If you are pagan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even the Pope said , in effect, that God won't turn good and loving people (incl. atheists) away from Heaven because they re not Christians.

NP here. The current pope may say that, but the Bible doesn’t. “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” It’s not Christian to judge people or treat them unkindly, regardless of their beliefs. But Christian belief states that only those with faith in Jesus will go to Heaven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even the Pope said , in effect, that God won't turn good and loving people (incl. atheists) away from Heaven because they re not Christians.

NP here. The current pope may say that, but the Bible doesn’t. “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” It’s not Christian to judge people or treat them unkindly, regardless of their beliefs. But Christian belief states that only those with faith in Jesus will go to Heaven.

I'll repeat what a PP asked.

Why is Christianity being discussed in a thread that asked about Pagans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even the Pope said , in effect, that God won't turn good and loving people (incl. atheists) away from Heaven because they re not Christians.

NP here. The current pope may say that, but the Bible doesn’t. “No one comes to the Father except through Me.” It’s not Christian to judge people or treat them unkindly, regardless of their beliefs. But Christian belief states that only those with faith in Jesus will go to Heaven.

I'll repeat what a PP asked.

Why is Christianity being discussed in a thread that asked about Pagans?

Fucking seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Why are you bringing atheists into this discussion? It's about pagans, and then someone arrogantly (and incorrectly) chimed in to suggest that paganism was objectively inferior in validity than Christianity. The fact remains that ALL religions/mythologies/etc are equally "odd" and believable--or unbelievable. They are ALL subjectively "truth" or fake, depending on your personal conditioning. No one mentioned atheism, except you.

Different person here, but what I want to take away from this quoted post is - why is Christianity or atheism being discussed at all? Just why? This was supposed to be a thread about paganism, yet only one pagan seems to have responded in a 4-page thread that's just been a nasty argument between fundie Christians and judgy atheists and a bunch of other angry people in between.

If people posting here are not pagan, why can't you just shut up and leave the thread?

Just tuning in. The description of holy communion as a pagan blood ritual was not contrived and is not a new idea. Pagan blood cults existed before Christianity and the notion of communion is derived from that. I learned this in a religious education class taught by a priest.

That needn't detract from the validity of communion for Christians. Jesus himself was never a Christian, although there would be no Christianity without him. Jesus was born and died a Jew. His followers, especially Paul, established Christianity after Jesus died and ascended into heaven.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are you bringing atheists into this discussion? It's about pagans, and then someone arrogantly (and incorrectly) chimed in to suggest that paganism was objectively inferior in validity than Christianity. The fact remains that ALL religions/mythologies/etc are equally "odd" and believable--or unbelievable. They are ALL subjectively "truth" or fake, depending on your personal conditioning. No one mentioned atheism, except you.

Different person here, but what I want to take away from this quoted post is - why is Christianity or atheism being discussed at all? Just why? This was supposed to be a thread about paganism, yet only one pagan seems to have responded in a 4-page thread that's just been a nasty argument between fundie Christians and judgy atheists and a bunch of other angry people in between.

If people posting here are not pagan, why can't you just shut up and leave the thread?

Just tuning in. The description of holy communion as a pagan blood ritual was not contrived and is not a new idea. Pagan blood cults existed before Christianity and the notion of communion is derived from that. I learned this in a religious education class taught by a priest.

That needn't detract from the validity of communion for Christians. Jesus himself was never a Christian, although there would be no Christianity without him. Jesus was born and died a Jew. His followers, especially Paul, established Christianity after Jesus died and ascended into heaven.

Which part of, "If people posting here are not pagan, why can't you just shut up and leave the thread?" didn't you understand? Considering you actually QUOTED me, and then went off on your Jesus tangent, I'm amazed.

I really want to hear from other pagans. I don't meet many in my local area. There isn't much representation of pagans on DCUM. Finally a thread pops up which is meant to be dedicated to pagans. The Christians end up turning it into a Christian thread, even though this sub-forum has approximately 50,000 threads. Believe it or not, I have zero, and I truly mean ZERO, interest in learning about communion, or whether or not Paul established Christianity instead of Jesus. It's irrelevant to my life and irrelevant to this thread. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why are you bringing atheists into this discussion? It's about pagans, and then someone arrogantly (and incorrectly) chimed in to suggest that paganism was objectively inferior in validity than Christianity. The fact remains that ALL religions/mythologies/etc are equally "odd" and believable--or unbelievable. They are ALL subjectively "truth" or fake, depending on your personal conditioning. No one mentioned atheism, except you.

Different person here, but what I want to take away from this quoted post is - why is Christianity or atheism being discussed at all? Just why? This was supposed to be a thread about paganism, yet only one pagan seems to have responded in a 4-page thread that's just been a nasty argument between fundie Christians and judgy atheists and a bunch of other angry people in between.

If people posting here are not pagan, why can't you just shut up and leave the thread?

Just tuning in. The description of holy communion as a pagan blood ritual was not contrived and is not a new idea. Pagan blood cults existed before Christianity and the notion of communion is derived from that. I learned this in a religious education class taught by a priest.

That needn't detract from the validity of communion for Christians. Jesus himself was never a Christian, although there would be no Christianity without him. Jesus was born and died a Jew. His followers, especially Paul, established Christianity after Jesus died and ascended into heaven.

Which part of, "If people posting here are not pagan, why can't you just shut up and leave the thread?" didn't you understand? Considering you actually QUOTED me, and then went off on your Jesus tangent, I'm amazed.

I really want to hear from other pagans. I don't meet many in my local area. There isn't much representation of pagans on DCUM. Finally a thread pops up which is meant to be dedicated to pagans. The Christians end up turning it into a Christian thread, even though this sub-forum has approximately 50,000 threads. Believe it or not, I have zero, and I truly mean ZERO, interest in learning about communion, or whether or not Paul established Christianity instead of Jesus. It's irrelevant to my life and irrelevant to this thread. Thanks.

I am not a Christian or a Pagan. Just responding with some pagan/christian history that I'm aware of. People with different religious backgrounds and knowledge often chime in on these threads and in many cases they add to the conversation. The fact that other pagans haven't contributed may mean that there aren't many out there, or not many reading this board.

[Anonymous]

I am not a Christian or a Pagan. Just responding with some pagan/christian history that I'm aware of. People with different religious backgrounds and knowledge often chime in on these threads and in many cases they add to the conversation. The fact that other pagans haven't contributed may mean that there aren't many out there, or not many reading this board.

If you are neither Pagan nor Christian, then all you had to do to stay on topic was talk about pagan history instead of discussing Christian history in relation to paganism, because in case you hadn't noticed, this thread devolved into a flame war between evangelicals trying to push Jesus and insult pagans, and angry atheists. That's definitely NOT "adding to the conversation", so I'm pretty sure you either didn't bother reading the thread (just like you didn't bother reading my post, though you quoted it), or you have a very warped idea of what a "conversation" is.

And in fact, I have seen Wiccan threads on this forum in the past. It's likely any Wiccan or pagan contributors to this thread were turned off by the arguments that happened in this thread instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am not a Christian or a Pagan. Just responding with some pagan/christian history that I'm aware of. People with different religious backgrounds and knowledge often chime in on these threads and in many cases they add to the conversation. The fact that other pagans haven't contributed may mean that there aren't many out there, or not many reading this board.

If you are neither Pagan nor Christian, then all you had to do to stay on topic was talk about pagan history instead of discussing Christian history in relation to paganism, because in case you hadn't noticed, this thread devolved into a flame war between evangelicals trying to push Jesus and insult pagans, and angry atheists. That's definitely NOT "adding to the conversation", so I'm pretty sure you either didn't bother reading the thread (just like you didn't bother reading my post, though you quoted it), or you have a very warped idea of what a "conversation" is.

And in fact, I have seen Wiccan threads on this forum in the past. It's likely any Wiccan or pagan contributors to this thread were turned off by the arguments that happened in this thread instead.

I hate to say this, but join the club. It's a sad and sorry club. No religion here--Christian, Muslim, or to a lesser extent Jewish--has been able to maintain its own conversational thread without without Ranting Atheist chiming in to abuse the believers. While I agree the Evangelical was problematic on this thread, the Ranting Atheist is the one who was really abusive and prompted the Christian defensive posts. It seems like Ranting Atheist's mission, or there's been some speculation she's paid, is to disrupt every single thread on faith of whatever variety.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am not a Christian or a Pagan. Just responding with some pagan/christian history that I'm aware of. People with different religious backgrounds and knowledge often chime in on these threads and in many cases they add to the conversation. The fact that other pagans haven't contributed may mean that there aren't many out there, or not many reading this board.

If you are neither Pagan nor Christian, then all you had to do to stay on topic was talk about pagan history instead of discussing Christian history in relation to paganism, because in case you hadn't noticed, this thread devolved into a flame war between evangelicals trying to push Jesus and insult pagans, and angry atheists. That's definitely NOT "adding to the conversation", so I'm pretty sure you either didn't bother reading the thread (just like you didn't bother reading my post, though you quoted it), or you have a very warped idea of what a "conversation" is.

And in fact, I have seen Wiccan threads on this forum in the past. It's likely any Wiccan or pagan contributors to this thread were turned off by the arguments that happened in this thread instead.

I hate to say this, but join the club. It's a sad and sorry club. No religion here--Christian, Muslim, or to a lesser extent Jewish--has been able to maintain its own conversational thread without without Ranting Atheist chiming in to abuse the believers. While I agree the Evangelical was problematic on this thread, the Ranting Atheist is the one who was really abusive and prompted the Christian defensive posts. It seems like Ranting Atheist's mission, or there's been some speculation she's paid, is to disrupt every single thread on faith of whatever variety.

Agreed (PP you're responding to here).

[Anonymous]

No one can disrupt a thread unless others let them by commenting on how disruptive they are.

I think it's called "feeding the troll." And it seems like some folks enjoy doing it, more than discussing the topic at hand.

Also, there's no directive that the discussion must go exactly as the person who introduces it would like. That doesn't happen IRL and doesn't happen here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one can disrupt a thread unless others let them by commenting on how disruptive they are.

I think it's called "feeding the troll." And it seems like some folks enjoy doing it, more than discussing the topic at hand.

Also, there's no directive that the discussion must go exactly as the person who introduces it would like. That doesn't happen IRL and doesn't happen here.

Now we're into meta-thread dynamics.

Sorry, pagans!

You must be Ranting Atheist. As you know very well, it doesn't take an all-out frontal assault of the "hey, I'm a troll, play with me!" variety. Instead, when somebody says some tenet of your religion is full of shi!t, yes, most people will respond to explain that tenet. That's what you did here. I wish the moderator would ban you, although I'm pleased he's deleted a number of your posts on recent threads. Your gambit here about how "I'm a confirmed Catholic" ... 30 years ago... and then being coy about whether you're still Catholic, is typical of your sleaze. (I'm not Catholic in case you're wondering, I'm just disgusted by your lack of morality.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can disrupt a thread unless others let them by commenting on how disruptive they are.

I think it's called "feeding the troll." And it seems like some folks enjoy doing it, more than discussing the topic at hand.

Also, there's no directive that the discussion must go exactly as the person who introduces it would like. That doesn't happen IRL and doesn't happen here.

Now we're into meta-thread dynamics.

Sorry, pagans!

You must be Ranting Atheist. As you know very well, it doesn't take an all-out frontal assault of the "hey, I'm a troll, play with me!" variety. Instead, when somebody says some tenet of your religion is full of shi!t, yes, most people will respond to explain that tenet. That's what you did here. I wish the moderator would ban you, although I'm pleased he's deleted a number of your posts on recent threads. Your gambit here about how "I'm a confirmed Catholic" ... 30 years ago... and then being coy about whether you're still Catholic, is typical of your sleaze. (I'm not Catholic in case you're wondering, I'm just disgusted by your lack of morality.)

It's a fine display of that Atheist Logic that they're so proud about.

[Anonymous]

Then there is the poster who hijacks threads thinking that everyone who offends them is the ranting atheist, unaware that more than one poster is bothering them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one can disrupt a thread unless others let them by commenting on how disruptive they are.

I think it's called "feeding the troll." And it seems like some folks enjoy doing it, more than discussing the topic at hand.

Also, there's no directive that the discussion must go exactly as the person who introduces it would like. That doesn't happen IRL and doesn't happen here.

Now we're into meta-thread dynamics.

Sorry, pagans!

You must be Ranting Atheist. As you know very well, it doesn't take an all-out frontal assault of the "hey, I'm a troll, play with me!" variety. Instead, when somebody says some tenet of your religion is full of shi!t, yes, most people will respond to explain that tenet. That's what you did here. I wish the moderator would ban you, although I'm pleased he's deleted a number of your posts on recent threads. Your gambit here about how "I'm a confirmed Catholic" ... 30 years ago... and then being coy about whether you're still Catholic, is typical of your sleaze. (I'm not Catholic in case you're wondering, I'm just disgusted by your lack of morality.)

It's a fine display of that Atheist compassion and awesome moral values that they're so proud about.

Fixed it for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Then there is the poster who hijacks threads thinking that everyone who offends them is the ranting atheist, unaware that more than one poster is bothering them.

Oh please. Pretty sure everybody here has friends who are atheist.

It’s you and your bullying antics and lies (communion is bs and I can say this because I’m a confirmed Catholic...oh wait, I’ll let someone else figure out I was confirmed 20 years ago and I’ve been an atheist for years) that give other atheists everywhere a bad reputation. Did you ever stop to think that you’re doing damage to your own cause? You single-handedly create the impression that atheists in general are lying bullies, and also not terribly bright. (Did you really think your language around your first communion would fool anybody, or are you under some sad delusion that you’re smarter than everybody else?) Seriously, you need to get out of your parents’ basement and get a job, or get a real hobby that brings you actual joy.