Supreme Court asked to hear witch case

But gaining the help of pagan locals does. You know, the locals they later went on to destroy.

I don't believe the Pilgrims "went on to destroy" the Pawtuxets. Their village was decimated by an epidemic, but no overtly hostile action on the part of the Pilgrims.

Only to those who have forgotten, or not bothered to research.

Uh ... yeah. "Forgotten." That was my point. Not much validity to a symbol whose symbolism is ... forgotten.

The world passed you up about 150 years ago, time for you to go back. And if a young girl is sold into white slavery to work at a brothel while she is well taken care of, I guess that's okay.

No, you're missing the point. It isn't a matter of how well she's treated. It's a matter of her personal outlook on the situation. She doesn't HAVE to be suffering, just because you think she should. Your values are not HERS.

Or why don't I just grab ny neighbor (he's black) and tell him he's my slave. I promise to take good care of him.

See the previous reply. And if your neighbor did not object, how would the action be harming him? Get over yourself.

OTOH, while he's Christian, I doubt he'll believe this load of bull.

Probably not. But that has nothing to do with the validity of the argument.

I know slavery has a long tradition. However, Christians like you make claims with the end to continue slavery.

I'm not sure I understand that malformed sentence. If you mean that I am arguing for the continuance of slavery, I'd suggest you whip out the Witch's Primer and go back to your ABCs. I said that the Bible is ambiguous on slavery, but that it exhorts Christians to remember that this is but a fleeting speck of time, and that the Eternal Life is what is important. Oh, and that joy can come from being a good and faithful servant.

It's a good thing not all Christians are like you or the Abolitionists would have never turned this country towards ending slavery.

Yeah, those good ole Abolitionists. Where's John Brown when ya need 'im? Oh that's right. His body lies a-moulderin' in the grave.

I'm used to working with brighter students, and I've worked with some pretty dumb ones.

I don't imagine they were much improved for the experience.

It's not borrowed from, but similar to. "Do that which causes the least harm" is essentially the negatively-phrased version of "Do that which brings the greatest happiness." However, it is more passive, not pursuading people to proactively cause happiness as Buddhism does, only not to cause harm (as in the Hippocratic Oath).

"First, do no harm." Is that it? Okay. Now I understand. See, all it takes is a sentence constructed according to rules of English grammar and I can fill in the blanks.

Yeah, but I'll be in good with God for bashing my young child's head in with a rock. Glory be!

That's certainly a reward worth considering. But you don't believe in God ... So maybe you'd get twice the reward if you applied that rock to your own skull. Do that, will you, and let me know how it turns out?

I don't believe the Pilgrims "went on to destroy" the Pawtuxets. Their village was decimated by an epidemic,

You forget the wars that followed later.

Not much validity to a symbol whose symbolism is ... forgotten.

... by the ignorant.

It isn't a matter of how well she's treated. It's a matter of her personal outlook on the situation.

So if a person is happy being a slave, then that's okay. And the way you use the Bible is meant to make people happy being slaves, thus promoting slavery.

You are missing a good way the Bible can be used to offer hope for slaves.

And if your neighbor did not object,

Then it's not slavery, a.k.a., involuntary servitude.

"First, do no harm." Is that it? Okay. Now I understand. See, all it takes is a sentence constructed according to rules of English grammar and I can fill in the blanks.

Not quite. Read the grammatically-correct sentences I wrote, such as "Do that which causes the least harm," and "Do that which causes the greatest happiness."

That's certainly a reward worth considering.

Bash kid's head in to get reward from God. Got it. And you were trying to tell me that divinely-delivered absolute morals are good? I think you'll need to use a different, more sane, tact.

You just provided the evidence to make yourself lose.

Well, if I was waiting for you to do it, I'd be here all day. Oh wait. I have been!

Sounds like people loyal to the crown to me.

The Pilgrims weren't in any hurry to defy what they had been taught was the natural order, the ordination of certain men as kings over other men. Nevertheless, they were forced to choose between adhering to what they saw as corrupted tenets of the Anglican Church or separating from that Church, and by extension, its temporal offices, the Crown. That they left England 12 years before they came to America demonstrates pretty amply that they were reluctant to call themselves English subjects if doing so meant having to embrace a debauched theosophy. I suspect the tribute to King James (not George, by the way) was more of an honorific, a reluctant paean to the Lord's anointed on earth. Nevertheless, the words say what they say.

I notice that you accidentally omitted the part about the advancement of the Christian Faith and the Glory of God. You'd want to be sure to include those relevant passages as well, lest you be accused of redacting the document to serve your own purposes ...

Nevertheless, they were forced to choose between adhering to what they saw as corrupted tenets of the Anglican Church or separating from that Church,

They didn't believe the Anglican Church had done enough in completing the Reformation and wanted someplace they could create their own little oppressive theocracy. That doesn't mean they weren't still loyal to the crown. We survived over a hundred years as loyal subjects before abuses brought on the Revolution.

I notice that you accidentally omitted the part about the advancement of the Christian Faith and the Glory of God.

Because this is a discussion of whether they were loyal to the crown, not highly religious, which is established. Bit paranoid?

So if a person is happy being a slave, then that's okay.

Isn't it? According to your own ... guidelines? She's not being harmed. Isn't that your own yardstick for measuring right and wrong? If you're asserting that harm is NOT the ruling factor, then it almost seems like you're arguing for some sort of a ... [shudder] ... absolute! But that could never be. You're a relativist.

... the way you use the Bible is meant to make people happy being slaves, thus promoting slavery.

Is not opposing something the same as promoting it? Is the absence of a negative a positive? Your logic needs as much work as your rhetoric.

You are missing a good way the Bible can be used to offer hope for slaves.

The Bible's hope for slaves comes from the knowledge that God promises salvation irrespective of one's works. "Blessed are the poor in spirit ... Blessed are the meek ... Blessed are clean of heart ... Great is your reward in Heaven." This life is meaningless. There is no burden so great that the Lord cannot bear it. "I go to prepare a place for you ..." Those are words of hope.

Then it's not slavery, a.k.a., involuntary servitude.

Then if he resisted, you overcame him and enslaved him, but he refused to be crushed by that knowledge, and instead awoke every day with the intent of doing you his utmost service?

Primum non nocere.

First, do no harm. It's not part of the Hippocratic Oath, but I think I know what you're referring to.

Bash kid's head in to get reward from God. Got it. And you were trying to tell me that divinely-delivered absolute morals are good?

Presumably God has a reason for instructing you to bash in your child's head. I would imagine it has something to do with the likelihood that the child will grow up to be a blight on society, or worse, a Wiccan, if you don't. But in a world where men are the zenith of Creation, it is impossible to subvert one's will to the will of One Greater. Your resistance has as much to do with vanity as it has to do with compassion. As I recall, Abraham was instructed to bash in HIS son's skull with a rock. God stayed his hand before the deed was done, but in following God's instruction even at great cost, Abraham proved himself worthy of founding an entire nation. Your own arrogance would have caused you to fail that test, in thinking you could teach the Almighty lessons on compassion.

I think you'll need to use a different, more sane, tact.

I'm not the one bashing kids' heads in. Or looking for reasons to.

They may have been "insignificant" in Mrs. Pastejar's history class, but to the rest of the world, they were the original Settlers

ROFL!
By the time the Mayflower pilgrims arrived in 1620, Spanish, Dutch and French business ventures had established settlements throughout the United States in what is now the Carolinas, Virginia, Florida, Georgia and New Mexico. They also had settlements in Canada. Ever heard of the Virginia Company or Hudson's Bay?

Pure bunk

The first Jewish immigrants to the United States were Sephardic Jews that were fleeing persecution by Portuguese rulers in Brazil, in 1654. There were over two thousand of them by 1656. The first Jewish congregation was established in the Dutch Colony of New Amsterdam. The Dutch had settlements in America before the Puritans arrived. They were Dutch Reformed and Deists who welcomed Jews and Atheists into their community. They provided the funds for the American Revolution and we would still be kissing the Royal Arse if not for them.

Yep, the Mayflower Compact was about business. And paste is made for eating

Some of those aboard the Mayflower were Protestant Separatists who had fled England to Holland to escape persecution from the Reformed Angelicans. The principals were men commissioned to further the business of the Virginia Company. It was a business venture with many investors. It was not part of their original intent to draft the Mayflower Compact and form a Christian colony under its terms. That happened when they were blown off course and could not land at the mouth of the Hudson. The Compact was drafted in an attempt to stop the constant bickering of the Puritans. They were whining landlubbers who were a pain in the butt to the seamen and trappers aboard the Mayflower. They were trying to get the Puritans to stop fighting with each other and form a colony that would be profitable to the investors. The Compact was a failure and the investors lost their money. The Mayflower Compact is a standard colonial loyalty oath to king and faith. Christianity was required, not optional.

we call him the Devil. Old Scratch. Lucifer. Prince of Darkness. His name is legion

Is he above or below the Easter Bunny in your pantheon of Demons and Gods?
.

Ever heard of the Virginia Company

You mean the London Virginia Company, the chartering company for the settlement at Jamestown? Yes. You mean the one that established the first ENGLISH settlement in North America? Yeah, I've heard of them. They arrived in 1607, some time before the Pilgrims at Plymouth. They were Anglican too. Church of England. You know, the one that didn't have any influence on American culture?

The Dutch East India Company laid claim to much of the Hudson Valley as early as 1609, but it wasn't until 1624 -- 14 years after Jamestown -- that the Dutch permanently settled in Manhattan. (And almost immediately began clashing with the English who were also expanding their interests in the New World). French colonies were concentrated mainly in the Northeast and North Central areas of the continent, as well as along the Gulf Coast. Neither played much of a role in the formation of the new country, since by then the French had been pushed back into Canada by the English, and the Gulf Coast region was not part of the original 13 colonies. Spain's minimal presence was limited almost exclusively to Florida and the Southwest, and once again, played little part in the formation of the new nation.

Maybe the Pilgrims are viewed as the archetypal settlers because they incorporate so many of the values that later became American.

They provided the funds for the American Revolution and we would still be kissing the Royal Arse if not for them.

Overheated speculation built on shadows and moonbeams.

The Mayflower Compact is a standard colonial loyalty oath to king and faith. Christianity was required, not optional.

Your self-serving misinterpretation of their motives notwithstanding, this says all that needs to be said. And it virtually destroys your myth of religious tolerance in the New World. Even a stopped clock is right ever so often.

Is he above or below the Easter Bunny in your pantheon of Demons and Gods?

1) The Easter Bunny is not a Christian symbol.

2) Christianity has no pantheon. It is monotheistic. Have one of the pro bono lawyers at your mental health clinic explain the Latin origins of pantheo- and monotheo-.

3) If anything, the Easter Bunny is a pagan symbol. A typically ridiculous (and vapid) pagan symbol. But certainly as deserving of your worship as a hollow tree or a frumious bandersnatch.

You believe in witches, fairies, warlocks, wizards, and hobgoblins, yet you're poking fun at Christian iconography??? The irony can't fail to escape even YOU.

And much of the demonic (and angelic, for that matter) hierarchy that has grown up around the Christian mythos comes from writers like Dante and Milton, not from apostolic or scriptural authority.

I also don't believe in demons and miracles.

The Bible does.

I am not poking fun at Christians.

Yes you are. You just don't have the guts to admit it.

I am simply turning your anti-Pagan BS into anti-Christian BS and feeding it back to you.

1) If you're going to do that, you need to choose your ground more wisely. Citing the Easter Bunny as a Christian symbol did more to make you look like an idiot than to balance some forensic scale.
2) The opposition to paganism is not "mine." Its authority is apostolic and scriptural.
3) You're guilty of moral equivalency again. "Because Christians reject paganism, it is equally valid for pagans to reject Christianity." While that is true logically, it ignores the definitive role Christianity has played in Western Civilization. If we had remained pagans, we'd still be scratching pictures on cave walls and chasing game with pointed sticks.

The Bible does

So? The Bible is your book, not mine. If you want to lead your life by the dogma dictated by nomadic camel jockies that is your right. If a Pagan wants to lead his life by the dictates of a tree that is his right. I consider you both childish, but that is not a crime in this country.

Yes you are. You just don't have the guts to admit it

Go back and reread your comments about Pagans. I simply used your tripe against you...and I was nicer to Christians than you are to Pagans. You're a typical hypocrite. You slur others but cry like a school girl when someone does the same to you.

Citing the Easter Bunny as a Christian symbol

Christians hate bunnies too?

The opposition to paganism is not "mine." Its authority is apostolic and scriptural

Careful Jack. Change Pagan to Jew, and you have quoted Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf.

You're guilty of moral equivalency again. "Because Christians reject paganism, it is equally valid for pagans to reject Christianity."

Your words, not mine. Again you show Christian dishonesty. You put your comment in quotes attributed to me. I did not make that comment.

If we had remained pagans, we'd still be scratching pictures on cave walls and chasing game with pointed sticks.

ROTFLMAO!!!
The Pagans invented civilization. The Christians brought it down. Ever heard of the Dark Ages?
.

If you want to lead your life by the dogma dictated by nomadic camel jockies that is your right. If a Pagan wants to lead his life by the dictates of a tree that is his right.

And I never contested either of those points.

I consider you both childish

And I consider you a bumpkin.

but that is not a crime in this country.

Fortunately for you, neither is idiocy. Or you'd be up on felony charges.

You're a typical hypocrite. You slur others but cry like a school girl when someone does the same to you.

I'm not crying like a schoolgirl. I love it when crystal worshippers and moonbeam chasers try to insult the ethereality of Christianity. The irony is more than anything I could ask.

Christians hate bunnies too?

We hate EVERYTHING, haven't you heard?

Change Pagan to Jew, and you have quoted Adolph Hitler in Mein Kampf.

I'm not calling for pagans to be exterminated. Ridiculed, yes. Shunned, to be sure. But exterminated? Why waste the energy on something that will die next week, once its novelty wears out? No, we've got baby seals to crush and worlds to dominate. No time for such trivia.

Your words, not mine. Again you show Christian dishonesty. You put your comment in quotes attributed to me. I did not make that comment.

Did that summary not capture the essence of your comment?

The Pagans invented civilization.

A thesis with vast support in the historical, anthropological, and sociological communities ...

It must be the medication again ... I should have said that in the REAL world, Christians defined Western Culture. In your Haldol-clouded dementia, I'm not sure that civilization exists in any recognizable form.

The Christians brought it down.

[Remember the Haldol. Remember the Haldol] I believe the first book ever printed with movable type was a Bible.

Ever heard of the Dark Ages?

You mean that period of history brought on when pagans sacked Rome, and lasted until the Norman Conquest, when Christian kings took power in England? Yes, I'm familiar with it. But you don't have to keep making my point for me. You should focus on making potholders for Arts & Crafts. Or maybe a macaroni picture of the Easter Bunny.

Which, BTW, had risen to greatness under pagan rule, only to be destroyed under Christian rule.

The first Roman emperor who professed Christianity was Constantine, in 312 A.D.. By that point, Rome was a mere shadow of its former self. And Constantine, though convinced of Christianity's sincerity and despite his own personal conversion, had to comply with pagan traditions lest he earn the ire of the Roman citizenry and risk death, assassination, or banishment.

But intolerance is strictly a Christian vice.

Other religions had great societies going while Christianity's forbears, the Jews, were still wandering around in the desert.

And 3,500 years later, the Jews' religion survives. Despite Rameses. Despite the Diaspora. Despite the Holocaust. Despite Arafat and Khadafi and Abbas and Khomeini and all the rest. How many Baal-worshippers ya see around?

On second thought, given the precincts you gents obviously frequent, perhaps that's not a safe question ...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.