I am Christian. If your world view is more rational than mine please come show me.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

................................

So I have no idea what you believe from this post other than Christianity is based on a false premise. You say the premise is false but give no reason for believing it is false other than because you think so....You also did nothing to provide a more rational view than Christianity.

Your proposal was two tiered.

What is your world view?
Prove it is more reasonable than “your Christianity”.

You confirmed what I stated in my post.Your Belief System religion (with Christianity as it’s foundation) has blinded you to reason so you can’t even see something right in front of you.

I clearly stated “knowing” the creator God is the only reasonable state of being world view therefore belief in faith of ANY religion(including your Christianity) is false and unreasonable.The nature of religion is to NOT “know” it is only a method of belief through faith(religion).

I am positive you cannot understand this at all because of your religion and because you can only “believe through your Belief System religion.That is the dilemma.You cannot “know” the creator God as long as you believe your religion through faith because the only God of your religion (any religion) is not the creator God but is the believer themselves.They have “created” their God in their image(imagination) in their likeness.

You prove this fact over and over in your post because you cannot see past your own nose.I am not condemning you for that because you are only acting according to your religious nature and personal charcther through your Belief System.However the fact remains your beliefs are unreasonable because they are not truth but are only your perception(belief) through observance(faith) of your reality.

If you are truly believe you are the “flawed”(sinful) being you have said before you believe you (and all of mankind) are it is only reasonable you are incorrect about the belief in your God of your religion because knowing the creator God is the highest truth to be known.I am positive you do not believe you are “that” flawed which is proof once again that you are blind.You are in essence being blown up by your own petard.The very evidence of your belief is the evidence against you “knowing “ the truth.

To reiterate so there will be something to unequivocally quote.

The most reasonable world view is the creator God can only be “known” and is unknowable through religion of any kind.That is exponentially far more reasonable than the unreasonable non truths of religion including your Christianity.In other words the ball is in the creator God’s court.Everything is according to the creator God’s will not yours or anyone else’s belief.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: nonspecific

They have a "witches creed" adapted from the words of crowley.

"Do as though will is the whole of the law, And it harms none.

The ends justify the means and we are all personally responsible for our own action.

SCREEECH!!!!

No - that is NOT the witches' creed.

It is:

The Wiccan Rede /ˈriːd/ is a statement that provides the key moral system in the Neopagan religion of Wicca and certain other related Witchcraft-based faiths. A common form of the Rede is An it harm none, do what ye will.

The word "Rede" derives from Middle English, meaning "advice" or "counsel" and being closely related to the German Rat or Norwegian råd. "An" is an archaic Middle English conjunction, meaning "if." "Ye" is an archaic or dialectal form of "you" (nominative plural).

Other variants of the Rede include:

Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill,

An it harm none do what ye will.

It means, "do whatever you like AS LONG AS IT HURTS NO ONE."

gah.

Just saying. gah. Please look further into the 'rede', and archaic English FOR YOURSELF, before jumping on the wagon of some idiotic, poorly educated dimwits who don't know what they're talking about.

Simply Wow, what a hatefilled and angry post?

I guess your one of those angry Wiccans we hear so much about then?

Really?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm sorry dude... it's just Romans get my panties in a bunch!

they we're considered barbaric and uncivilized even while forming their small Republic.

and with origins in the gutter and these values never seems to have left them even in their Empire days.

I think of Rome I think of Popes and Kings and the British Empire.

originally posted by: AinElohim
I'm sorry dude... it's just Romans get my panties in a bunch!

Apparently so much so that you misremember history.

a reply to: nonspecific

I guess your one of those angry Wiccans we hear so much about then?

Really?

Angry?

How is it "anger" to tell you that you totally misinterpreted what the message is?

You got it wrong. You named it wrong, and translated it wrongly, and did exactly what the Westboro Baptist Church asshats do to try to turn things into something they ARE NOT.

Angry?
Frustrated beyond tolerance.

Are you one of the 'persecuted Christians' we hear so much about? Who talk out of their monkey-holes about other people's beliefs when they don't have a CLUE what that system or philosophy is all about?????

Just like the Bible-Thumpers and the Religious Right do when describing the ideals of "Progressives" and "Libtards"?

gah.

a reply to: nonspecific

You live in Southwest England and don't know this stuff?

You sport an avatar that reeks of Medieval and Renaissance caricature? Of the Inquisition and the rise of the Church of England?
How dare you.

Shame on you.

The very definition of "poser."

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: nonspecific

My personal opinion is that there is no Right and Wrong. It is all subjective.

This is ethical nihilism. No way around it, and yet if this is your belief its seems to be in complete contradiction to your previous statement "I base my life on an internal understanding of right and wrong." To say one bases his life on an internal understanding of right and wrong while simultaneously believing there isn't such a thing as right and wrong is the same as saying:

I base my life on an internal understanding of nothing and nothing.

That's a good lesson to learn because to take something that is not your's and is immoral.

Wait a minute its immoral? You just said there was no such thing as Right and Wrong. No such thing as Moral or Immoral. What are you even trying to appeal to ? Your world view says we have no such thing.

They have a "witches creed" adapted from the words of crowley. "Do as though will is the whole of the law, And it harms none.

Well Wicca must not study philosophy very much. To say do as though will is the whole law and IT HARMS NONE. Is easily shown to be false. They should have left the capitalized part off because Hitler willed to drive a whole country to commit genocide..obviously harmed a few million jews..seems to contradict itself immediately .

I see we are just going to disagree here, I thought you were looking for different view points to expand your understanding.

I never said I was right but that was my belief, If it contradicts yours and you feel the need to argue the point then thats fine.
Your dissecting my statments to try and find dissonance between my statements does not really stand up for me.

All I intended to say was that right and wrong are subjective and I choose to decide on my actions based on circumstance as opposed to predetermined ideals.

I hope this clarifies my previous comments.

originally posted by: AinElohim

yep... and Roman Law didn't influence diddly squat.

Again, your revisionist commentary is patently untrue:

The Codex Justinianus and the Institutes of Justinian were known in Western Europe, and along with the earlier code of Theodosius II, served as models for a few of the Germanic law codes; however, the Digest portion was largely ignored for several centuries until around 1070, when a manuscript of the Digest was rediscovered in Italy. This was done mainly through the works of glossars who wrote their comments between lines (glossa interlinearis), or in the form of marginal notes (glossa marginalis). From that time, scholars began to study the ancient Roman legal texts, and to teach others what they learned from their studies. The center of these studies was Bologna. The law school there gradually developed into Europe's first university.

The students who were taught Roman law in Bologna (and later in many other places) found that many rules of Roman law were better suited to regulate complex economic transactions than were the customary rules, which were applicable throughout Europe. For this reason, Roman law, or at least some provisions borrowed from it, began to be re-introduced into legal practice, centuries after the end of the Roman empire. This process was actively supported by many kings and princes who employed university-trained jurists as counselors and court officials and sought to benefit from rules like the famous Princeps legibus solutus est ("The sovereign is not bound by the laws", a phrase initially coined by Ulpian, a Roman jurist).

There have been several reasons why Roman law was favored in the Middle Ages. It was because Roman law regulated the legal protection of property and the equality of legal subjects and their wills, and because it prescribed the possibility that the legal subjects could dispose their property through testament. Source

And:

No code completely broke with the Roman tradition. Rather, the provisions of Roman law were fitted into a more coherent system and expressed in the national language. For this reason, knowledge of Roman law is indispensable to understand the legal systems of today. Thus, Roman law is often still a mandatory subject for law students in civil law jurisdictions.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: nonspecific

You live in Southwest England and don't know this stuff?

Shame on you.

You claim to be enlightened and yet you bring ego and arrogance? You attempt to belittle others and feed your ego with self imposed status?

You may take that shame back good sir,

Three fold.

originally posted by: nonspecific
My personal opinion is that there is no Right and Wrong. It is all subjective.

no no... that's only across cultures and herds.

our herd mentality is objective...

a reply to: nonspecific

You may take that shame back good sir,

Three fold.

It's "madam", (or, if you prefer, "Your Grace"), thanks very much, and

no -
The shame is all on you you. Take it back where you came from. You spoke out of ignorance, and called the correction 'arrogant' and 'hateful.' Next time do some homework "three-fold" before you unleash your fingers.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

That's because our brains are not equipped to deal with "infinite".

You might know this or you might not, but mathematicians and scientist distinguish between things known as mathematical infinities and physical infinities. As far as I know. No known physical infinities have been shown to exist, though some are considered very like candidates.

Since I was a little kid and asked my mom - how old is the universe? - she said - it's eternal. No beginning, no end. I said "I don't understand." She said "that's right. We can't understand it."

I suppose your mom isn't a cosmologist or a mathematician. I am not being rude, but as I have said there is plenty of good observable evidence that the universe is finite. The singularity theorems have shown that space-time ceased to be a manifold at some finite time in the past. Regardless of being able to deal with infinity we can deal with the finite which appears to be what we have in reality...

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: nonspecific

You live in Southwest England and don't know this stuff?

You sport an avatar that reeks of Medieval and Renaissance caricature? Of the Inquisition and the rise of the Church of England?
How dare you.

Shame on you.

The very definition of "poser."

The avatar is a Joke, A very good fun loving and fun member got a joke thread made about him and a few took it in jest.

You may notice the spiderman head and bannana sceptre.

Sorry if it offended you, I did not realise it could cause offence

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: AinElohim

yep... and Roman Law didn't influence diddly squat.

The Codex Justinianus and the Institutes of Justinian were known in Western Europe,

Again, your revisionist commentary is patently untrue:

yes... stop right here!

Justinian is New Rome (Byzantine) the true authentic flavor "Greek"

The Crown just went home... y'all went broke and into the dark ages...

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: nonspecific

You may take that shame back good sir,

Three fold.

It's "madam", (or, if you prefer, "Your Grace"), thanks very much, and

no -
The shame is all on you you. Take it back where you came from. You spoke out of ignorance, and called the correction 'arrogant' and 'hateful.' Next time do some homework "three-fold" before you unleash your fingers.

I have no ill towards you but you opened your post with an all capital screech and then prooceded to insult me and those that I know whilst proffesing greater understanding.

I am happy to end this now and start again?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I suppose your mom isn't a cosmologist or a mathematician. I am not being rude, but as I have said there is plenty of good observable evidence that the universe is finite.

Um, no - she isn't. My dad was an engineer, very versed in math, physics, etc.

And like I said - it was when I was a little kid. I am now pushing 60.

And SHE is now an atheist, who believes we are stardust. My dad died in 2010, so I can't consult him anymore, but I just re-read his copy of Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything", and recently lent my daughter his copy of "The Elegant Universe."

At all events - we do not have brains equipped to deal with some things that nag at our consciousness.....

originally posted by: AinElohim

yes... stop right here!

Of course you want to stop there as it allows you to omit the rest of the sentence which describes the Code of Theodosius being utilized as well which predates the one by Justinian.

And are you truly that ignorant to think that both the Eastern and Western Empires did not operate on the same system founded originally in Rome?

a reply to: nonspecific

prooceded to insult me and those that I know

Who that you "know" did I insult?

whilst proffesing greater understanding.

It's quite obvious that I DO have greater understanding of Wiccan philosophy.

This reminds me of when I asked my son to feed his parakeet and out of laziness he gave it chicken scratch - after which it promptly keeled over dead.

I am happy to end this now and start again?

I don't know....are you?

And if you're not actually asking me, but rather suggesting a truce: I will if you will.

LANGUAGE makes a difference.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: AinElohim

yes... stop right here!

Of course you want to stop there as it allows you to omit the rest of the sentence which describes the Code of Theodosius being utilized as well which predates the one by Justinian.

And are you truly that ignorant to think that both the Eastern and Western Empires did not operate on the same system founded originally in Rome?

there is no such thing as a Roman!

they were just grass skirt wearing freaks gallivanting around as learned Greeks and calling themselves Romans.

Ancient Italy was separated, on the north, by the Alps, from Germany. It was bounded by the Adriatic Sea, by a part of the Mediterranean and on the south, by the strait of Messina. The south of Italy, was peopled by a colony from Greece. The middle of Italy contained several states or confederacies, under the denominations of Etrurians, Samnites, Latins, Volsci, Campanians and Sabines. The north was peopled by a race of Gauls. Romulus and Remus the first rulers of the Romans originated from ancient city of Latium, Italy, in the Alban Hills about 12 miles southeast of Rome which was under the dominion of the Etrurians.

a reply to: nonspecific

You may notice the spiderman head and bannana sceptre.

Yeah, he also looks like John Spencer.

Whatever. Fine.