Religous Argumentationating

[Nephew Twiddleton]

If my religion is more fake and ridiculous than other religions, it means you find certain religions less fake and ridiculous.
Okay, basic look at general christianity.
Cosmic zombie jew died to remove an evil that was put inside you because a woman who was made out of a rib was tricked into eating an apple by a talking snake thousands of years ago, so we need to worship him by telepathically telling him he is our master, and symbolically eating his flesh and drinking his blood.
But no, general idea that everything will end up in an equilibrium of some kind, magick doesnt work, and there are no sentient or corporeal higher powers, thats the crazy shit right there.

1) You seem to be arguing as though someone in this thread is defending christianity as being a useful model.

2) Your last sentence, while a reasonably sensible stance to take, is in no way shape or form compatible with any kind of Wicca.

Wiccans aren't supposed to believe in the Devil either, but they've made Christianity into one.

[pH]

Blight, I can accept that, but see it specifies "malevolent" witchcraft, which meant witchcraft as a whole was okay.
Glitter, google doesnt get past the whole

you're working with a collection of stuff that isn't even tertiary knowledge, then challenging the expert

RCP, its based on your statement that wicca is 'more ridiculous', which means other stuff is less ridiculous, and therefore preferable.
"Eclectic Wicca" as a general rule means "Im going to make up a bunch of shit and put it together and say its Wicca". Ive seen people combining egyptian gods with celtic gods and just making up rituals for them that were unrelated to the gods they chose, and calling it wicca.

[Requia ☣]

From the wikipedia (yeah, yeah I know):

The words "witch" and "witchcraft" appear in some English versions of the Christian Holy Bible. One verse that is probably responsible for more deaths of suspected witches than any other passage from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) is Exodus 22:18. In the King James Version, this reads: "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." The precise meaning of the Hebrew word kashaph, here translated as 'witch' and in some other modern versions, 'sorceress', is uncertain. In the Septuagint it was translated as pharmakeia, meaning 'poisoner', and on this basis, Reginald Scot claimed in the 16th century that 'witch' was an incorrect translation and poisoners were intended.[6] His theory still holds some currency, but is not widely accepted, and in Daniel 2:2 kashaph is listed alongside other magic practitioners who could interpret dreams: magicians, astrologers and Chaldeans.

The Judeo-Christian abhorrence of witches was not peculiar to them. The pagan Roman Empire, Egyptian Empire and Babylonian Empires all developed laws against malevolent witchcraft. The ancient Code of Hammurabi specifically called for death to witches, and also proscribed false accusations of witchcraft:

   If a man has laid a charge of witchcraft and has not justified it, he upon whom the witchcraft is laid shall go to the holy river; he shall plunge into the holy river and if the holy river overcome him, he who accused him shall take to himself his house.

Now, what' I've heard is that Poisoner isn't exactly right either, and that the best translation is that of a quack magical doctor (IE, somebody who claims to be able to cast a spell/brew a potion etc to heal a person, but really can't do shit and might make things worse).

I don't know if this is actually right, but I've always been amused to hell at the idea that the bible says you shouldn't give medical attention to practicing homeopaths.

ETA: I'm hearing the same things phoxie is it seems, so I might be on the right track at least.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Witchcraft as a whole was not considered ok. An isib's incantations and exorcisms would not be looked at in the same way, since it was an expression of state religion and relying on the power of deities.

[pH]

Either way, I said a while back that i dont think magick works, so I'm not concerned incredibly with witchcraft legality in roman/babylonian times, although it is interesting. As far as it being Wicca or not, religion is pretty much whatever the hell you want it to be, and if its not there, you add a word or change a letter and call it a new religion or a branch from the original. As for banning usage of the bible, my main problem was circular logic, but I kinda dumped that because it was an inconsistency fallacy to say no bible, but everything else. For content of the bible though, as far as legitimacy, what versions are commonly available and what came first?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

To expand upon my point, you would get the same thing nowadays with the Catholic church (Note, I am singling out Catholicism here because I used to be a Catholic)- Magic, divination and communicating with the dead is a sin, but praying to specialist saints, carrying around medals and praying novenas are ok. Exorcisms are ok. These things are not considered "witchcraft" even though the two might categories might be indistinguishable to a non-Catholic or someone not familiar with Catholicism.

[pH]

I can understand that, they see it as a false continuum- its illogical to say that because there is no specific difference between two things, they are really the same thing. From the outside I dont see a difference, but to them there is one.

[Golden Applesauce]

The only real problem I have with taking the bible seriously, aside from circular logic, is the superiority complex that usually accompanies a bible thumping monotheist.

Okay, basic look at general christianity.
Cosmic zombie jew died to remove an evil that was put inside you because a woman who was made out of a rib was tricked into eating an apple by a talking snake thousands of years ago, so we need to worship him by telepathically telling him he is our master, and symbolically eating his flesh and drinking his blood.

Honest question: what is your source of knowledge on Christianity?  I get the impression that you learned about what Christianity teaches from 4chan or some muddled neo-pagan with a grudge against the Bible Belt.  I know plenty of Christians who don't have a superiority complex, don't employ circular logic, study or have studied the NT in depth (in a scholarly way, not just a communal bonding exercise).  Admittedly, I also know some people who think Jesus will cure their cousin's cancer, but only if they get enough people to pray at the same time.  But making nasty generalizations about the followers of a religion based on your own ignorance is the hallmark of small-minded bigotry.  And the fact that enough people aren't small-minded bigots is what lets you wear your fashionable pentacle in public without getting the tar beaten out of you - because there are even fewer "BURN THE WICCAN" types in the US than there are "gothic satanists," whatever that means.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Either way, I said a while back that i dont think magick works, so I'm not concerned incredibly with witchcraft legality in roman/babylonian times, although it is interesting. As far as it being Wicca or not, religion is pretty much whatever the hell you want it to be, and if its not there, you add a word or change a letter and call it a new religion or a branch from the original. As for banning usage of the bible, my main problem was circular logic, but I kinda dumped that because it was an inconsistency fallacy to say no bible, but everything else. For content of the bible though, as far as legitimacy, what versions are commonly available and what came first?

The problem here is that you are looking at the Bible as one book, when it is several books. The Torah came first. It's the first five books of the Bible. If you're Jewish the whole New Testament is heresy. If you're a Catholic, the missing books in Protestant versions are heresy. I think some Orthodox churches have some books as canon whereas they are apocrypha in Catholicism, and god fucking knows what the Copts have in their version. Also, Book of Mormon- technically a Christian text, but try telling a non-Mormon that. Several versions of each are commonly available (except the Copts, because they're all in North Africa.

[Phox]

Either way, I said a while back that i dont think magick works, so I'm not concerned incredibly with witchcraft legality in roman/babylonian times, although it is interesting. As far as it being Wicca or not, religion is pretty much whatever the hell you want it to be, and if its not there, you add a word or change a letter and call it a new religion or a branch from the original. As for banning usage of the bible, my main problem was circular logic, but I kinda dumped that because it was an inconsistency fallacy to say no bible, but everything else. For content of the bible though, as far as legitimacy, what versions are commonly available and what came first?

Well, let me see, common Bible translations....

http://www.kencollins.com/bible-t2.htm

Quick google turned up this. So... yeah all the ones I have are on that list. I got them all from Barnes & Noble, Walden Books, Borders, etc. I didn't really dig for them.

[pH]

So essentially, "bible" means a collection of several books that varies in both which books it includes and the nuances of the contents of those books?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

So essentially, "bible" means a collection of several books that varies in both which books it includes and the nuances of the contents of those books?

Bible just means book. It's from the Greek word for book. The Bible however is a collection of books.

Quick question- what religious affiliation, or lack thereof, were you raised with?

[Don Coyote]

So essentially, "bible" means a collection of several books that varies in both which books it includes and the nuances of the contents of those books?

bible means book.

[pH]

I was raised with pretend-Catholicism, as in we celebrate christmas and easter, but the last time i went to church was because i needed a ride with my friend, and ive been to more bar mitzvahs than church services.

I know the literal translation of bible donald  latin roots biblio, and modern words like bibliography, "books contained"

[Nephew Twiddleton]

The Latin word for book is liber. Not Biblios.