| |
| Writings Discussion Authors Help Search Home |
RE: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Aradia on 10/27/2000; 8:46 PM Oh, c'mon, Peter. It's a simple game. Do you think I am her, or not? Do you think that Aradia Yhalyan and Machiko Jenkins are the same person? You have a fifty/fifty chance. For those of you who know the correct answer, keep quiet.
RE: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Peter on 10/28/2000; 7:52 AM Yes, Machiko, I do. Your writing style is the same. You use short sentences as paragraphs, usually amusing ones. You said you are so left wing you are almost a right-winger. Machiko said something about being so left-wing she was in the right-wing section of the circle. You both often start messages with words like "Criminy" (definition?) and complain about me making connections between certain issues. Mark Morgan has recently written of your relationship to Machiko, something unlikely if you are different people, and his description of you describes you as a liberal witch (although it may be literal), certainly a good description of Machiko. You have mentioned writing strange fantasy stories on Nitcentral, and there are certainly some of those here, yet none have your name, just Ardra's. Hmm, all this evidence gathered from memory when a simple "yes, you are just like her" would have done. I knew it was a mistake to read those Sherlock Holmes stories. Peter.
RE: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Aradia on 10/28/2000; 9:04 PM Oh, I can't resist. Peter, you are way wrong. Machiko is nothing like Ardra. Who is Ardra, anyway? Unless you're making reference to the ST:TNG episode titled "Devil's Due"? You're still way wrong.
RE: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Peter on 10/29/2000; 8:35 AM I see. In backward old Britain it's still called sending people to the corner. I don't see how this would help, though. Wouldn't it be better just not to vote for them ever again? I meant Aradia, Machiko. Sorry to confuse you with that Star Trek woman. ;-) Peter.
RE: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Peter on 10/30/2000; 4:39 PM By the way, I read of a scientific test to see if a woman is a witch the other day. Using the most modern research available, the Puritans worked out that witches cannot drown, as their magic prevents this. Would you agree to a similar test, Machiko? If you do not drown, clearly you are a wicked witch and your magic is a threat to others, and you ought to be burned at the stake. If you are innocent, what do you have to hide? Peter.
RE: The Liberal threat to freedom By: ScottN on 10/30/2000; 5:40 PM No, no. If she floats, she's a duck!
Re: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Matthew Patterson on 10/30/2000; 6:01 PM Peter wrote: > By the way, I read of a scientific test to see if a woman is a witch the other day. Using the most modern research available, the Puritans worked out that witches cannot drown, as their magic prevents this. > > Would you agree to a similar test, Machiko? If you do not drown, clearly you are a wicked witch and your magic is a threat to others, and you ought to be burned at the stake. If you are innocent, what do you have to hide? Please tell me this is a joke. Please. Pretty please? Not that it would be much less ugly and inappropriate, but it might be enough to make a difference in my mind. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Peter on 10/30/2000; 6:52 PM Hmm. I don't think I'll answer that one.
Re: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Mark Morgan on 10/30/2000; 7:07 PM In article <Conversant-33074@dns2.macrobyteresources.com> , Peter <augustuscaeser@hotmail.com> wrote: >Hmm. I don't think I'll answer that one. You will, or I'll move this entire discussion to flamespace. It's all ready to go. --------------------------- Mark Morgan: mark_morgan@yahoo.com http://www.VoicesOfUnreason.com A resource for writers and readers of all stripes. ----- Isaac Asimov: "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds the most discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' (I found it!) but 'That's funny....'"
Re: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Peter on 11/1/2000; 2:41 PM Alright, then. It ruins the hope of seeing how Machiko responds, but yes, I was certainly joking. Matthew and Mark I have to say you two really are very strange people. Do you honestly believe anyone thinks that drowning someone to prove their innocence is sensible? Why do you act as though I may be some sort of lunatic? What on Earth makes you think this. I asked the question partly as a joke, but mainly to be absolutely sure that Aradia is indeed Machiko. I can now be certain as you all leaped to her defence rather than sniggering "Peter, Machiko isn't here, you know."
RE: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Brian Carnell on 11/1/2000; 3:04 PM >Matthew and Mark I have to say you two really are very strange people. Do you honestly believe anyone thinks that drowning someone to prove their innocence is sensible? The BBC ran a story the other day about a man who was shot and killed by police in South Africa. The man, it turns out, was part of a rather large lynch mob that was out trying to kill a local couple. The reason? The mob was convinced that the couple were witches, and that they had turned several local children into dogs. There is no shortage on our planet of insensible beliefs.
RE: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Peter on 11/1/2000; 4:12 PM Perhaps, but i find it worrying that they wonder whether or not I am a member of such a mob. Peter.
RE: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Seth Dillingham on 11/1/2000; 4:38 PM On Wednesday, November 1, 2000 at 8:28 PM, Peter (augustuscaeser@hotmail.com) wrote: >Perhaps, but i find it worrying that they wonder whether or not I am a >member of such a mob. In a place like this, you can only be known by the things you say. You have a right to say such hateful things, but you must accept the fact that if you exercise that right, you will be labelled as the sort of person who suggests the drowning of witches. You've already shown that you have some staunch-Christian philosophies, and therefore supporting old fashioned witch trials isn't a very difficult leap to make. If you're going to say something really obnoxious or inflammatory, and you mean it as a joke, make sure you say that it's a joke (somehow). That makes it much easier for us to tell the difference between "nasty by intent" and "nasty but joking". Not joking, Seth
RE: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Peter on 11/1/2000; 5:32 PM I still think that assuming someone wants to drown people is a silly thing to do. I do not like Wicca. I think it is a lot of superstitious nonsense. However, its members are the victims, not anyone else, so drowning them is the last thing we ought to do. The Wiccan gods include the Devil, according to a reliable source, but I know Machiko is not an evil person. These minor religions do have ways of getting people involved, and one of them may be attracting fantasy writers to a religion with deities called things like Air Mother and Soil Guy. I think all Christians would agree that members of these minor religions, even the ones that advocate Devil worship, are no less valuable and important than anyone else. I believe very greatly in religious freedom, although in the case of people like the Rev. Moon, I would not be too lenient. But NO serious person would advocate drowning any non-criminal. Peter.
RE: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Mark Morgan on 11/1/2000; 5:50 PM In a general sense, I agree with Seth; you are judged by what you say. Here on Unreason you've compared liberals to Hitler and Stalin--then you wonder why people don't know when you're joking? As for Matthew and I, we have the added knowledge of the things you've seriously suggested in postings elsewhere. Considering some of the things you have suggested as legitimate social policy, I take every suggestion you say as serious unless you say otherwise. Drowning people is neither more nor less odd than some of the other things you've suggested.
RE: The Liberal threat to freedom By: Aradia on 11/1/2000; 6:35 PM *Warning to all non-Peter and non-Aradia type people - break out the asbestos. Just in case.* All fun goes out of this thread. I'll give you one gold star, Peter. I'm Machiko Jenkins. Just as it took you seven posts to figure out. Whooo. I still think that assuming someone wants to drown people is a silly thing to do. I do not like Wicca. I think it is a lot of superstitious nonsense. However, its members are the victims, not anyone else, so drowning them is the last thing we ought to do. The Wiccan gods include the Devil, according to a reliable source, but I know Machiko is not an evil person. These minor religions do have ways of getting people involved, and one of them may be attracting fantasy writers to a religion with deities called things like Air Mother and Soil Guy. I think all Christians would agree that members of these minor religions, even the ones that advocate Devil worship, are no less valuable and important than anyone else. I believe very greatly in religious freedom, although in the case of people like the Rev. Moon, I would not be too lenient. But NO serious person would advocate drowning any non-criminal. Very lovely, Peter. I'm not evil anymore, just a complete loon with her head in the clouds because of the bloody freakin' genre she likes to write. Thanks for pointing it out. I mean, it's not like I've had twelve million bad experiences with Christianity or anything. I especially like your "reliable source" bit. Care to share this oh so reliable source? Wait! I have it! You're going to say.........it's the Bible! Man, I knew I was psychic. Unlike some people, Peter, I don't have a martyr complex. If you insist on labelling me a victim, I suggest you realise what I'm a victim of. Which is dealing with insensitive, ignorant, pig-headed, completely clueless fanatical jerks. Especially those who are so bloody sure that they know the "one right and true way" of things. I'd tell you that you don't have the TRUTH in flaming letters on your walls. I'd tell you that unless you can produce some tangible evidence that you do have the TRUTH, I'd like to see it. I'd tell you that you are doing nothing to endear me to your religion and your TRUTH. But it'd be pointless. I don't bang my head on brick walls. You go right ahead and trundle along in your TRUTH. I won't stop you. In reality, the victim here is you. You're so wrapped up in your own egotistical superiority complex, you couldn't see the forest for the trees. I pity you for that. Someday, I'm sure you'll grow up and realise that. But I know it won't be today. I wash my hands of this thread. I wash my hands of any thread in which Peter posts. Until he grows up, that is.
Wicca By: Mark Morgan on 11/1/2000; 6:47 PM Administrator's note: okay, this thread appears to serve very little purpose. Unless someone has a new positive direction for it, I recommend no more posts on this topic. If it gets any more hostile, I'll vanish it.
RE: Wicca By: Peter on 11/1/2000; 8:02 PM Very lovely, Peter. I'm not evil anymore, just a complete loon with her head in the clouds because of the bloody freakin' genre she likes to write. Thanks for pointing it out. I did not say you were a complete loon at all. You do insist on making these things up and then whining about it. Why? I like fantasy stories, and I even managed to sit through one whole Terry Pratchett book. I mean, it's not like I've had twelve million bad experiences with Christianity or anything. I especially like your "reliable source" bit. Care to share this oh so reliable source? Wait! I have it! You're going to say.........it's the Bible! Man, I knew I was psychic. Well I can only imagine the look on your face as you read this because you will consider the source very unlikeable and unreliable. He is Matt Pesti. Unlike some people, Peter, I don't have a martyr complex. If you insist on labelling me a victim, I suggest you realise what I'm a victim of. Which is dealing with insensitive, ignorant, pig-headed, completely clueless fanatical jerks. Especially those who are so bloody sure that they know the "one right and true way" of things. I'd tell you that you don't have the TRUTH in flaming letters on your walls. I'd tell you that unless you can produce some tangible evidence that you do have the TRUTH, I'd like to see it. I'd tell you that you are doing nothing to endear me to your religion and your TRUTH. But it'd be pointless. I don't bang my head on brick walls. You go right ahead and trundle along in your TRUTH. I won't stop you. In reality, the victim here is you. You're so wrapped up in your own egotistical superiority complex, you couldn't see the forest for the trees. I pity you for that. Someday, I'm sure you'll grow up and realise that. But I know it won't be today. I wash my hands of this thread. I wash my hands of any thread in which Peter posts. Until he grows up, that is. I do not understand why you are so angry. I don't think I said anything that is offensive, except perhaps the superstitious nonsense bit, but that is an honest view. I do not agree with Wicca and I think it is potentially dangerous. Am I supposed to lie or something? I thought you would know this already. The TRUTH also puzzles me. I have expressed my views ust as everyone else has. Why when I do this am I supposed to be claiming God-Like powers? Anyway, to put my first point a different way, do you not think it strange that a fantasy fiction fan should join a religion with that sort of thing as its basis? If Sci-fi had been your thing, perhaps you would have been a scientologist? Peter.
RE: Wicca By: Mark Morgan on 11/1/2000; 8:26 PM No, she would have been an atheist, like all good world rulers. Peter, you call her a victim of her religion, and call it dangerous. This is the religion she has chosen as an adult, as she was obviously not brought up Wiccan. You also equate her religious beliefs with fantasy fiction. Brian (and Aradia) know a lot more about Wicca than I do, but I'm willing to bet that there is nothing in Wicca that is more or less fantastic than there is in any religion. I will address the Satan thing, since I do know that one off the top of my head. Lucifer predates Christianity. Lucifer later became associated with Satan as the early Christians began to incorporate other religions as they expanded. If memory serves, what Wiccans worship is a variant of the original Greek Lucifer, lightbringer, who has no relationship to the contemporary Satan whatsoever.
RE: Wicca By: Brian Carnell on 11/1/2000; 8:55 PM Mark wrote: >...I'm willing to bet that there is nothing in Wicca that is more or less >fantastic than there is in any religion. Well put. It's just another religion in the same way that Ba'hai (sp?) is just another religion or Islam is another religion. >I will address the Satan thing, since I do know that one off the top of my >head. Lucifer predates Christianity >(http://www.britannica.com/bcom/eb/article/1/0). Lucifer later became >associated with Satan as the early Christians began to incorporate other >religions as they expanded. [Notice how the URL got chopped off in the e-mail version?] Anyway, I did not know that. Very interesting article. >If memory serves, what Wiccans worship is a variant of the original Greek >Lucifer, lightbringer, who has no relationship to the contemporary Satan >whatsoever. If you can find more than 3 or 4 Wiccans (or neo-pagans or whatever) who agree on anything, stop the presses. Sometimes I kid my wife that she's part of the first designer religion in history, which is just a different way of saying that most (though not) all of the Wiccans I've met are extremely non-dogmatic. Most of them also seem to be more interested in religion as a form of expression or activity rather than the Christian/Islam/etc. view of religion as a set of specific dogmatic teachings (and I'm not using dogmatic pejoratively -- I'm a big fan of dogma). I know a few people, for example, who are really atheists but they are also practicing Wiccans because they want to get the psychological release many people clearly get from religious activities but are uncomfortable with traditional religious movements for one reason or another.
RE: Wicca By: Mark Morgan on 11/1/2000; 9:14 PM Ha! Good point. While I only know one Wiccan (Aradia), "non-dogmatic" matches my experience with her. And I don't think I've ever heard her claim that her views are shared by anyone. Quite the contrary... Somewhere in the Brittanica website is a history of Christianity, which discusses how it incorporated other beliefs as it went along. I've looked all this up before debating with Matt Pesti over at nitcentral. Well, debating meaning "posting a bunch of stuff so he can change the topic and ignore you". I'd find the link, but when I went to Brittanica the last time one of their banner ads served up this insipid applet where you shock a monkey and it stalled out Netscape, so I'm avoiding them in protest.
RE: Wicca By: Seth Dillingham on 11/1/2000; 10:52 PM On Thursday, November 2, 2000 at 1:30 AM, Mark Morgan (mark_morgan@yahoo.com) wrote: >Somewhere in the Brittanica website is a history of Christianity, which >discusses how it incorporated other beliefs as it went along. I've looked >all this up before debating with Matt Pesti over at nitcentral >(http://www.nitcentral.com/discus/). Well, debating meaning "posting a >bunch of stuff so he can change the topic and ignore you". I'd find the >link, but when I went to Brittanica the last time one of their banner ads >served up this insipid applet where you shock a monkey and it stalled out >Netscape, so I'm avoiding them in protest. Heh... I'm pretty sure I've seen that very same ad on one of Brian's sites. I'd like to say it was animalrights.net, just for the irony, but I suppose that probably wasn't it. Seth
Re: Wicca By: Sean McMains on 11/2/2000; 12:37 AM Well put. It's just another religion in the same way that Ba'hai (sp?) is The idea of something being "just another religion" intrigues me. As I think I've mentioned before, I'm a Christian because I think it's true, not because of the psychological release or emotional gratification it gives me. (Frankly, there are times when it's an absolute pain and I'd rather not have to deal with it.) When I say I think it's true, I mean that its postulates -- that there is a god who created the world, that there was actually a person named Jesus who by his death altered our relationship to that god, etc. -- are factual, even if we don't have the means to incontrovertibly prove them in our current state. The corollary to that is that if these things are not true, I want nothing to do with Christianity. Betrand Russell makes an excellent case that if there's no god it's better to face that true fact and get on with life than it is to continue deluding oneself. I agree with him entirely in that, but disagree with his opinion as to God's existence. Back to the original topic: I think of religions as being ultimately valuable only to the degree that they are true. Saying "just another religion" seems to put them all on equal footing. But if one cares at all about their truth, they can't possibly all be on equal footing, since they say such radically different things. Christianity posits an infinitely powerful, personal god who is involved with the created world. Deism, by way of contrast, views God as powerful and personal, but uninvolved in his creation. Now, if God does exist, he can't be both active in and uninvolved with creation, so one or the other is closer to truth. And if God doesn't exist, they're both a load of cheese, and should both be tossed out. So, how does one think of anything as "just another religion"? If their only value is a false comfort, I want nothing to do with any such nonsense. But if there's any truth in religion at all, they can't all be on equal ground. Sean
Re: Wicca By: Mark Morgan on 11/2/2000; 12:55 AM So, how does one think of anything as "just another religion"? If their only value is a false comfort, I want nothing to do with any such nonsense. But if there's any truth in religion at all, they can't all be on equal ground. In my case, that's not what I meant. As Brian points out on his weblog, a lot of attention is paid to Wicca as if it were fundamentally different than other religions. For good or for ill, Wicca is portrayed as oddball, strange, full of bizarre ideas that no right-thinking person could possibly imagine to be worthwhile. From an outside perspective I don't find Wicca's claims any more or less strange than those of other religions described as mainstream. To put it another way, the extraordinary claims of Wicca aren't any more extraordinary than the claims of Buddhism or of Christianity or of Judaism.
RE: Wicca By: Brian Carnell on 11/2/2000; 10:11 AM At 04:53 AM 11/2/00 +0000, Sean wrote: >The idea of something being "just another religion" intrigues me. As I think I've mentioned before, I'm a Christian because I think it's true, not because of the psychological release or emotional gratification it gives me. ... When I say I think it's true, I mean that its postulates -- that there is a god who created the world, that there was actually a person named Jesus who by his death altered our relationship to that god, etc. -- are factual, even if we don't have the means to incontrovertibly prove them in our current state. This is a very good illustration of the dogmatic nature of Western monotheistic religions (and again, I'm using dogmatic in the non-pejorative sense). This is why there is often such a conflict between science and religion in the West because in many ways they both seek to perform the same function of explaining the world. On the other hand Christianity has also had more than its share of folks more interested in experiencing God than in considering it as a means of explaining the world. Henry James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience" does an excellent job of cataloging the varieties of this experential approach (and James advances the psychological argument about religion that I was making, but he takes it way too far.) >The corollary to that is that if these things are not true, I want nothing to do with Christianity. Betrand Russell makes an excellent case that if there's no god it's better to face that true fact and get on with life than it is to continue deluding oneself. I agree with him entirely in that, but disagree with his opinion as to God's existence. I don't know about this. I really don't agree with atheists like Russell who say if a given religion is not true then it has no value. >Christianity posits an infinitely powerful, personal god who is involved with the created world. Deism, by way of contrast, views God as powerful and personal, but uninvolved in his creation. And yet what Christianity means is constantly changing. Christians are a lot like Wiccans in that respect -- for the most part they don't seem to agree on much (and there have been quite a few Christian movements which have denied both God's omnipotence and/or Jesus' divinity). A friend of my wife's is an Eastern Orthodox priest and his version of Christianity is very, very different from my friend who is a liberal Lutheran minister.
RE: Wicca By: Seth Dillingham on 11/2/2000; 10:23 AM On Thursday, November 2, 2000 at 2:11 PM, Brian Carnell (brian@carnell.com) wrote: >And yet what Christianity means is constantly changing. Christians are a >lot like Wiccans in that respect -- for the most part they don't seem to >agree on much (and there have been quite a few Christian movements which >have denied both God's omnipotence and/or Jesus' divinity). A friend of my >wife's is an Eastern Orthodox priest and his version of Christianity is >very, very different from my friend who is a liberal Lutheran minister. I'll agree with that one. Labelling someone a "Christian" is pretty meaningless. The first century Christians had very different beliefs than do most modern "Christians", whose beliefs are based more on personal opinion (someone's, not necessarily their own) than anything else. These days, I think the word "Christian" simply means "someone whose religious beliefs are based on the idea that a 'being' named Jesus lived and died and was resurrected." I don't know, maybe it doesn't even need to be that strict, but it's a totally useless label anyway. Seth
RE: Wicca By: Peter on 11/3/2000; 11:50 AM Mark, I do not accept that choosing to punish people by turning them into Jem Haddars is somehow radically different from executing them. I do believe that we can make some use of the garbage we have in each country and that is not the same as drowning innocent people. Do not act like I am some sort of madman because I have an alternative to execution that does not involve left wing councillors and "rehabilitation". BTW, would you object to a debate of that issue here? I could send a post in and we could begin if anyone is interested in discussing it. Peter
RE: Wicca By: Mark Morgan on 11/3/2000; 11:54 AM While carefully avoiding the issue of prior restraint of content (stupid damn DMCA), I admit that I find little potential value to that discussion.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Copyright Notice | Privacy Policy | Contact | |
 |
|