Westboro Baptists, trolling most everyone else on the face of the earth, has incurred the fairly epic trolling of the Satanists, who held a pink mass to turn Fred Phelp's dead mother gay...
Satanists Troll Westboro Baptist Church, Hold ‘Pink Mass’ Ritual To Turn Fred Phelps’ Mother Into A Lesbian
A group of satanists have turned Westboro Baptist Church founder Fred Phelp’s mother into a lesbian.
Yes, this is a pretty bizarre story. According to ABC, the New York based Satanic Temple decided to hold a “pink mass” ceremony at the grave site of Catherine Johnston, the mother of Fred Phelps. The satanist group apparently believes that a “Pink Mass” ceremony can change the sexual orientation of the dead.
A “Pink Mass” may sound a little outrageous but it isn’t uncommon for religious groups to hold ceremonies for the dead. Mormons, for example, hold a ceremony to baptize people after they have died.
Of course, it’s not clear how serious the satanist actually take the ritual. Spokesman Lucien Greaves said that the Pink Mass ceremony was designed specifically to get a rise out of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Greaves said: “We believe that Fred Phelps is obligated to believe that his mother is now gay in the afterlife… Further, if beliefs are inviolable rights, nobody has the right to challenge our right to believe that Fred Phelps believes that his mother is now gay… No one can question our beliefs.”
The Westboro Baptist Church has built a nasty reputation over the years for boycotting the funerals of dead soldiers and holding protests declaring that “God Hates Fags.” The group recently announced that they would by boycotting the funeral of Cory Monteith.
The Pink Mass ceremony may be a made up ritual but the WBC probably didn’t appreciate all of the same-sex love occurring near Phelps’ tombstone. According to UPI, the satanists invited same-sex couples to stand on the grave and share a kiss during the “Pink mass” ceremony.
The Westboro Baptist Church has built a nasty reputation over the years for boycotting the funerals of dead soldiers and holding protests declaring that “God Hates Fags.” The group recently announced that they would by boycotting the funeral of Cory Monteith.
The Pink Mass ceremony may be a made up ritual but the WBC probably didn’t appreciate all of the same-sex love occurring near Phelps’ tombstone. According to UPI, the satanists invited same-sex couples to stand on the grave and share a kiss during the “Pink mass” ceremony.
At first I was going to comment about how you can't convert to lesbianism because science doesn't work that way. But then I realized in this context that would just be a ridiculous comment to make.
So instead, I will ask a few questions:
1. Does the article's author not know what boycotting means, or is the WBC simply planning to not attend Monteith's funeral?
2. Why is everyone associated with the Church of Satan always named something White Wolf-esque like Lucien Greaves or Azrael Dark...uh...stone? Why can't we ever hear from Church of Satan spokesman Frank Johnson, or Tom Smith or something absolutely common.
Church of Satanism is a recognize religion in the US Military....along with Wiccan....I've had maybe two individuals over my career who were Satanic...one wiccan....one actual Amish...slew of Islam...Christians...anyway...
Wonder how often they are going to hold "Pink Mass" ceremony over the grave, near the grave, whatever how many feet away from the grave....
Blokus wrote: Why are they idiots Monster Lame,, I mean Rain?
There's hardly a thing they've ever done to show a sign of intelligence. Their entire dogma is so full of contradictions, it makes the Churches they try to mock look like paragons of logic and reason.
Blokus wrote:Why are they idiots Monster Lame,, I mean Rain?
Seriously?
Jihadin wrote:....one actual Amish...
WTF? I thought the Amish were pacifists, as a fundamental principle. How'd they reconcile military service with that?
Kovnik Obama wrote:
Blokus wrote: Why are they idiots Monster Lame,, I mean Rain?
There's hardly a thing they've ever done to show a sign of intelligence. Their entire dogma is so full of contradictions, it makes the Churches they try to mock look like paragons of logic and reason.
I think this stunt shows glimmers of intelligence. After all, they clearly recognize the foolishness of claims made by the WBC, and have found a humourous and poetically just way to assault the WBC and their hateful belief system.
Even still, this is the first thing that came to my mind:
Blokus wrote: Do you mean the Anton LaVey from or the true form of the beast?
They're both composed almost entirely of teenagers and people under 30, which is never a good sign. The actual commandments are somewhat contridactory to themselves (which is very easy to avoid when creating a religion). And to name the religion after Satan (who in the three religions he originated in) is the flatout enemy of humanity who rebelled because he hated us with a passion hotter than hellfire. The religion tries to talk about how the character represents freedom, but that's not in the same ballpark of the same spiteful SOB with daddy issues the character actually is.
WTF? I thought the Amish were pacifists, as a fundamental principle. How'd they reconcile military service with that?
Tripped us out to. At 18 like they do I think he was allowed to live like the rest of us for a year. Decided to join the army on a three year contract. Became a Medic. He was the only one allowed not to be issued a weapon per SGT Maj. order. Since Rifle Qual was twice a year at least the NCO's who were running Safety on the firing line would switch out with him. NCO would have his weapon on the line to. So when Byler went out to the firing line they swap places and the NCO will shoot for him if on the digital target range or we just use a M4A3 commonly called a Skillcraft pen. He go home on leave and rent a room for one night and swap from regular clothes to Amish clothes while on leave. Apparently his father agreed to the arrangement. Think he was training up to be their version of a Doctor. Still a good kid and a good soldier. Loved being a paratrooper.
Jihadin wrote: Church of Satanism is a recognize religion in the US Military....along with Wiccan....I've had maybe two individuals over my career who were Satanic...one wiccan....one actual Amish...slew of Islam...Christians...anyway...
Wonder how often they are going to hold "Pink Mass" ceremony over the grave, near the grave, whatever how many feet away from the grave....
Well the Church of Satan isn't really theistic - it's atheistic. Wiccan is a legitimate religion as well.
Well the Church of Satan isn't really theistic - it's atheistic. Wiccan is a legitimate religion as well.
I could care less about religion. So many religion out there and no idea which is the correct religion. I mean how many version of the Bibles are there and which is the correct version. I just know when Satanism was added to recognize religion it didn't get as much shock as the Wiccan did. Christian groups went nuts over that
WTF? I thought the Amish were pacifists, as a fundamental principle. How'd they reconcile military service with that?
Tripped us out to. At 18 like they do I think he was allowed to live like the rest of us for a year. Decided to join the army on a three year contract. Became a Medic. He was the only one allowed not to be issued a weapon per SGT Maj. order. Since Rifle Qual was twice a year at least the NCO's who were running Safety on the firing line would switch out with him. NCO would have his weapon on the line to. So when Byler went out to the firing line they swap places and the NCO will shoot for him if on the digital target range or we just use a M4A3 commonly called a Skillcraft pen. He go home on leave and rent a room for one night and swap from regular clothes to Amish clothes while on leave. Apparently his father agreed to the arrangement. Think he was training up to be their version of a Doctor. Still a good kid and a good soldier. Loved being a paratrooper.
Huh. I gotta admit, if I had to join the military, I think paratrooper/medic is what I'd strive for too. But man, to do that without a weapon... that's nuts.
ThePrimordial wrote: They're both composed almost entirely of teenagers and people under 30, which is never a good sign. The actual commandments are somewhat contridactory to themselves (which is very easy to avoid when creating a religion). And to name the religion after Satan (who in the three religions he originated in) is the flatout enemy of humanity who rebelled because he hated us with a passion hotter than hellfire. The religion tries to talk about how the character represents freedom, but that's not in the same ballpark of the same spiteful SOB with daddy issues the character actually is.
So how is this any different from any "mainstream" religion? You could apply equally strong criticism to any of them over ridiculous claims they make.
(Answer: it isn't any different. The only reason satanism is obviously "silly" is that satanists are a small enough minority that they don't get the default excessive respect that larger religions get.)
ThePrimordial wrote: And to name the religion after Satan (who in the three religions he originated in) is the flatout enemy of humanity who rebelled because he hated us with a passion hotter than hellfire. The religion tries to talk about how the character represents freedom, but that's not in the same ballpark of the same spiteful SOB with daddy issues the character actually is.
Satan and "the devil" weren't originally the same character. The Satan was an obedient angel who acted to test the resolve of humans.
2. Why is everyone associated with the Church of Satan always named something White Wolf-esque like Lucien Greaves or Azrael Dark...uh...stone? Why can't we ever hear from Church of Satan spokesman Frank Johnson, or Tom Smith or something absolutely common.
It's part of the culture.
Implying that names like Lucien or Azrael are copying White Wolf is as dumb as claiming Tolkien ripped off Games Workshop's ideas.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thing is the Pink mass will not adequately troll Westboro Baptists.
You see Christians of all stripes, and I am very reluctant to include Westboro Baptists in this but have to on this occasion; believe that Jesus offers an unmodifiable 1+ save vs Satanic magick.
There is a lot of cultural support on this in occult culture, the most clear example is that most African Voodoo magicians know better than to put a hex on a Christian missionary, though witchcraft is still believed to be potent in Africa and a threat from a practitioner is taken seriously. Nasty feedback occurs when a curse is placed on a missionary and the general concensus from the magicians themselves is the Christian missionaries (but not those of other faiths curiously enough) have special spiritual protection.
The Satanists may well be convinced that there is no real spiritual protection over the Phelps family, even if they are the sort of Satanist who believes that at all. However the Phelps family are so convinced of their own holy righteousness that they will be more certain than most people who claim to be Christians that their shields are up and working perfectly.
The Pink Mass will have no effect other than to encourage Fred Phelps, he will remain 100% convinced that his own righteousness will shield his mother. He could make a more reasonable theological argument that any curse launched at anyone in heaven (if that is where she is) will have absolutely no effect at all, I would even go along with that.
If the Satanists dug up her grave and carved her bones that would likely cause upset, but this ritual will only encourage Fred Phelps, if that was the intention these Satanists are smarter than they look, otherwise they are acting dumber and need to re-read the basic occult 101 about using black magic on self confessed Christians.
ThePrimordial wrote: They're both composed almost entirely of teenagers and people under 30, which is never a good sign. The actual commandments are somewhat contridactory to themselves (which is very easy to avoid when creating a religion). And to name the religion after Satan (who in the three religions he originated in) is the flatout enemy of humanity who rebelled because he hated us with a passion hotter than hellfire. The religion tries to talk about how the character represents freedom, but that's not in the same ballpark of the same spiteful SOB with daddy issues the character actually is.
So how is this any different from any "mainstream" religion? You could apply equally strong criticism to any of them over ridiculous claims they make.
(Answer: it isn't any different. The only reason satanism is obviously "silly" is that satanists are a small enough minority that they don't get the default excessive respect that larger religions get.)
Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism are all composed of mixed followers so you're already wrong on one account
Christianity's primary tennants don't contradict themselves like Levayan satanism ( which is dramatically more contradictory ) So now that's two
accounts you're wrong on.
In my experience Satanists are easily upsettable tools or insane zealots
If the Satanists dug up her grave and carved her bones that would likely cause upset, but this ritual will only encourage Fred Phelps, if that was the intention these Satanists are smarter than they look, otherwise they are acting dumber and need to re-read the basic occult 101 about using black magic on self confessed Christians.
If the Satanists dug up her grave and carved her bones that would likely cause upset, but this ritual will only encourage Fred Phelps, if that was the intention these Satanists are smarter than they look, otherwise they are acting dumber and need to re-read the basic occult 101 about using black magic on self confessed Christians.
You realise that this is a joke, right?
I am explaining how Phelps will likely see it, and why it won't have the desired effect.
WTF? I thought the Amish were pacifists, as a fundamental principle. How'd they reconcile military service with that?
Tripped us out to. At 18 like they do I think he was allowed to live like the rest of us for a year. Decided to join the army on a three year contract. Became a Medic. He was the only one allowed not to be issued a weapon per SGT Maj. order. Since Rifle Qual was twice a year at least the NCO's who were running Safety on the firing line would switch out with him. NCO would have his weapon on the line to. So when Byler went out to the firing line they swap places and the NCO will shoot for him if on the digital target range or we just use a M4A3 commonly called a Skillcraft pen. He go home on leave and rent a room for one night and swap from regular clothes to Amish clothes while on leave. Apparently his father agreed to the arrangement. Think he was training up to be their version of a Doctor. Still a good kid and a good soldier. Loved being a paratrooper.
When I lived in in Pennsylvania, I learned that Amish kids at the time had some of the fastest cars in Lebanon and would break them out for Saturday night racing on the main street.
ThePrimordial wrote: Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism are all composed of mixed followers so you're already wrong on one account
That's why I said "equally strong criticism" and not "the exact same criticism". The point is not that satanism and other religions are all identical, it's that they're all just as bad in their own ways.
Christianity's primary tennants don't contradict themselves like Levayan satanism ( which is dramatically more contradictory ) So now that's two
Sorry, what? Christianity's primary tenets are an incoherent mess. The only reason anyone thinks it makes any sense is that it's been established as part of their culture for so long that they accept it without every really questioning it (while satanism is too small a minority to get that treatment).
In my experience Satanists are easily upsettable tools or insane zealots
Thank you for proving my point very nicely. If I said "in my experience christians are easily upsettable tools or insane zealots" I'd probably be taking a vacation from the forum. But apparently satanists are an acceptable target for some reason.
Dude ,Peregrine to my knowledge you're one of the few people on Dakka widely hated, just get out.
Satan and "the devil" weren't originally the same character. The Satan was an obedient angel who acted to test the resolve of humans.
Yeah but that's not really what Satanists get on about (depending on which Satanists you're talking about). They pretty much exist as a counter movement to dogmatic religions by identifying with a concept invented long after the Bible was written and turning it on its head and then playing mockingly into all the 1980's stereotypes for a good laugh. EDIT: And the theistic branches as I can tell tend to have some gnostic mysticism thrown in.
Satanists don't really identify with Satan/Lucifer/the Devil as the character(s) exist in the Bible but with latter concepts of from the romantic period (and the few Satantists I've met seem markedly aware of this but then they were literature majors XD).
2. Why is everyone associated with the Church of Satan always named something White Wolf-esque like Lucien Greaves or Azrael Dark...uh...stone? Why can't we ever hear from Church of Satan spokesman Frank Johnson, or Tom Smith or something absolutely common.
It's part of the culture.
Implying that names like Lucien or Azrael are copying White Wolf is as dumb as claiming Tolkien ripped off Games Workshop's ideas.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Thing is the Pink mass will not adequately troll Westboro Baptists.
You see Christians of all stripes, and I am very reluctant to include Westboro Baptists in this but have to on this occasion; believe that Jesus offers an unmodifiable 1+ save vs Satanic magick.
There is a lot of cultural support on this in occult culture, the most clear example is that most African Voodoo magicians know better than to put a hex on a Christian missionary, though witchcraft is still believed to be potent in Africa and a threat from a practitioner is taken seriously. Nasty feedback occurs when a curse is placed on a missionary and the general concensus from the magicians themselves is the Christian missionaries (but not those of other faiths curiously enough) have special spiritual protection.
Umm...
Hate to burst your bubble, but I can confirm, from a vicar that served as a missionary in Africa, that this is not the case. On her mission she and her friends were (supposedly) cursed by the local tribe, and there were no 1+ Jesus saves there. Whilst none of them actually died (thank goodness) they were violently ill, and had to get out of the country as soon as possible.
Now, in any case I'm not a religious type (although I am open to the potential for magic supernatural beings, just not omniscient, benevolent ones) and as such am skeptical of all tales of JESUS MAGIC ,etc, but she is a very well-traveled, kind woman and I don't think she'd be likely to make something like that up or lie about it. (Of course, it's equally possible that they simply caught a disease of some form and that no magic, Satanic, Jesusy or otherwise was involved, but heck, this is a thread about black magic).
******************
Anyway, I take my hat off to the people behind this. If anyone deserves trolling like this, it's the WBC.
I'll agree with Monster Rain that I'd be quite partial to the idea of 2 lesbians making out over my grave at my funeral.
Hate to burst your bubble, but I can confirm, from a vicar that served as a missionary in Africa, that this is not the case. On her mission she and her friends were (supposedly) cursed by the local tribe, and there were no 1+ Jesus saves there. Whilst none of them actually died (thank goodness) they were violently ill, and had to get out of the country as soon as possible.
Now, in any case I'm not a religious type (although I am open to the potential for magic supernatural beings, just not omniscient, benevolent ones) and as such am skeptical of all tales of JESUS MAGIC ,etc, but she is a very well-traveled, kind woman and I don't think she'd be likely to make something like that up or lie about it. (Of course, it's equally possible that they simply caught a disease of some form and that no magic, Satanic, Jesusy or otherwise was involved, but heck, this is a thread about black magic).
Oh, so you think that a voodoo curse and a disease are equally possible causes of the illness? In that case I have some magic stones that protect from black magic I'd like to sell to you on very reasonable price!
Hate to burst your bubble, but I can confirm, from a vicar that served as a missionary in Africa, that this is not the case. On her mission she and her friends were (supposedly) cursed by the local tribe, and there were no 1+ Jesus saves there. Whilst none of them actually died (thank goodness) they were violently ill, and had to get out of the country as soon as possible.
Foreign women in rural Africa who become ill? Thats so unlikely it can only be magic!
2. Why is everyone associated with the Church of Satan always named something White Wolf-esque like Lucien Greaves or Azrael Dark...uh...stone? Why can't we ever hear from Church of Satan spokesman Frank Johnson, or Tom Smith or something absolutely common.
It's part of the culture.
Implying that names like Lucien or Azrael are copying White Wolf is as dumb as claiming Tolkien ripped off Games Workshop's ideas.
Well, then it sure is a good thing I never made that claim nor even implied it, huh?
I use the term "white Wolf-esque" because while Azrael and Lucien are Hebrew and French Gothic respectively, I cannot come up with a more concise and apt description for the broad grouping of names such as Dmitry Kane or Corentin Darkmagic. You are welcome to attempt your own refinement of the 1990s Hot Topic nomenclature if you wish, but please do so without attempting to put words into my mouth.
ThePrimordial wrote: Christianity, Buddhism, Taoism, Judaism are all composed of mixed followers so you're already wrong on one account
That's why I said "equally strong criticism" and not "the exact same criticism". The point is not that satanism and other religions are all identical, it's that they're all just as bad in their own ways.
All just as bad in their own ways.
Ok lets take an easy step: Where is the Taoist equivalent of violent large scale Jihad?
Stop making wild statements.
Peregrine wrote: Sorry, what? Christianity's primary tenets are an incoherent mess. The only reason anyone thinks it makes any sense is that it's been established as part of their culture for so long that they accept it without every really questioning it (while satanism is too small a minority to get that treatment).
Christianity has a lot of internal consistency, and it is extremely biased (at the very least) to claim that this is only a thin appearance assumed due to a lack of scrutiny, as nothing could be further from the truth.
In my experience Satanists are easily upsettable tools or insane zealots
Thank you for proving my point very nicely. If I said "in my experience christians are easily upsettable tools or insane zealots" I'd probably be taking a vacation from the forum. But apparently satanists are an acceptable target for some reason.
If you find Christians easy to upset perhaps it has something to do with your opinions which have shown to be very intolerant of reglious people and chock filled with negative assumptions. You shouldn't be suprised if you find Chrisitans easy to upset if you say many of the things you put on your posts face to face.
Hate to burst your bubble, but I can confirm, from a vicar that served as a missionary in Africa, that this is not the case. On her mission she and her friends were (supposedly) cursed by the local tribe, and there were no 1+ Jesus saves there. Whilst none of them actually died (thank goodness) they were violently ill, and had to get out of the country as soon as possible.
Was there any actual connection, did a magician predict effects that came true? Being violently ill while on mission in Africa is not in any way unusual.
Anyway bubble unburst, I know of at least three missionaries who have testimonies of magicians claiming that a curse rebounded due to spiritual protection and have read about several more. Its a very common story.
Now, in any case I'm not a religious type (although I am open to the potential for magic supernatural beings, just not omniscient, benevolent ones) and as such am skeptical of all tales of JESUS MAGIC ,etc, but she is a very well-traveled, kind woman and I don't think she'd be likely to make something like that up or lie about it. (Of course, it's equally possible that they simply caught a disease of some form and that no magic, Satanic, Jesusy or otherwise was involved, but heck, this is a thread about black magic).
Hence the above question. I am open minded on the existence of Magic, but its hard to quantify because unlike formal religion there is no large scale structure and the occult crosses several culture boundaries. I am not prepared to discount all cases of 'psychics' for instance, but as there is no quantifying authority of any kind, and money to be made a large proportion is known to be directly fraudulent.
Conversely there are a large number of accounts, some backed up by independent journalist witnesses to show that something un-natural is occurring in a large number of Exorcisms. I have only known one exorcist, who practices mostly in Indonesia and he had some nasty experiences. However I have heared of nothing to lead me to believe that Satanic counter-culture we see in the west is tapped into this sort of power. I copnsider the vast majority of Satanists be be harmless members of a counter-religious social club and is just an excuse to stick the finger to organised religion. They dont concern or worry me in the slightest
Also there is to my knowledge no such thing as 'Jesus Magic'. Miracles are not the same. To quantify here there is a lot of Marian worship in Voodoo, more especially Carribean Voodoo over African. But Marianisn is not Christianity, even the catholics have formally rejected it and they are closer to Marianism than any other mainstream Christian group.
Orlanth wrote:Conversely there are a large number of accounts, some backed up by independent journalist witnesses to show that something un-natural is occurring in a large number of Exorcisms
Alex Jones is also an independent journalist witness to many things, yet somehow I fear he might not lend credibility to anything.
Orlanth wrote: All just as bad in their own ways.
Ok lets take an easy step: Where is the Taoist equivalent of violent large scale Jihad?
Stop making wild statements.
We're talking about absurdity of beliefs, not who has killed the most people. And the simple fact is that satanism is no more ridiculous than other religions, it's just considered an acceptable target because it's so small.
PS: where's the satanist equivalent of violent large scale jihad?
Christianity has a lot of internal consistency, and it is extremely biased (at the very least) to claim that this is only a thin appearance assumed due to a lack of scrutiny, as nothing could be further from the truth.
Sorry, but no. Every part of Christianity is a mess. The fundamental concept of salvation through Jesus only makes "sense" if you are told from childhood that it is obvious truth and never really question it too carefully. And it's certainly no more plausible than the stuff satanists believe.
If you find Christians easy to upset perhaps it has something to do with your opinions which have shown to be very intolerant of reglious people and chock filled with negative assumptions. You shouldn't be suprised if you find Chrisitans easy to upset if you say many of the things you put on your posts face to face.
I never said Christians were that easy to upset, I said that this forum was easy to upset. Calling all Christians "easily upsettable tools or insane zealots" would be a blatant violation of forum rule #1 and likely result in a temporary ban. But apparently satanists are an acceptable target and you can say the same thing about them without any consequences.
All just as bad in their own ways.
Ok lets take an easy step: Where is the Taoist equivalent of violent large scale Jihad?
Stop making wild statements.
We're talking about absurdity of beliefs, not who has killed the most people. And the simple fact is that satanism is no more ridiculous than other religions, it's just considered an acceptable target because it's so small.
Why is belief categorically absurd? Religion can bring value to life.
Sorry, but no. Every part of Christianity is a mess. The fundamental concept of salvation through Jesus only makes "sense" if you are told from childhood that it is obvious truth and never really question it too carefully. And it's certainly no more plausible than the stuff satanists believe.
I recommend a look at C.S. Lewis (not a spoonfed unthinking imbecile) book Mere Christianity, explaining his rational conversion experience. If he can think his way into belief so can others, you see you want to assume all religious people are so because they cannot think, or wont think. It's an easy out because it allows you to handwave away religion by saying 'its all rubbish' its somewhat harder to try and say why, doing so absolves you of having to reason your own response and is frankly somewhat hypocritical.
Why should we not come to the conslusion you have been spoonfed your atheism unthinkingly if you wont back it up with anything other than blanket statements against religion or practitioners of religion..
If you find Christians easy to upset perhaps it has something to do with your opinions which have shown to be very intolerant of religious people and chock filled with negative assumptions. You shouldn't be suprised if you find Chrisitans easy to upset if you say many of the things you put on your posts face to face.
I never said Christians were that easy to upset, I said that this forum was easy to upset. Calling all Christians "easily upsettable tools or insane zealots" would be a blatant violation of forum rule #1 and likely result in a temporary ban. But apparently satanists are an acceptable target and you can say the same thing about them without any consequences.
Internet posts often appear crabbier than intended, Besides most of Dakka can handle religious debate. We get trolls and InB4Lock spammers like everywhere but can handle a contentious topic better than most places on the web.
All just as bad in their own ways.
Ok lets take an easy step: Where is the Taoist equivalent of violent large scale Jihad?
Stop making wild statements.
Orlanth wrote:Conversely there are a large number of accounts, some backed up by independent journalist witnesses to show that something un-natural is occurring in a large number of Exorcisms
Alex Jones is also an independent journalist witness to many things, yet somehow I fear he might not lend credibility to anything.
Why is Alex Jones and in what way is that relevant,
Artistic but grossly unfair as a backup to a point of discussion, it provides only a highly partisan scripted facade of two points of view. It also over-relies on the myth that scientific thought is unified, and entirely rational when it is not. There can be multiple mutually exclusive extant theories on a particular subject, and storms of debate between proponents of 'pet' theories. This problem has been as old as scientific community. The Pythagorean brotherhood broke up when a mathematician was murdered by his mentor because his ordered view of numerical perfection was spoiled by the recurrent question 'what is the square root of 2?'
Truth, whatever that is, can be denied.
This statement can be taken many ways, but one way least explored but most relevant here is the mantra that if there was any evidence for religion it would be believed, or (from the video) if any part of alternative medicine was proven it would be just medicine. The miraculous occurs, but doesn't get airtime because the conclusions from an admission it exists challenges worldviews. Likewise Big Medicine might disdain a natural remedy that actually works.
This is not to say that all claims of miracles are true or we should all go 'back ' to herbalism as the cliche sterotype character from the video would suggest. Just keep an open mind, a real one, not the mantra of false open mindedness a portrayed by the supposed rationalist in the video.
Hate to burst your bubble, but I can confirm, from a vicar that served as a missionary in Africa, that this is not the case. On her mission she and her friends were (supposedly) cursed by the local tribe, and there were no 1+ Jesus saves there. Whilst none of them actually died (thank goodness) they were violently ill, and had to get out of the country as soon as possible.
Now, in any case I'm not a religious type (although I am open to the potential for magic supernatural beings, just not omniscient, benevolent ones) and as such am skeptical of all tales of JESUS MAGIC ,etc, but she is a very well-traveled, kind woman and I don't think she'd be likely to make something like that up or lie about it. (Of course, it's equally possible that they simply caught a disease of some form and that no magic, Satanic, Jesusy or otherwise was involved, but heck, this is a thread about black magic).
Oh, so you think that a voodoo curse and a disease are equally possible causes of the illness? In that case I have some magic stones that protect from black magic I'd like to sell to you on very reasonable price!
Nope. Like I say, I don't really believe in magic/religion etc, but I don't discount the possibility for its existence. Most likely, it was just illness, and I am very, very skeptical of the claim, but as an agnostic maltheist I still pay it some heed, because hey, you never can be too sure. Also I find it kinda arrogant that someone would think that their religion is immune to "the evul magikz". For example, I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean that if he does exist that I am immune to his power simply by the magic of atheism.
Conversely there are a large number of accounts, some backed up by independent journalist witnesses to show that something un-natural is occurring in a large number of Exorcisms. I have only known one exorcist, who practices mostly in Indonesia and he had some nasty experiences.
Our band chaplain in high school was a former Vatican exorcist who had worked in Africa. He refused to talk about his experiences other than to hope no one has to go through it. Him being a Jesuit and thus more secular/scientific leaning than most Catholic priests(at least in my experience of the various orders) made it all the more telling about the nature of what does/can go on during the ritual.
Of course, I am neither condoning WBC's actions nor defending them. I find them a vile group of human beings.
However, I find it hard to stomach that a group could be so disrespectful to the dead.
Iranna.
Actually I have no problem with this since the WBC has been disrespectful of the dead ever since they started protesting at the funerals of service men and women and those that have died in disasters. It's karma coming back to bite them in the ass.
Orlanth, it is silly to believe things without evidence (and insane to believe things there are loads of evidence against.) That's really what it boils down to.
Yep, your right, its no biggie. We are talking 18 centuries ago; and even that was mostly a class based rebellion rather than a religious based one.
Well it is a biggie. The fall of the Han Dynasty brought about 200+ years of political instability in China. Hundreds of thousands, or millions, died. How long ago it happened is irrelevant to the question of did it happen, and most religious wars aren't solely about religion. The Muslim Conquest, and the Crusades for that matter, were at least in part about large groups of men with nothing better to do with their time.
Crimson wrote: Orlanth, it is silly to believe things without evidence (and insane to believe things there are loads of evidence against.) That's really what it boils down to.
Fine, however evidence and proof are two different things. God doesn't provide proof but there is plenty of evidence.
I won't reiterate examples from previous threads on this subject but there is good reason to choose to believe in God.
However what I will say is that proof can come nonetheless, retroactively after a choice to believe. That might not be
the order you like to do things but one of Jesus's promises is 'seek and you shell find'.
You deserve more explanation than that, while a raw belief in God is to some extent a jump to an uncertain footing
because the evidence is veiled, in my opinion quite intentionally once there things can be a lot clearer. The difference
is the Holy Spirit. While I might not be able to see God, knowing the Holy Spirit can be very personal, even to the point of
holding conversation. Frankly I don't really know if I am a true man of faith, it would take no real faith at all to believe in
God knowing God as I do, and I am not alone in this.
I could talk more about evidence like phenomena like tongues and testimonies of changed lives, but its is easier to just
say. Find out for yourself. If you want to find God, you can. If you don't want to find God, you won't. Everything else is just detail.
Orlanth wrote: It also over-relies on the myth that scientific thought is unified, and entirely rational when it is not.
No, it doesn't. In fact it specifically notes that scientific thought is not unified.
Where does it?
Welcome back to the mosh pit dogma.
Anyway, a closer look at the short piece and why it is unfairly misrepresentative:.
03:09 - 03:19
The assumption that medical knowledge is universal, things are either incontrovertably medicine or bs based on scientific concensus.
This flies in the face of actual reality of how medical science and above all the pharmaceutical industry works.
04:25 - 04:40
Anti-spiritual message dressed up as scientific consensus. Anything spiritual is definitively either a deception or a mental illness.
05:46 - 05:54
An assumption of scientific consensus and a misrepresentation of faith all in one. It also clings to the dogma that science and faith are mutually exclusive.
05:54 - 05:59
The dogma that anyone claiming a scientific viewpoint is inherently open minded and rational. The pissing contests over acceptance of scientific viewpoints (let alone other viewpoints) are airbrushed over. In hard reality people in science do not easily or often change their minds over new evidence, in fact it is often resisted because of preferred interpretations often for egotistical reasons.
07:15 - 07:30
Making broad assumptions on a mentality behind opposing viewpoints irregardless of individual circumstances. The doctrine that those with a faith choice have such choices due to base fears, and that the alternative is inherently superior on the grounds that it lacks submission to such fears.
07:44 - 08:00
The assumption that the natural order is mutually exclusive with faith, that we can have an open minded awe of the universe or a closed minded faith based view of the universe. It ignores the choice of enjoying an open minded view of the universe and an appreciation of God.
Orlanth wrote: . God doesn't provide proof but there is plenty of evidence
Is there really?
Why the facepalm.
Most rational people who claim an atheist viewpoint say they have not been personally convinced by the evidence provided..
Your faith in there being no God must be blind indeed to just laugh so.
They should have hired a Mormon group to baptize her as a full Mormon in death.
Also, this just in- scientists have finally admitted that they dug into the Earth's crust to plant fake bones to claim as dinosaurs. To this date all paleontologists and their students remain excellent actors, much to their credit.
This sucks, as a very funny thread just devolved into a religious debate. Aren't there already a bunch of those somebody can be a thread necromancer of? This one is for making fun of the WBC, those silly chaps.
Because you say that while there is no proof there is plenty of evidence. There is no evidence, if there was then that would be proof. All there is is faith (which by its nature is intangible) and pure chance.
This is far from the first time that you have been fighting this losing battle on these boards, is there any need to drag yet another thread down this well trodden path?
Fine, however evidence and proof are two different things. God doesn't provide proof but there is plenty of evidence.
I won't reiterate examples from previous threads on this subject but there is good reason to choose to believe in God.
However what I will say is that proof can come nonetheless, retroactively after a choice to believe. That might not be
the order you like to do things but one of Jesus's promises is 'seek and you shell find'.
You deserve more explanation than that, while a raw belief in God is to some extent a jump to an uncertain footing
because the evidence is veiled, in my opinion quite intentionally once there things can be a lot clearer. The difference
is the Holy Spirit. While I might not be able to see God, knowing the Holy Spirit can be very personal, even to the point of
holding conversation. Frankly I don't really know if I am a true man of faith, it would take no real faith at all to believe in
God knowing God as I do, and I am not alone in this.
There is just as much 'evidence'* for Zeus, Quetzalqoatl, Shiva and many other deities and supernatural creatures people have believed in various times and still do. These people were and are just as sincere in their belief as you are, many of them had similar certainty as you do, they even had might have visions or other such 'spiritual experiences'. Yet all of these beliefs cannot be true. In theory some might, but as there is no reliable way to determine which ones, there's no reason to assume that any of them are.
Because you say that while there is no proof there is plenty of evidence. There is no evidence, if there was then that would be proof. All there is is faith (which by its nature is intangible) and pure chance.
This is far from the first time that you have been fighting this losing battle on these boards, is there any need to drag yet another thread down this well trodden path?
Because evidence has been presented, and the same mantta comes back: There is no evidence.
This is because no matter what evidence is found it will be blanket denied by those who would rather prefer to assume there is no evidence.
It is on my to reiterate at least one piece of evidence because I claim to know some, but in brief this time because any espostulation is likely to be hand waved away anyway as before. Though no logical reason for the rejection was offered then as I expect now :
The book of Deuteronomy, written well around three thousand years ago writes about a seven fold punishment of Israel. This when cross referenced to another text in Isaiah directly to the date of the rebuilding of Jerusalem two and a half millenia ago in the Jewish religious calendar comes to the exact date in 1948 when Israel was refounded.
The Bible writes about events occurring at their appointed time even generations later and refers to some like the rebuilding of the Temple. This one directly referred to in Scripture was fulfilled in living memory two and a half millennia later but on exactly the appointed day. It was a global event requiring even a vote in the UN to establish, yet it occurred anyway exactly on schedule.
How could a millennia old prophesy do that, and one that was overlooked until understood in the 1970's, the date for the founding of Israel was not set for this purpose, in fact the legislators appeared to be completely ignorant of the significance of the date.
This provides no proof, but does show evidence that God, via the Bible, might have had some input in this process.
Fine, however evidence and proof are two different things. God doesn't provide proof but there is plenty of evidence.
I won't reiterate examples from previous threads on this subject but there is good reason to choose to believe in God.
However what I will say is that proof can come nonetheless, retroactively after a choice to believe. That might not be
the order you like to do things but one of Jesus's promises is 'seek and you shell find'.
You deserve more explanation than that, while a raw belief in God is to some extent a jump to an uncertain footing
because the evidence is veiled, in my opinion quite intentionally once there things can be a lot clearer. The difference
is the Holy Spirit. While I might not be able to see God, knowing the Holy Spirit can be very personal, even to the point of
holding conversation. Frankly I don't really know if I am a true man of faith, it would take no real faith at all to believe in
God knowing God as I do, and I am not alone in this.
There is just as much 'evidence'* for Zeus, Quetzalqoatl, Shiva and many other deities and supernatural creatures people have believed in various times and still do. These people were and are just as sincere in their belief as you are, many of them had similar certainty as you do, they even had might have visions or other such 'spiritual experiences'. Yet all of these beliefs cannot be true. In theory some might, but as there is no reliable way to determine which ones, there's no reason to assume that any of them are.
* that is: hearsay and legends.
Show me one fulfilled prophesy from either of those gods, or any other.
Find me anyone who claims to have been raised from the dead or healed in their names.
Account for why 98%* of NDE's that show experience of an afterlife show one that fits the Judeo-Christian belief system, even when the witness is not necessarily of that religious group.
Because you say that while there is no proof there is plenty of evidence. There is no evidence, if there was then that would be proof. All there is is faith (which by its nature is intangible) and pure chance.
This is far from the first time that you have been fighting this losing battle on these boards, is there any need to drag yet another thread down this well trodden path?
Because evidence has been presented, and the same mantta comes back: There is no evidence.
This is because no matter what evidence is found it will be blanket denied by those who would rather prefer to assume there is no evidence.
It is on my to reiterate at least one piece of evidence because I claim to know some, but in brief this time because any espostulation is likely to be hand waved away anyway as before. Though no logical reason for the rejection was offered then as I expect now :
The book of Deuteronomy, written well around three thousand years ago writes about a seven fold punishment of Israel. This when cross referenced to another text in Isaiah directly to the date of the rebuilding of Jerusalem two and a half millenia ago in the Jewish religious calendar comes to the exact date in 1948 when Israel was refounded.
The Bible writes about events occurring at their appointed time even generations later and refers to some like the rebuilding of the Temple. This one directly referred to in Scripture was fulfilled in living memory two and a half millennia later but on exactly the appointed day. It was a global event requiring even a vote in the UN to establish, yet it occurred anyway exactly on schedule.
How could a millennia old prophesy do that, and one that was overlooked until understood in the 1970's, the date for the founding of Israel was not set for this purpose, in fact the legislators appeared to be completely ignorant of the significance of the date.
This provides no proof, but does show evidence that God, via the Bible, might have had some input in this process.
Fine, however evidence and proof are two different things. God doesn't provide proof but there is plenty of evidence.
I won't reiterate examples from previous threads on this subject but there is good reason to choose to believe in God.
However what I will say is that proof can come nonetheless, retroactively after a choice to believe. That might not be
the order you like to do things but one of Jesus's promises is 'seek and you shell find'.
You deserve more explanation than that, while a raw belief in God is to some extent a jump to an uncertain footing
because the evidence is veiled, in my opinion quite intentionally once there things can be a lot clearer. The difference
is the Holy Spirit. While I might not be able to see God, knowing the Holy Spirit can be very personal, even to the point of
holding conversation. Frankly I don't really know if I am a true man of faith, it would take no real faith at all to believe in
God knowing God as I do, and I am not alone in this.
There is just as much 'evidence'* for Zeus, Quetzalqoatl, Shiva and many other deities and supernatural creatures people have believed in various times and still do. These people were and are just as sincere in their belief as you are, many of them had similar certainty as you do, they even had might have visions or other such 'spiritual experiences'. Yet all of these beliefs cannot be true. In theory some might, but as there is no reliable way to determine which ones, there's no reason to assume that any of them are.
* that is: hearsay and legends.
Show me one fulfilled prophesy from either of those gods, or any other.
Find me anyone who claims to have been raised from the dead or healed in their names.
Account for why 98%* of NDE's that show experience of an afterlife show one that fits the Judeo-Christian belief system, even when the witness is not necessarily of that religious group.
*Visions Beyond the Veil.
Orlanth, your fighting the good fight and I'm with you on this, but something I have learned long ago is that even if people were to have an undeniable Angel come down and tell them it was all true they wouldn't neccessarily believe. Look at everything that happened with the Israelites in the desert and still they returned to idols. Balem is another good example.
One person's miracle is another person's law of averages being bucked.
Actually I have no problem with this since the WBC has been disrespectful of the dead ever since they started protesting at the funerals of service men and women and those that have died in disasters. It's karma coming back to bite them in the ass.
Whilst true, people shouldn't engage in a case of tit for tat. It solves nothing and will only lead in escalating the situation.
I would say that in a case involving morons such as this, ignore them and they'll die down.
Orlanth wrote: Why is belief categorically absurd? Religion can bring value to life.
You're missing the point. The point here is that satanism is just as absurd or reasonable as other religions, and it is unfair to single it out for criticism. The reason "everyone" agrees that satanism is ridiculous is that it's a small minority that doesn't have the social power of major religions and is therefore a safe target, not because the beliefs of satanism are any more absurd than the alternatives.
PS: satanism can bring value to life too.
I recommend a look at C.S. Lewis (not a spoonfed unthinking imbecile) book Mere Christianity, explaining his rational conversion experience.
Actually "spoonfed unthinking imbecile" is a pretty good description of C.S. Lewis. His so-called "rational arguments" are incoherent nonsense. They're great if you already want to believe and just need a bit of support so you can tell yourself that it's a good idea, but as an attempt at real justification they're entirely unconvincing.
It's an easy out because it allows you to handwave away religion by saying 'its all rubbish' its somewhat harder to try and say why, doing so absolves you of having to reason your own response and is frankly somewhat hypocritical.
I can easily give you the "why", I was just avoiding yet another "why Christianity is absurd" debate because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making: that you can't call satanism "silly" or "irrational" without applying the same criticism to other religions.
Besides most of Dakka can handle religious debate.
I didn't say anything about not handling debate, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing blatant insults against satanism that wouldn't be acceptable against other groups.
The miraculous occurs, but doesn't get airtime because the conclusions from an admission it exists challenges worldviews.
Seriously? You really think that in a country where christianity has a solid majority and public statements of belief are almost mandatory if you want to have any power in society people are afraid to report "miracles" because it would challenge worldviews?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote: Account for why 98%* of NDE's that show experience of an afterlife show one that fits the Judeo-Christian belief system, even when the witness is not necessarily of that religious group.
Probably because the "Judeo-Christian belief system" is so vague about heaven that pretty much anything could be interpreted as being a vision of it.
Actually I have no problem with this since the WBC has been disrespectful of the dead ever since they started protesting at the funerals of service men and women and those that have died in disasters. It's karma coming back to bite them in the ass.
Whilst true, people shouldn't engage in a case of tit for tat. It solves nothing and will only lead in escalating the situation.
I would say that in a case involving morons such as this, ignore them and they'll die down.
Iranna.
I put what the Satanists down to legitimate protest and is proportionate to what WBC has done in the past.
They did not dig up the grave or deface the memorial, they had two girls kiss over it on camera and had a ritual.
It would be better to highlight whether it caused offense to the priest and congregation of any local community which includes this cemetary.
As I dont know where the grave is, whether it is on municipal ground or the grounds of a church or not, so cannot say, but if those are church grounds.the local priest ought to put in an official complaint at thuis form of trespass.
You're missing the point. The point here is that satanism is just as absurd or reasonable as other religions, and it is unfair to single it out for criticism. The reason "everyone" agrees that satanism is ridiculous is that it's a small minority that doesn't have the social power of major religions and is therefore a safe target, not because the beliefs of satanism are any more absurd than the alternatives.
PS: satanism can bring value to life too.
I have throughout this thread refrained from making any comments on the quality of religion or religious experience provided by Satanism, it is not relevant to the thread..
I can easily give you the "why", I was just avoiding yet another "why Christianity is absurd" debate because it wasn't relevant to the point I was making: that you can't call satanism "silly" or "irrational" without applying the same criticism to other religions.
I didn't say anything about not handling debate, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of allowing blatant insults against satanism that wouldn't be acceptable against other groups.
Curious you defend Satanism, you show not a jot of concern if other religions are critiqued and in fact join in wholeheartedly.
However there has been no bash at Satanism on this thread. There isn't any real need.
Seriously? You really think that in a country where christianity has a solid majority and public statements of belief are almost mandatory if you want to have any power in society people are afraid to report "miracles" because it would challenge worldviews?
Actually, yes. Sometimes the strongest critics of spiritual Christianity are those in religious authority. Jesus himself experienced this frequently, St Francis was himself persecuted by the church, and was better received in Moslem lands than in Rome.
The power of God makes people uncomfortable, it shows up those who use religion as a tool for power than a blueprint for holy living. In the UK its worse we still have politicians make statements of faith at elections times but they severely hack at the church in between. Blair was especially good at that.
Point is miracles might be less desirable to some Christians than you might suspect. If I can find ordained priests that caution fervently against asking for Charismata, how can we expect the rest of 'Christian' society to react.
Orlanth wrote: Account for why 98%* of NDE's that show experience of an afterlife show one that fits the Judeo-Christian belief system, even when the witness is not necessarily of that religious group.
Probably because the "Judeo-Christian belief system" is so vague about heaven that pretty much anything could be interpreted as being a vision of it.
Ok. while not all such testimonies include meeting Jesus but a lot of them do. That in itself is nothing remotely vague. Besides most of the descriptors of heaven and hell - a number of NDE's are damnation experiences - are emotive, though heaven is repeatedly envisaged as filled with exceptionally bright but somehow not harmful light.
Still I am yet to hear of one that involves crossing the Styx by ferry, or of having one heart weighed against a feather.
I alone know His true intent now, He is mighty displeased at the Christians, Jews and Islamics and is going to move through me to bring you The Truth, for I have beheld His Kingdom when the oxygen was cut off from my brain for several minutes.
So brace yourselves, for I will be issuing you all with New Commandments, told directly to me, when my mind was in the process of shutting down and dying off.
I alone know His true intent now, He is mighty displeased at the Christians, Jews and Islamics and is going to move through me to bring you The Truth, for I have beheld His Kingdom when the oxygen was cut off from my brain for several minutes.
So brace yourselves, for I will be issuing you all with New Commandments, told directly to me, when my mind was in the process of shutting down and dying off.
I alone know His true intent now, He is mighty displeased at the Christians, Jews and Islamics and is going to move through me to bring you The Truth, for I have beheld His Kingdom when the oxygen was cut off from my brain for several minutes.
So brace yourselves, for I will be issuing you all with New Commandments, told directly to me, when my mind was in the process of shutting down and dying off.
I alone know His true intent now, He is mighty displeased at the Christians, Jews and Islamics and is going to move through me to bring you The Truth, for I have beheld His Kingdom when the oxygen was cut off from my brain for several minutes.
So brace yourselves, for I will be issuing you all with New Commandments, told directly to me, when my mind was in the process of shutting down and dying off.
It's TRUE, HE told me.
The High Elves told you?
You question the pointy eared, big helmed and girly harbingers of His Word?
Hate to burst your bubble, but I can confirm, from a vicar that served as a missionary in Africa, that this is not the case. On her mission she and her friends were (supposedly) cursed by the local tribe, and there were no 1+ Jesus saves there. Whilst none of them actually died (thank goodness) they were violently ill, and had to get out of the country as soon as possible.
Now, in any case I'm not a religious type (although I am open to the potential for magic supernatural beings, just not omniscient, benevolent ones) and as such am skeptical of all tales of JESUS MAGIC ,etc, but she is a very well-traveled, kind woman and I don't think she'd be likely to make something like that up or lie about it. (Of course, it's equally possible that they simply caught a disease of some form and that no magic, Satanic, Jesusy or otherwise was involved, but heck, this is a thread about black magic).
Oh, so you think that a voodoo curse and a disease are equally possible causes of the illness? In that case I have some magic stones that protect from black magic I'd like to sell to you on very reasonable price!
Nope. Like I say, I don't really believe in magic/religion etc, but I don't discount the possibility for its existence. Most likely, it was just illness, and I am very, very skeptical of the claim, but as an agnostic maltheist I still pay it some heed, because hey, you never can be too sure. Also I find it kinda arrogant that someone would think that their religion is immune to "the evul magikz". For example, I don't believe in God, but that doesn't mean that if he does exist that I am immune to his power simply by the magic of atheism.
I watched the Ghost and Mr. Chicken as a child and Ive never been attacked by a ghost since then!
I watch it every year on Halloween just to make sure I have a proper dose of Don Knotts in my system to keep the ghosts away!
Like Nostradamus, the bible isn't predictive. It's far easier to look at a text in hindsight and then pick out a few things with that bias and convince yourself that it was predictive. How many specific things predicted beforehand with reliable dates have there been? What usually happens is that many many predictions are made in a bit of a dart board approach and even then they are vague enough to be reinterpreted afterwards to make it seem they were more accurate and specific than they really were.
It's so easy to invent hidden codes and predictions in a large body of text that such approaches have been used to 'prove' that novels like Moby Dick predicted historical events. Which is obviously rubbish, but patterns are easy to see when you stare hard enough and have the bias to want them to be there.
Orlanth wrote: I have throughout this thread refrained from making any comments on the quality of religion or religious experience provided by Satanism, it is not relevant to the thread..
Of course it's relevant. My original comment that you started replying to was directed at someone who was criticizing satanism as somehow being worse than other religions when it isn't at all. The fact that you jumped in and took the debate in a different direction doesn't make it less relevant.
Says you. Unthinking imbeciles don't tend to hold academic seats at Oxford and Cambridge University, however perhaps you claim to know better.
Ok, let me clarify: I'm sure he was a good scholar in his academic field, but on the subject of religion C.S. Lewis was an unthinking imbecile.
Curious you defend Satanism, you show not a jot of concern if other religions are critiqued and in fact join in wholeheartedly.
No, you have that backwards. I love criticism of satanism, it's an incredibly silly idea. What I do not like is the hypocrisy of criticizing satanism for being silly while not applying the same criticism to other religions.
However there has been no bash at Satanism on this thread. There isn't any real need.
Go read the first 1-2 pages of this thread and say that again.
The power of God makes people uncomfortable, it shows up those who use religion as a tool for power than a blueprint for holy living.
Lol, no. I really don't see how you can miss the fact that people in the US are constantly talking about having god do miracles for them. Every time you see a disaster there's always someone talking about how god saved people from it, every time someone has a health problem it's "thank you god for answering my prayers and healing me", etc.
Still I am yet to hear of one that involves crossing the Styx by ferry, or of having one heart weighed against a feather.
And I seriously doubt that 98% of near-death experiences involve clear and unambiguous Christian elements. I'll consider this credible evidence when you post some evidence of common clearly-Christian experiences by people who are not Christian, and preferably have never heard of Christianity. Because until then all I see is people talking about the standard idea of "heaven" in their culture (standardized to the point that even secular portrayals of heaven default to using the common Christian idea), which is far short of evidence that Christianity is true.
@Orlanth: I didn't post that Tim Minchin video to try and teach something; I posted it to mock the endless torrent of blathering stupidity that preceded it.
On NDEs being christian in tone, I'm not so sure of that. A feeling of a powerful prescence , light and doorways are in no way specifically christian or christian iconography. If doorways are a part of any religion it is the romano/greek one , who had a god who had a door as his icon.
Anyways, isn't it written in a book of the bible (revelations i think) that people are risen bodily by god after the big calamities and dragons appear (dragons will be cool) so I am not seeing evidence from the bible that there is a christian afterlife until AFTER the deserving get raised. Having said that ,I am not sure how much faith (ha) you can put in revelations as a source. Personally i think revelations is a crock, but the witnesses who come to see me certainly love it.
I alone know His true intent now, He is mighty displeased at the Christians, Jews and Islamics and is going to move through me to bring you The Truth, for I have beheld His Kingdom when the oxygen was cut off from my brain for several minutes.
So brace yourselves, for I will be issuing you all with New Commandments, told directly to me, when my mind was in the process of shutting down and dying off.
It's TRUE, HE told me.
The High Elves told you?
You question the pointy eared, big helmed and girly harbingers of His Word?
HERESY!
Blasphemy. Brian Blessed's Beard is the true messiah!
Squigsquasher wrote: Let's also not forget that Deus Ex predicted the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Is that game now going to be taken as gospel?
You dare question the word of Warren Spector, harbinger of both, Serpent Isle AND Deus Ex, hallowed by his name. The lord and provider of System Shock?!
The man has done infinite things more godly and awe-inspiring than the Christian god.
On NDEs being christian in tone, I'm not so sure of that. A feeling of a powerful prescence , light and doorways are in no way specifically christian or christian iconography. If doorways are a part of any religion it is the romano/greek one , who had a god who had a door as his icon.
I think it is more a matter that people have such an assumption that NDE are patently "Christian", simply because of the years and years of Christianity adopting them as being related to "their" religion.
It's like misquoting someone so many times that people begin to think the misquote is true, just because they have heard it more often.
I'll bet you can find an absolute fanatical follower in every religion on Earth that has had a NDE that is similar to each the other religion's super-faithfuls, which to me proves one of two things:
-Each NDE is legitimate, and as such all religions lead to the same conclusion.
or
-It wasn't a "real" NDE, but something contrived by a starved brain, but because we have been bombarded by the almost singular "glowing tunnel with door" image, that such an image is knocking around in everyone's brains, and as a result it's kind of a "collective hallucination" among NDE survivors.
Yeah, a bit like Christmas trees. Originally they were part of Pagan/Wiccan ceremonies. The church, seeing how popular they were, then promptly stole the idea, stomped out Paganism, and claimed that it was their idea all along and it hadn't existed before they laid claim to it in the name of JAYSUS or whatever. Pulling a GW, if you will.
Squigsquasher wrote: Yeah, a bit like Christmas trees. Originally they were part of Pagan/Wiccan ceremonies. The church, seeing how popular they were, then promptly stole the idea, stomped out Paganism, and claimed that it was their idea all along and it hadn't existed before they laid claim to it in the name of JAYSUS or whatever. Pulling a GW, if you will.
That happened with (festival of) Ishtar and Yule becoming Easter and Christmas. The real Easter is on Passover weekend, no one knows when real Christmas is, it wasn't relevant to the early church.
Christianity didn't nick Christmas trees though.
Christmas trees are a 19th century German tradition and are directly linked to Christmas.
Other tree related customs connected are pagan but they were not Christianised but remain pagan. Dancing the maypole being the clearest example, which is very pagan and has its roots in fertility worship of several coupled deities including Baal & Astoreth and Osiris & Isis. Note here that Pagan deities hijacked popular ritual also and in time became part of secular custom. Morris dancing is at its heart a pagan fertility dance asking the earth goddess to squat on the pole representing the penis of the sky god that is itself millenia old.
Maypoles and the Asherah poles Joshua cut down in the Old Testament are similar in root even if the reason why the dance occurs has been lost to time (from the point of view of secular Morris dancers).
The Yule log was related to Yuletide but always secular custom and referred to the custom of peasants being permitted to collect firewood from the lords land without paying the 'wood penny' at this time. It's remembered now as a chocolate log sometimes served as part of Christmas celebrations.
It gets quite convoluted and Christianity shouldnt be singled out. Proper Christianity only has two actual meaningful rituals: Baptism and Communion, all others are just cultural trappings.
Orlanth wrote: It gets quite convoluted and Christianity shouldnt be singled out.
Of course it should be singled out. You're forgetting that the context of "Christianity stole all the Christmas traditions" accusation is usually some obnoxious conservative whining about the "war on Christmas" and how horrible all those secular Christmas celebrations are.
It's mean to claim that Christians stole from other religions to make Christmas. Mostly because that's ignoring all the other religions they did that to for all their other holidays.
Seems like passover is about the only "actual" Christianity-based holiday. Everything else is a re-skinned pagan holiday.
It gets quite convoluted and Christianity shouldnt be singled out. Proper Christianity only has two actual meaningful rituals: Baptism and Communion, all others are just cultural trappings.
I agree , but by the dead man with a commonly mispronounced name, the catholic church had a hell of a lot of cultural feast/holy days, must be painful trying to cover a huge pantheon of pagans gods holy days.
I agree. I can imagine a missionary saying "that large festival you had last week with all the beer and rooting? Become a christian and you can spend next year in a church" What a hard sell.
"Don't have wild orgies and drink yourself stupid! Don't worship the god that promotes ruthless violence in the hope you'll get to heaven! Pray in a church!"
To be truthful Christianity is nowhere near the first religion to do this, just the most successful currently, lol.
"Don't have wild orgies and drink yourself stupid! Don't worship the god that promotes ruthless violence in the hope you'll get to heaven! Pray in a church!"
There have been many times in history where the last two have not been mutually exclusive..........
Squigsquasher wrote: Let's also not forget that Deus Ex predicted the destruction of the Twin Towers.
Is that game now going to be taken as gospel?
You dare to question the inerrancy of Deus Ex? Heretic!
Main character's name is "J.C."? Capable of performing feats beyond the capacity of ordinary humans? Ushers in a new world making hard choices and potentially sacrificing himself?
Anyway, regarding the OP; man, that's seriously funny. I wholeheartedly encourage the trolling of WBC. They've shown that ignoring them isn't going to change their reprehensible actions, so we move to mockery.
Look I don't care what you believe. But have some respect for the dead. It's not a park or playground for people to make political statements or for one group to troll another group.
What goes around comes around, if they didn't want people making ham fisted gestures around the resting places of their loved ones, maybe they should reconsider the utterly vile things they try to interject during funerals for others.
I'm sure his mother was a lovely and classy woman.
Her son, however, leads people to say and do some truly despicable things.
Though I do prefer when there's some decent comedy in the mix. (Warning: potentially NSFW language on the WBC signs).
Non-Western near-death research has been conducted in China, India, Thailand, Tibet, and in several native cultures in Australia, Chile, Guam, the continental U.S., New Zealand, and Hawaii. Similarities to Western NDEs are the belief that this is the afterlife, a profound sense of peace, being in an otherworldly realm, meeting deceased relatives, meeting spiritual or religious figures (usually in keeping with one’s cultural background) and to a lesser extent experiencing some type of life review. The tunnel sensation was rarely reported in non-Western cultures.
Correlations
No significant correlation has been found between religious beliefs and the likelihood or depth of the near-death experience.24
No significant correlation has been found between age, race, sexual orientation, economic status and the likelihood, content or depth of the near-death experience.25
No correlation between the life history, beliefs, behavior or attitudes of a person and the likelihood of having a radiant or harrowing NDE has been established.26
There is no evidence of a correlation between the means of coming close to death, including suicide, and the likelihood of having a harrowing NDE.
wowsmash wrote: Look I don't care what you believe. But have some respect for the dead. It's not a park or playground for people to make political statements or for one group to troll another group.
And to go full circle: Why? Funerals are for the living. The dead don't care.
wowsmash wrote: Look I don't care what you believe. But have some respect for the dead. It's not a park or playground for people to make political statements or for one group to troll another group.
And to go full circle: Why? Funerals are for the living. The dead don't care.
wowsmash wrote: Look I don't care what you believe. But have some respect for the dead. It's not a park or playground for people to make political statements or for one group to troll another group.
And to go full circle: Why? Funerals are for the living. The dead don't care.
What are you basing this assertion off of?
Well, I guess my own personal views, which happen to be as reasonable and valid to me as are the ones belonging to the person who thinks the opposite of me. Therein lies the dilemma.
wowsmash wrote: Look I don't care what you believe. But have some respect for the dead. It's not a park or playground for people to make political statements or for one group to troll another group.
That's it exactly. The families of several others buried there are no doubt upset about the antics going on in an area they consider hallowed ground. I'd be a tad pissed if this exibition had gone on right by, and possibly spilled over on, graves of my family members.
2. Why is everyone associated with the Church of Satan always named something White Wolf-esque like Lucien Greaves or Azrael Dark...uh...stone? Why can't we ever hear from Church of Satan spokesman Frank Johnson, or Tom Smith or something absolutely common.
hum Lucien is a very common French name. Like Roger or Louis or Tom. There is nothing evil about Lucien.
Jihadin wrote: Tripped us out to. At 18 like they do I think he was allowed to live like the rest of us for a year. Decided to join the army on a three year contract. Became a Medic. He was the only one allowed not to be issued a weapon per SGT Maj. order. Since Rifle Qual was twice a year at least the NCO's who were running Safety on the firing line would switch out with him. NCO would have his weapon on the line to. So when Byler went out to the firing line they swap places and the NCO will shoot for him if on the digital target range or we just use a M4A3 commonly called a Skillcraft pen. He go home on leave and rent a room for one night and swap from regular clothes to Amish clothes while on leave. Apparently his father agreed to the arrangement. Think he was training up to be their version of a Doctor. Still a good kid and a good soldier. Loved being a paratrooper.
That's a great story. Cheers for that
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: So how is this any different from any "mainstream" religion? You could apply equally strong criticism to any of them over ridiculous claims they make.
(Answer: it isn't any different. The only reason satanism is obviously "silly" is that satanists are a small enough minority that they don't get the default excessive respect that larger religions get.)
Nah, it's because the ideas of Satanism are basically half-baked excuses to justify a chronic case of special snowflake syndrome. It's basically just another take on Objectivism, and deserves to be mocked about as much.
sebster wrote: It's basically just another take on Objectivism, and deserves to be mocked about as much.
'cept for the part about magic working. Although only if you believe in it and haven't ever doubted it. Despite the fact that the guy who wrote that said you'd have to be an idiot to believe in supernatural forces.
Sad to say, but I'd rank Objectivism higher. Ever so slightly.
Monster Rain wrote: African Voodoo Curse anecdotes wasn't something I was expecting in this thread.
In hindsight it was inevitable...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote: Orlanth, your fighting the good fight and I'm with you on this, but something I have learned long ago is that even if people were to have an undeniable Angel come down and tell them it was all true they wouldn't neccessarily believe.
fething bs. This idea that Christians have that we're just unbelievers and that's that is so dismissive, and so rude. Fact is we look at the world and see evidence against the existance of God, just as you see evidence for the existance of God.
It would be unbelievably rude of me to assume that you're just a guy who has to believe and that's that, and so I don't. Extend the same courtesy to others, please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kovnik Obama wrote: 'cept for the part about magic working. Although only if you believe in it and haven't ever doubted it. Despite the fact that the guy who wrote that said you'd have to be an idiot to believe in supernatural forces.
Sad to say, but I'd rank Objectivism higher. Ever so slightly.
I'd rank satanism as slightly sillier, because of the magic thing. But I'd say objectivism is slightly more worrying, because for too many objectivists it isn't just a phase, but ends up being a life long commitment to silliness.
