[Peter]

Originally Posted by ExistentialDisorder

Uhm, not possible. One god as two aspects = two gods = polytheistic. I think what you're trying to refer to here is the God and the Goddess joining to become one. Let's refer, once again, back to the definition of Wicca.

Let's not refer back to the dictionary.com definition of wicca.

Let's not refer to dictionary,com at all.

Dictionary.com is not an authoritative source of information. Now Merriam-Webster, that is.

I think the Catholics would be mighty surprised that they're polytheistic because they have a one God who has three aspects. Your language doesn't even make sense here, chalk up another thing you're wrong on.

One god as two aspects != two gods != polytheistic
One god as two aspects = one god = monotheistic

Or, to put it simply, whereas you're saying one god etc.=two gods, I say one god etc. = one god. 1=1, not 1=2.

Really? Please explain. How is one any less horrific than the other? With those four little words, of course it does, you make it sound as tho because they were not of a dominant religion it makes their suffering insignificant.
At least, that's what I gather from your statement.

That's because you're wrong a lot. One death, no matter how horric and tragic is a sad, tragic murder, if this happened to several million people it's more horrific.

Duh.

That is your assumption. Might I add, a prejudice one at that. Yes, at times I do gleefully inform. I don't see where that is contrary. Believe it or not, which I'm sure you probably don't, I rarely ever discuss religion because it almost always gives way to argument and ill will, such as this entire thread has proven.

What is contrary tho, is the idea that I'm offended by someone else knowing something about paganism that I don't. That couldn't be further from the truth. I welcome new knowledge, if its presented in an intelligent manner, and if its in fact true. I've never claimed to be an expert on any religion, or anything, for that matter. Nobody can claim that, regardless of what religion he or she professes, because all religions mean something different to everybody. The problem comes when someone tries saying something is true when it is obviously not and I'm attacked when I try to prove to them otherwise. That is what I find offensive.

Prejudiced how?, then you agree, so you're prejudiced too? Hmm.

You've quite clearly demonstrated that you resent being shown to be wrong in a debate on religion. Isn't this what this tirade is all about?, because you don't want to be seen to be wrong on one single thing? I may know what I'm talking about, but I would never say that I'm infallible and everything I say is absolutely 100% right. Even in this thread. And what I said was true, you've even admitted as such, nor did you try to prove yourself right, you made a nazi reference instead, remember? You've never claimed to be an expert on religion, simply that you're never wrong. Totally different of course.

Stop right there.
It's not.

Honestly, I wasn't even thinking about the Spanish Inquisition, or any other Inquisition, when I made that statement.

Ah well, my mistake, some of us aren't infallible and psychic you know.

But your average ill-informed citizen doesn't recognize the difference between a Pentacle and a pentagram, thanks to our churches, schools, and especially the media - meaning movies and television, as well as news, news papers, magazines, etc - because to them a star within a circle is symbolic of evil.

Those ill-informed citizens are right.

No?, well, go argue with a dictionary.

Which I will also add, and reiterate, that evil is a point of view. Nothing more.
Satanists also use inverted crosses and crucifixes, to represent the anti-christ, though I have never actually seen that, that I can recall, in the predominant, established religion of Satanism, which was in fact established as an official religion by Anton Sander Lavey who wrote the Satanic bible. Inverted crucifixes are however, used in various cults that claim to be satanic.
And just as a complete side thought here, Laveyan Satanists don’t even worship Satan, or any other deity. They don’t practice sacrifices or go around butchering things. They basically worship themselves and commonly believe that life should be lived to its fullest potential because once it’s over there is nothing else. One of their most common philosophies reads something like “Smite me and be smited back ten fold.” It’s a very interesting read, the Satanic bible.

But, I'm straying.

(Continued...)

Yes, that's because you're not an expert on religion, which is why at every oppertunity you don't try and educate the peoples, even though they offend you by being ignorant of the things you're saying.

Or something.

And I'd argue that Neopaganism and Paganism go hand-in-hand. Neopaganism being a revival, of a sort, of the old Pagan customs. It is more than just 'inspired by.' Paganism has never gone away entirely. Saying that it's inspired by, suggests that its a completely seperate form of belief or religion that just borrows aspects from the old world Pagan traditions, when truthfully, its much more than that. Through the middle ages and medieval periods it was hushed up for fear of persecution and practiced in secrecy, due in large part to all the Inquisitions, not just the Spanish. So technically speaking, tho some practices and beliefs have altered over time, there is no real, solid difference between Paganism of the old world and Neopaganism of today, other than, perhaps, that it is interpreted much more diversely now than before.

I want to say Peter, that I don’t try to blatantly discredit your views or opinions. All I’m doing is holding you to the same rules of factuality that you and everyone else here holds me to. If you have something to say then please say it, and I will listen and be totally objective, just like everybody else here should be. But just make sure that you have the proof to back it up, and that its not just a matter of hear-say, which a lot of what you’ve been saying in regards to religion, at least in this thread, is exactly that.

Factually, neopaganism is inspired by paganism, not a continuation of them. According to a real dictionary, a real encyclopedia, and real neopagans on for example, usenet, wiki sites, and even the word itself even means 'new pagan'. None of what I've been is heresay, and I provide better sources than you do. I don't try to blatantly discredit your views, they're simply wrong. Me knowing something more than you makes you have a hissy fit of sorts though.

Originally Posted by Peter

...if you can take "pagan" as a religion and then not define when religious holidays are and stuff couldn't you just .. well, do what the Wiccans used to do and make shit up as they go along and call it "being eclectic"

Originally Posted by ExistentialDisorder

is an ignorant, uneducated statement.

(Honestly, no offense to you personally Peter, but really... did you even research that? like, ever? Even a little teeny bit?... Didn't think so...)

Of course. Unlike yourself. The if then statement is logic at its most simple. Wiccans are known to use the word eclectic in reference to their religion a lot. Research for that? Usenet postings, try the same search in a wicca group. You'll like the link, they use dictionary.com

At least it's right that time.

Eclectic does mean picking the bits you like and using those. Hence my statement. Researched, not just by me, but by several community maintainers, several purely public forums in the USENet system etc. etc. and neither ignorant, since oh dear, it's true, and not uneducated either.

You're also inconsistent. Normally at this point, you'd have posted from dictionary.com, but it doesn't support your point, so you didn't, so loathe to admit any wrong, especially after promising to shut the fuck up.

I'm surprised you go like this at your age, frankly.