christianity = tolerance, pacificism and freedom???
       

whilst they may have been the values of *Jesus*, even a very brief reading of the activities of the church and christian govts and societies put that lie to rest.

do you beleive 'witches' should be put to death in your idealised christian State?

just like I'm entitled to my fairly extreme opinion that Islamic societies create backward repressive dictatorships

right, now my bloods up. 

are you now claiming the people slaughtered acress the whole world by chrsitians in the name of stamping out heresy, witchcraft and 'devil worship' have nothing to do with christianity?

just how much death and destruction will you blithely ignore in your attempt to whitewash 'christian fundamentals' into being a good basis for a soceity?

Witch hunting != a Christian fundamental value

There is a difference between fundementalist and fundamental values.  Gnu made the distinction.

I supported teh fundamental values, not fundamentalist values, I made that quite clear.

Then why do you have such hostility to other religions?  Many religions hold similar fundemental values to your own christian ones.

Proving a point by turning the tables on certain posters by forcing them to answer rediculously stupid questions about their religion is not being intolerant.

It is trying to get the other side to see how much of a dick they are being.

Yes, they would. Not Stalinist but communist. Core values of communism are also things society should strive to achieve. Equality, unity, etc...

Yes, witch hunts did happen, but to say that witch hunts are a Christian ideal and value is insane. Actions of man and the teachings of Jesus are rarely the same thing. Blame man for what he does, not God/Jesus.

HOWEVER you said CHRISTIAN ideals - not jesus's teachings.

get it now? you have pretty much led yourself to the conclusion here, so if you havent got it, youre gonna seem pretty dumb, boy.

Wicca, Satanism, Occult, And Magic Are All Evil

The Bible clearly condemns and warns against the views and practices of witches and witchcraft. (Deu 18:10 NIV) Let NO ONE BE FOUND AMONG YOU who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, ENGAGES IN WITCHCRAFT. Witches can believe what they want, but they should not delude themselves or others with the notion that their views are alright in the sight of our God Jesus Christ. Witches should not distort the teachings of the Bible or Christianity or tamper with the teachings of Christ to fit their false beliefs and practices. They should simply be informed and honest enough to admit that the two are as far apart as east is from west, and never the two shall meet. If they do not concur with the biblical teaching, then they ought to simply say so and be done with it but not try to turn Christianity's teachings into the mirror image of theirs. (1 Sam 15:23 KJV) For REBELLION IS AS THE SIN OF WITCHCRAFT, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king.

Many witches will not acquiesce to the preponderance of the biblical evidence marshaled against witchcraft. Arnold and Patricia Crowther are indicative of this mentality when they write regarding witchcraft that some "modern writers" who "still believe in the evil of witchcraft...are usually strict Christian writers who want to maintain the evil image of witches. Their books are usually full of quotations from the old witch trials and in their bibliographies they never list any books by pro-witch writers or by witches themselves, though they must have read these books (1)". It seems hardly necessary to mention that this is not the case with this work.

Similarly, many witches appear constitutionally unwilling or unable, perhaps because of bigotry or narrow-mindedness, to admit that many individuals adequately understand their beliefs and practices yet reject them. This rejection is not out of ignorance, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, or any other epithets that witches cast their way. It is because of a sober understanding of the biblical teaching on witchcraft, and the failings, falsehoods, and implications of the witchcraft worldview.

There are numerous other concerns and areas of radical disagreement between witchcraft and Christianity. Witchcraft and the Bible stand in stark contrast with each other. We have concentrated more on the cultic aspect of witchcraft, but as should be evident, Christianity and witchcraft are worldviews apart.

I want to respond to the ones in Wicca that have taken the time to write me. There are many sects of the Christian faith. It is not uncommon to find Satan numbered among them. Satan, in Judas, was numbered with the twelve original Apostles. Many deaths and killings have taken place in the pretense of Christianity. Make no mistake about it, Satan has infiltrated a lot of churches. We know that the Catholic Church and many Protestants have killed many. Let me say up front that killing other people is not of Christ Jesus. All that do not follow Christ Jesus and his true teachings are of the devil. (Mat 6:24 KJV) No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

I know that many in Wicca do state that they do not believe in Satan, and therefore cannot be Satanic. There are only two forces at work in this world, good and evil. Good is obedience to the words of Jesus Christ, the King of kings. Evil is disobedience to his word. Simply stated, if you do not serve Jesus Christ, you serve Satan. There is no in-between and it makes no difference what one claims.

At one time God's kingdom was of this world. It was located in the middle east known as the nation of Israel. This earthly kingdom was abolished by the spiritual kingdom of Israel, the church. In God's kingdom of this earthly world, it was commanded: (Exo 22:18 KJV) Thou shalt NOT SUFFER A WITCH TO LIVE.

If the nation of Israel would have obeyed and killed all that God told them to, there would be no evil in the world today. Heaven would have been of this world and there would have been no need for the spiritual kingdom of the church. However it was not to be and God knew men would fail. Therefore God formed a new spiritual kingdom that would separate themselves from ungodly beliefs. We know we are to preach the truth. It will be Jesus Christ that will cast all unbelievers into hell. All that do not serve Jesus Christ are spiritual whores that are of Satan. This is what the true word of God says. (Rev 20:15 KJV) And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. We are not to desire any physical harm be done to anyone. We are to pray for our enemies that Jesus will have mercy, and bring all that want to know the truth into his glorious way. (Phil 2:10 KJV) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.

If i may ask....have you actually read the bible, or done any biblical history or analysis?

The gnostic gospels are, essentially, a group of alternative gospels, most of which were unnearthhed around nag hammadi, and you'll often find them discussed under the label of the nag hammadi texts, though this often isn't accurate, as there are not merely gospels ammongst the nag hammadi find.

Before a specific church became the "orthodoxy", christianity was fractioned and seperated.  There were HEAPS of other gospels and holy books floating around in the early christian communities.  Over time, some books began to be accepted as authoratative, our current gospel of john for instance IIRC created a bit of controversy because of its gnostic undertones.  For the first few hundred years, there was no accepted official version of jesus' life, but rather many rather than one (or four).  The book we know as the bible today was selected long after jesus or anyone who ever came into contact with him could have been present, essentially by picking the books that the particular church fathers agreed with.

After the instigation of the orthodoxy, most of the other texts and gospels were burnt and destroyed, in the spirit of christianity purging their heretical brethren naturally, and we were left with only the notion of their existence by their mention in regards to church fathers mentioning them while writing in polemics against the other christian sects and selected quotes here and there, and some rare fragments of parchment.

Until the nag hammadi library was found in the 1900's, many of these were thought to have been lost forever.

Afew things are worth noting.  First of all, these gospels are not the only ones mentioned which have been destroyed over time.  Indeed some writers mentioned other versions of the biblical gospels (ie. Secret mark, gospel of the hebrews) which are no longer in existance.

A second reason the nag hammadi find was important is because of the discovery of the gospel of thomas.

Mainstream biblical textual analysis generally goes for the "two source" theory for the gospels of matthew and luke.  The first source is taken to be the gospel of mark from which they copieid.  The second, of which there was no copy in existence, purely hypothetically constructed from textual analysis would be a very special kind of gospel.  A sayings gospel, with little narrative or story, merely professing teachings.  Scholars called this hypothetical gospel "Q".

The problem of course, is that we had no copy or knowlege of it.  Evidence had been derived purely from the verbal echoes and patterns found in the biblical gospels, and analysis showed it was supposed to be a very different kind of gospel, a sayings gospel, something for which there was almost no precedent.

Thomas was found at nag hammadi.  A genuine example of a relatively early gnostic christian sayings gospel.  Turns out there was at least now one real life example of such a style of gospel.

If i may ask....have you actually read the bible, or done any biblical history or analysis?

The gnostic gospels are, essentially, a group of alternative gospels, most of which were unnearthhed around nag hammadi, and you'll often find them discussed under the label of the nag hammadi texts, though this often isn't accurate, as there are not merely gospels ammongst the nag hammadi find.

Before a specific church became the "orthodoxy", christianity was fractioned and seperated.  There were HEAPS of other gospels and holy books floating around in the early christian communities.  Over time, some books began to be accepted as authoratative, our current gospel of john for instance IIRC created a bit of controversy because of its gnostic undertones.  For the first few hundred years, there was no accepted official version of jesus' life, but rather many rather than one (or four).  The book we know as the bible today was selected long after jesus or anyone who ever came into contact with him could have been present, essentially by picking the books that the particular church fathers agreed with.

After the instigation of the orthodoxy, most of the other texts and gospels were burnt and destroyed, in the spirit of christianity purging their heretical brethren naturally, and we were left with only the notion of their existence by their mention in regards to church fathers mentioning them while writing in polemics against the other christian sects and selected quotes here and there, and some rare fragments of parchment.

Until the nag hammadi library was found in the 1900's, many of these were thought to have been lost forever.

Afew things are worth noting.  First of all, these gospels are not the only ones mentioned which have been destroyed over time.  Indeed some writers mentioned other versions of the biblical gospels (ie. Secret mark, gospel of the hebrews) which are no longer in existance.

A second reason the nag hammadi find was important is because of the discovery of the gospel of thomas.

Mainstream biblical textual analysis generally goes for the "two source" theory for the gospels of matthew and luke.  The first source is taken to be the gospel of mark from which they copieid.  The second, of which there was no copy in existence, purely hypothetically constructed from textual analysis would be a very special kind of gospel.  A sayings gospel, with little narrative or story, merely professing teachings.  Scholars called this hypothetical gospel "Q".

The problem of course, is that we had no copy or knowlege of it.  Evidence had been derived purely from the verbal echoes and patterns found in the biblical gospels, and analysis showed it was supposed to be a very different kind of gospel, a sayings gospel, something for which there was almost no precedent.

Thomas was found at nag hammadi.  A genuine example of a relatively early gnostic christian sayings gospel.  Turns out there was at least now one real life example of such a style of gospel.