Yes, your religon says everyone who says different is going to hell and will be tortured and killed et cetera et cetera. In king james it says thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Orginally it was poisinor, but james was paranoid and made it witch. Why? Witches were the doctors, the pharmacists, midwifes, shrinks of those days. They were were the original tree hugging hippies. They were the original "What's real man?" "Love man." "What man?" "Yeah man?" "How am I driving?" "Man, I think we're parked."(this last part came from Cheech and Chong)

It is like how Islam portrays everyother religon but it's own to be evil and wrong. Most mono religons are like that. Either us or you wrong and evil. Poly ones are more peaceful ones, more tree hugging involved. Later on when the greeks(and later the Romans who stole everything from the greeks, like how christianity stole everything from other religons) they did get violent, but that was the government, not the holy people doing it.(Like the pope/s who ordered the crusades)

Anyone know what christianity has that no other religon has? Heck, they even stole their holidays from other religons. God? Jews. Son of God? Greeks believed many people to be the sons of gods. Flood? I think Hindu? Or Buddist have that before christians. David and Goliath? Thor and the Ice Giants. God raining down hellfire and brimstone to wipe out entire villages? Wait, there it is, the one thing christianity has that other religons don't! For some strange reason god kept killing everyone. Ten Commandments? Jews. Garden of Eden? Sounds to me like the Garden that held the tree of golden apples Hercules had to go to.

Anyways, Islam today isn't technically bad, but the people in it. Like it wasn't christianity that went to war in the crusades technically, it was just ordered by the most holy of holy, the pope. If he isn't the holy of holy, then what is he? A pope ordered the stuff, so obviously he thought his god wanted it or else wouldn't have done it for fear of punishment by god. Same with the witch trials, except two steps down the holy ladder from pope to preist. Village preist and his closest people would carry out the trials of the accused. So when someone was thrown off a cliff to see if they would fly? The preist and his people had to do that. Tie rocks on them and throw them in the water to see if the float or drown? Same guys had to deal with it.

Thankfully, christianity wised up and let technology, old like medicine and psychiatry, and new like car/plane/jazz come back/around and made ideas like world round and not center not punishable by death. Islam? Well, watch the news, won't go a week without some Isreal civilians being blown up.

Of course, if everyone became Pebble People followers, we wouldn't have war or bs like that. The Pebble People declare that wrong, and believe we should spend time making important things like socks.

Tyriffic, when I made the statement that Satan worshipers were not in denial, I did not mean to say that Christians were in denial. My implication was to point out that Satan worshipers (modern day Baal worship) tell the world who they really worship (Satan) rather than God. Hence Satan worshipers (Baal worshipers) make the point that they are enemies of God and do not portray themselves as the friends of God. Christians are the friends of God and worship God. My point was that there are those who serve Satan ("skeptics", etc.) but deny that they serve Satan (these are the people who are in denial). As for the ancient Hebrews not believing in Satan, there can be found passages that prove the contrary. The confusion comes from the fact that they did not use the word Satan. However, as I pointed out Baal worship = Satan worship. Again modern day critics make a big deal out of the fact that we use a term that is not actually in the Bible to describe a Biblical concept. A good example is the term "Trinity" which does not actually appear in the Bible. The critics make a big deal that the word "Trinity" does not appear in the New Testament. What they miss is that this is a convenient phase for a concept presented in the Bible. A secular example is the word "primogeniture". I doubt very much if you find the term used before the 1600's or 1700's, but primogeniture was a concept and a practice used throughout the time span of Feudal Europe. (Primogeniture is the practice that the entire Feudal estate went to the first born son - that the estate would not be divided among a lord's sons. This prevented estates from being divided up into smaller and smaller parcels.)

Now a summary. Satan worship = Baal worship; however, Wicca = Gaia worship (earth worship, the worshiping of trees, rocks, ostriches, etc.).

Of course along with the Cursades, James the L would also state that the Pope ordered the Punic Wars, the Persian Wars, and the Peloponnesian Wars.

Originally posted by jagdflieger
Tyriffic, when I made the statement that Satan worshipers were not in denial, I did not mean to say that Christians were in denial. My implication was to point out that Satan worshipers (modern day Baal worship) tell the world who they really worship (Satan) rather than God. Hence Satan worshipers (Baal worshipers) make the point that they are enemies of God and do not portray themselves as the friends of God. Christians are the friends of God and worship God. My point was that there are those who serve Satan ("skeptics", etc.) but deny that they serve Satan (these are the people who are in denial). As for the ancient Hebrews not believing in Satan, there can be found passages that prove the contrary. The confusion comes from the fact that they did not use the word Satan. However, as I pointed out Baal worship = Satan worship. Again modern day critics make a big deal out of the fact that we use a term that is not actually in the Bible to describe a Biblical concept. A good example is the term "Trinity" which does not actually appear in the Bible. The critics make a big deal that the word "Trinity" does not appear in the New Testament. What they miss is that this is a convenient phase for a concept presented in the Bible. A secular example is the word "primogeniture". I doubt very much if you find the term used before the 1600's or 1700's, but primogeniture was a concept and a practice used throughout the time span of Feudal Europe. (Primogeniture is the practice that the entire Feudal estate went to the first born son - that the estate would not be divided among a lord's sons. This prevented estates from being divided up into smaller and smaller parcels.)

Now a summary. Satan worship = Baal worship; however, Wicca = Gaia worship (earth worship, the worshiping of trees, rocks, ostriches, etc.).

Of course along with the Cursades, James the L would also state that the Pope ordered the Punic Wars, the Persian Wars, and the Peloponnesian Wars.

I must first respond to your last point. See my earlier post.

The pope is not a representative of Jesus. I will be happy as a lark to quibble with you on this.

Where you may confuse anyone reading your post is this: Satan is the enemy of Jehova. Whose son was Jesus.

Satan was an Arch-Angel who was created above all of the angels that God created.
He (Satan) was the most beautiful of the Lords creation. He was created to sing the Lords (GOD) praises and represent the will of the Lord.....................hmmmmm,

He developed PRIDE and hence, sin. He challenged the Lord to battle and was thrown out of Heaven. Into our realm...Earth, the atmosphere (sky) you get the point.
Woe to thee....

Wicca- Earth /nature/spirit worship.


I was wicca and more once my friend, what are you going to instruct me on? Do not delve where you can not delve.

Nothing I say will sway you. Wait and learn . No smiley....

[Edited on 9-7-2003 by Tyriffic]

Dang it, I'm gonna have to change my name here. How the heck was I suppose to know there was a Saint James the Lesser? Hmm, how about James the not so Great?

Anyways, Jag, was that refering to me? or the saint guy?

Also, the pope is suppose to be the holy of holy, that is why he is the pope. The catholic church that controlled Europe at that time had the pope as their leader. Sure, there were kings and such, but all good catholics back then followed the order of the church, and of course their leader, the pope. Nowadays the pope isn't as powerful, but still suppose to be the holy of holy.

And satan didn't sin, he wanted free will. He didn't want to be god's slave anymore. He lost, but still, he fought for his freedom. Only difference is when he lost he did gain power and control, just not the kind he wanted.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Dang it, I'm gonna have to change my name here. How the heck was I suppose to know there was a Saint James the Lesser? Hmm, how about James the not so Great?

Anyways, Jag, was that refering to me? or the saint guy?

Also, the pope is suppose to be the holy of holy, that is why he is the pope. The catholic church that controlled Europe at that time had the pope as their leader. Sure, there were kings and such, but all good catholics back then followed the order of the church, and of course their leader, the pope. Nowadays the pope isn't as powerful, but still suppose to be the holy of holy.

And satan didn't sin, he wanted free will. He didn't want to be god's slave anymore. He lost, but still, he fought for his freedom. Only difference is when he lost he did gain power and control, just not the kind he wanted.

James, he had free-will, that's how he was able to rebel. This kinda makes sense does'nt it?? He was never a slave, no one is a slave to God.

When Lucifer fell with his third part of the angels, he did not loose any power. He lost a little luster of his beauty, but no power.

If you can find it online, look in the first chapter, sixth verse in Job in the Bible. This will give you a clue.