:-)
Assertion without Proof, Contradiction in Terms.
No, it's not a contradiction in terms. "Assertion" means one thing, "proof" means another. They in no way contradict.
The 'supernatural' isn't 'real' by definition.
That's incorrect. Use a dictionary when making claims about definitions.
Actually, It's sacrificing Himself . . .Then it isn't a 'sacrifice'
Are you claiming one can't sacrifice himself, or are you claiming that God can't sacrifice Himself? If the latter, scripture claims He did. I believe it.
I don't think burning witches is wrong because there are no witches.
Again, it's a matter of definition. There are people who claim to be witches and practice rituals with the intent to acquire supernatural powers, regardless of how successful they are.
I think burning innocent people is wrong because they are innocent of being witches.
If they are guilty of being witches is it OK to burn them by your standards?
You didn't understand what I meant here. But that's ok, this conversation is going nowhere fast.
That's incorrect. Use a dictionary when making claims about definitions.
I have a 10lbs unabridged monster of a dictionary. All definitions of 'supernatural' are a ring of circular definitions relying upon other words that ultimately rely upon the 'supernatural' for their definition in turn. It is a floating abstraction with no 'real' meaning and is a fantasy term that doesn't signify any 'real' any more than the word Centaur denotes anything 'real.'
Again, it's a matter of definition. There are people who claim to be witches and practice rituals with the intent to acquire supernatural powers, regardless of how successful they are.
Hey, I deal with a myriad of forms of irrationality every day. That doesn't mean any of it is valid or real. Just because this is what these people believe doesn't mean I have to buy into it any more than I have to pet the local shizoids invisible dog. Just because other people are insane doesn't mean I have to join them in that insanity.
If they are guilty of being witches is it OK to burn them by your standards?
Well, we used to try to treat insane people in mental institutions but nowadays we just let them roam the streets. But by and large no, you don't burn crazy people because they are crazy.
What? Perhaps burning innocent people is wrong because they are innocent.
If they are guilty of being witches is it OK to burn them by your standards?
Stone them. God specifically said stone them. Matthew apparently sez, as per Tribune7, that stoning is null and void, although being a witch is still a sin. Since stoning was verboten, I guess burning was taken to be prescribed. I believe it satisfies the golden rule, since, if you were a devout deputy of the inquisition, you'd want your soul scoured in the cleansing fires of God's Mercy were you to be shut off from God by witchery.
How say you Tribune7? Have you found a clear formulation for God's Law, as modified by the Gospels, that explains why I can't be a witch, but I can be a pig-eater?