[quote='Aegrus' pid='400779' dateline='1360740332']
I'm sorry, is it news to you that people can be falsely accused of a crime?How. . . the hell. . .would it not matter if an innocent person was burned?
[/quote]
You are like a sack of rocks. Do I really have to connect All of the Dots All of the time? At least equlax seem to pick up on what i was saying.
Look at what you just said:
Falsely accused of a crime/Innocent person being burned (for that Crime.)
Do you not see it yet?
In What nation's laws is burning someone to death a just punishment for any crime? (It's not) Ok that established, In what religion is it considered a form of worship to burn someone to death for any transgression against their God? (I can not speak for all religions of the world, but I know it is not condoned in any way shape or form in Christianity.)
Thus taking this act outside the realm of any organized form of Christian worship, or legal soceital punishment for the 'crime' this woman was accused. Meaning this was just a cold blooded murder.
The soceity at large is not to blame because they have laws on the books against this act. Christianity is not to blame because it identifies this acts as Sin, and goes so far as to provide a senerio as to how to properly confront a witch/Sorcerer. This was the actions of twisted sick people who use any excuse they can find to do follow the evil in their hearts.
[quote='Alternate' pid='400917' dateline='1360768870']
[quote='Drich' pid='400915' dateline='1360768171']
I don't have to guess at this.. As you people are so quick to provide Book Chapter and verse to this fact. God did command the burning of witches.
What type of evidence are you basing this assumption on?
What does Archeological evidences of witches look like after 3500 years?
Or are you say that just because something does not exist in the modern age it did not exist in antiquity? Isn't that a bit closed minded? Because I can think of several 'things' they had back then that we do not have now, and the only thing we have left is the written record of it. Take egypt for example 90% of everything we know of their culture is based on the written records we have. Now using your line of thought on witches because the ancient culture of egypt does not exist today, it never did.
[/quote]
What evidence? How about the fact that functional witchcraft has never been observed, anywhere?
[/quote]
In modern times.. How about we have not see a functioning Ancient Egyptian soceity, in modern times as well.
Yet we do have the written record that shows Egypt was one of the old functioning soceities.. Like wise we have the written record that we were real and people practiced the arts of witchcraft all over the world.
[quote='missluckie26' pid='400672' dateline='1360724894']
[quote]I hear you Drich, but in order for this particular correlation to work the girl scouts would have to be providing an economic and political environment for the people they sell to with influential belief that without their cookies everyone's going to hell. The consumers would then have to be having private bake-offs where they give each other cookies that may be poisonous, then have some 37yr old guy set someone on fire in the name of the girl scouts, for refusing to eat the girl scout's official cookies and for baking their own based on the girl scouts' original assertion of hellfire to non sanctioned cookie eaters. Then you'd have to have the girl scouts lobbying the FDA to make laws against home-made cookies, throwing fuel on the fire telling everyone they're not allowed to bake home-made cookies (which is indeed a human right unless you disagree with religious freedom).
In my eyes, I humbly say, that if the girl scouts weren't there at all then perhaps freedom of cookie baking might mean a few people would get poisoned, but in the end there wouldn't be a cultural war that goes so
far as the girl scout's (out-dated) handbook which states clearly it's position in killing cookie bakers, with an established historical mechanism of setting them on fire. The fact that the consumers can't read and only have mouth-to-mouth interpretations of this handbook is merely flint for the fire.
Here's an idea, if the girl scouts truly wanted to 'help', they'd merely support the systems in place to combat poisonous cookies and promote inter-consumer peace, rather than condemning it then not setting up proper modes to ensure peace for the condemned. The fact that their purpose of
'informing' the community about hellfire rather than helping the community find heaven themselves in the self-explanatory and truly selfless actions of the girl scouts, shows me that the girl scouts put their handbook and spreading it's tenets over the well-being of those they're trying to teach about it. At the very least they're to blame for teaching the handbook in the first place without providing adequate support services to prevent inevitable collateral from happening, and for not (if not properly) informing the public as to it's 'out-dated sections' of the handbook in the first place.
In other countries, advocate groups have found and used with success in india to help women and victims there avoid being targeted with unwarranted violence:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...111846.htm
Through the loan program, each woman is issued a low-interest, collateral-free "microcredit" loan of about
750 rupees ($18) to start her own business such as basket weaving, tailoring or selling chicken eggs.
Participants meet in groups of about eight to 10 to support one another.
Chaudhuri said the loan program is run by nongovernmental activists who have been successful in encouraging
the groups to look beyond the economic aspects and mobilize against domestic abuse, alcoholism and the
practice of witch hunts.
Through the bonds of trust and friendship, group members have established the necessary social capital to
collectively resist the deep-seated tradition of witch hunts, Chaudhuri said.
"Why would they go against something so risky, something that breaks tradition?" she said. "They do it
because they believe in the ideals of the microcredit group -- in women's development, family development
and gender equality."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/201...111846.htm
[/quote]
All of this effort is one big red herring leading into a non sequitor.
It all can be considered a Red Herring because I have taken one specific aspect of the Girl Scouts (Following their rule set in order to be a legitmate confirmed member of an organization, thus verifying your actions as sanctioned by the GSA) And you have introduced elements that have nothing to do with the indisputable fact that if you do not follow the rules of the Girl scouts of america (Like selling your own cookies for example) is not a sanctioned act of the GSA. Everything else "Does not Follow."
[quote]I think that if you want the educated to see your point you're going to have to explain it to them without making them take your word for it that they're wrong. [/quote]Then it is up to the educated to ask for reference material. The problem with the 'educated' is that everyone fancies them self a Mater theologian, and a Aristoile level philospher. Other wise why would not the first repsonse be (after being shown that they are wrong) is why do you think this? It is Because everyone has been fooled into their 'education' is a trump card to everything and everyone around them. So they take it on their own authority to argue their position without any more information than they started the arguement with.
In Teaching, on must be willing to be taught in order for learning to happen. the Proud will not be taught unless they are made to understand their current way of thinking is critically flawed. Unfortunatly most of you insist on smashing your 'education' up against 20 years of theological study, and even then less than 10% of you are willing to follow the facts.
[quote]For one example, if the bible states in the OT that god is unchanging, then you might need to explain how god's rules in the NT differ from the OT. [/quote]The rules are not different. They are the same.
(You should ask then why are we made to worship differently then OT Jews)
If you did I would say: In the Ot law God made provisions for the attonement of sin. In NT worship This provision is Made by Christ to cover the sins of the whole world if we simply can accept what God has done for us.
(you: What does that mean?)
I means all the things God expected us to do, we are still expected to do
IF we were to live by the laws as our only way to obtain righteousness (The state on must be in, Inorder to be with God) As the OT Jews did.
But, Because Christ was the Ultimate sacerfice we are no longer bound by the Law of sin as our only means to obtain righteousness. meaning we do not earn the right to goto Heaven by our deeds/obeying the law. Our 'right' to be found righteous before God is a provision made by god that allows for attonement of sin, by the sheding of blood. animal blood was not pure enough to cast out all sin, thus freeing us from the law as our only means to obtain righteousness. But, the Blood of God the Son was.
You see that is why Christ said what He said in Mt 5: "Not the least letter of the law shall pass away till his kingdom comes." For it is only through the law that the provision of attonement can be found.
If you did not understand that ask a question do not assume and then argue. Build a picture off of what i have said do not argue what you bring to this discussion.
[quote]I think there's an evident cry for an answer on that one, people think
they know better because you refuse to address this issue in their eyes. They figure if you had an answer you would've said it by now, and since you don't of course they're going to think they know better.[/quote]
"they do not have, because they have not Asked."
My involvement with you all is not a general flourish of knoweledge. My involvement with you is preset by you, so that you have an oppertunity to learn at your own pace. I can not teach if you have it in your heart to argue. (I've tried it the other way, and it does not work.)
[quote]Especially when the some of the books of the NT concrete god's will on the matter ie: Revelations. That's one point I've also heard and seen unaddressed.[/quote]I have no idea what you mean here.
[quote]Last point I've heard is, if the followers of the bible cannot agree on their own religious beliefs then how are the non-believers expected to see it as a credible source of information? The lack of confidence in the bible is not spurred because non-believers (most of the time) have some grudge against god. The lack of confidence comes from god's authoritative inconsistencies or highly interpretive communications to mankind and as smart human beings, they don't just take "man's" word for anything.[/quote]
says the non believer.. Do you not see the irony here?
does what they do is of any real consenquence. It is the psycological aspect that makes people believe a witch to be a witch.
