Just some thoughts, again.

The problem with education as a battle against intolerance is...who is doing the educating? We are seeing in another area of life that people are starting to choose non union over union, but for decades to say a word against the union was perceived as somehow against workers. Who educated these people? Why good ole union teachers, of course, who absolutely had no agenda for the union by any means, right? In a similar vein, then, comes education about tolerance. If the people doing the educating have an agenda, then is the education going to be unbiased enough to support tolerance, or rather would that bias by nature rub off on those they are trying to teach? I have noticed that for the most part, this forum is unique in that many members think for themselves. I have stumbled upon other forums, and talked with other people in the "real" world, and for the most part they are sheep who go along with the party line, whatever the line might happen to be. These are the type of people who prefer to let others do their thinking, and so any education with bias would be heavily reflected in their every day lives, I think. Just my thoughts, though.

appreciable responses, all, and much thanks. As to Brother Kaman's question about who I am, I would have to say an ignorant seeker. I think that fairly sums it up

I'm just sittin here watching the wheels go round...

I know it seems a whimsical question, but recently I began wondering what identifiers people used for themselves. Most of the people I know when asked this question will reply with oh I am a doctor, or I work at walmart, or I am a housewife(or dad). Some few people will reply that they go to such and such church, or attend college at this school or that. I thought I would start off broadly to see what other people might think of the question itself, aside from the music reference which is obviously the first thing that MUST pop into anyone's mind I don't think there are right or wrong answers to such a question, since the only person qualified to answer for each individual is probably that individual themselves. Brother Kaman, I have never gotten the answer you gave before, but I think it strikes closest to the mark for me.

I really wanna know...

Who are you?

An idea can be right for one person while being wrong for another, I believe. Take medical treatment of all sorts for example. Some people respond well to sulfas, I however am allergic. If my wife has a sinus infection, perhaps bactrim is the way to go. If I have a sinus infection, not so much a good idea after all.

It seemed to me that Obededom was supporting the beheadings, especially when Leopardboy posted links about Christians stirring up hate against homosexuality in Africa and Obededom responded by saying "that is because homosexuality is a sin. It is a rebellious act against God. And God will hold those accountable who do it or promote it" That statement could equally be applied to the beheadings, yes? Maybe I wrongfully applied it to such, however. Obededom, if you could clarify for us? Does that statement apply to the witches as well, and their subsequent beheadings? Previously he stated that witches should not be suffered to live, giving the bible verse with that statement included and saying that we no longer live under that law, I took that combined with subsequent statements to mean that witches shouldn't be allowed to live. Did I misread, Obededom? If so, I apologize, and ask for further clarification.

Obededom, if God is all powerful, he certainly doesn't need us humans breaking his commandments for him, i.e. thou shalt not kill (Murder if you prefer). He can take care of it himself, yes? So why would you support ANYONE breaking a commandment? Aren't you, as a Christian, supposed to stand up against that? I guess if it suits your cause, you can be as hypocritical as you want, eh? Of course, that is my opinion, please don't be offended by it.

two ideas can both be wrong, or right.

I can appreciate that you clearly believe that "God is" but this is not established fact. What exists, exists. This is something I can agree with. But for someone to make a positive claim that God exists, regardless of all our understanding, is the opening for someone else, I suppose me in this instance, to ask for the proof.

I would say more that there are limits to what A is not, rather than what it is. In real life, there are often things that fulfill multiple functions, and so are A and B at the same time. I suppose in looking at the logic behind these particular rules, I find them lacking personally. Perhaps my intellect is not high enough to comprehend them, I don't know.

Understand that I am arguing these points from the God is real standard, and that I do not believe such, but they make a useful analytical tool in this instance for me. With the law of identity, I think that God is equal to himself, whether we would have the law or not is irrelevant, and only an observation on the human side of things. He seems to say that without the law, we would not be able to identify anything, especially God. I think it is backwards, that things are what they are, and utilizing the law is how we identify them. The law of noncontradiction seems to state that a thing cannot be its polar opposite, if I am reading it properly that is. God cannot be anti God or the Devil, seems to be the statement given? I wonder, would God, through the law of noncontradiction, be able to create that which is his polar opposite? If not, then there must be no polar opposite to God, because in the beginning God is all there was, yes? The law of excluded middle affirms which particular subject we are speaking about, I believe. It is stated that without the law, we could say God but really be referring to anything, or multiple things. The author seems to believe that without this law, we would have no basis for differentiation. I do not know that we need a particular law regarding differentiation, in point of opinion, I would hazard that all three of these laws are somewhat self evident. I could be mistaken.

A philosophical theory? Such as I stipulated I would accept in a philosophical setting, rather than scientific?

Dave, you left out the next part of that definition. Especially based on principles independent of the thing to be observed. As I asked, where are the principles independent of the observation, in this case I think the observation is the bible, or at the least the creation story contained within the bible. Just wondering where those independent principles are, friend, as well as the test results from testing the hypothesis. That is how theory works, for the most part. Of course, as Coolhand says, creationism is based on a poem, stick with science. As I said, I could fully understand the bible as literature, or philosophy, or even in a religion class, so long as all other philosophies and religions were equally represented. And, I suppose it could be put into a poetry class, although I don't personally find that appealing, but to call creationism science without using the scientific method to verify seems a fallacy to me. Just my opinion though, of course.

That is the question at hand, friend. I can understand that perhaps it is not how common parlance defines the theory, yet this is a theory that is taught in some schools. It seems to me that in the professional setting, at least so far as secular settings go I should say, creationism cannot rightly be called a theory without some sort of testing to determine whether it is an accurate observation. Hence, when the debate arises as to whether a school should offer creationism as an alternative theory, the answer must be no, unless and until someone can devise a method for testing the hypothesis and thus upgrade it from such to theory. It isn't really relevant in my mind whether or not this "Theory" coincides with what science says, what is relevant to me is that this does not hold up as a legitimate theory, but rather a philosophy as Dan said. I could fully accept teaching this in school as one of many philosophies detailing how the universe was created, so long as other philosophies and religions were given equal weight. But to teach this in science class is a fallacy, I believe. When science class gets to the beginnings of the universe, I believe it is perfectly acceptable for the teacher to state that we do not know how it all started. After all, isn't that where science begins with answering a question in the first place?

As I said, action is preferable to sitting still and allowing things like this to occur. It seems like everyone is saying the opposite, that we should be complacent and say this is too big a problem to handle? Maybe I am misreading all of you? Of course that is probably what they said about the witches. The difference, however, is that the witches weren't killing people so far as I know, and these terrorists are beheading others. Kind of seems obvious to me that beheadings of this type should not be tolerated. Maybe it is a cycle, maybe trying to stop them will end with them beheading more people. I don't know the answer to that. But I do know that sitting still and letting them behead others is wrong, in my opinion. Feel free to disagree Mererdog, I still find it objectionable to behead those of differing ideas.

Creationism is identified by Merriam Webster as a theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing. A theory is defined as a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be observed. The scientific method is: formulate a question, research, hypothesis, prediction, testing, analyze, and conclude. If Creationism is a theory, what were the general principles that were independent of the observation? What research was done, in order to form the hypothesis and prediction? More important in my view, what was the testing in order to prove this theory?

There are always people to stop other people from doing things like this, Mark, the problem is that they don't realize that they can affect change. Most people think of problems as too big to handle for them, and leave those problems for someone else. The terrorist groups responsible for things like this happening, whether male or female or Christian or Pastafarian, they get support from somewhere. The first step to defeating a terrorist group is to undermine their allies, removing the vehicle of support that these people get. I realize that suddenly I sound very egotistic in my assessment, as though all of this hasn't been thought of before Still, action is preferable to sitting still and saying we can't stop them.