[Aric2000]

You know, I just looked over that post again, and for some reason it offends me.

Like I have to prove my beliefs to such as you?

I couldn't give a shit what you think about me, my beliefs or whatever I choose to call myself.

It's none of you god damn business and I could care less how much "knowledge" you have on the subject.

Be careful, this is a subject I have a lot of knowledge of...

And I should care why?

Also know that if you claim to be a "witch," I'm ready for that one too:

And again, I should care why?

Please be clear in your words.

And again, why do I need to be clear, I am actually supposed to care what you think about my beliefs? or what I choose to call myself?

I couldn't care less what you think, if you wish to worship a rock, a toad, or be an atheist like you claim. Great, have at it. But I do not and will not allow you to define me. I have defined myself, and that is all that matters.

So, in essence, go Off yourself in some quiet way and take your judgemental and all knowledgable crap with you.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

You know, I just looked over that post again, and for some reason it offends me.

I expected as much, I am used to such a response when questioning someone's irrational claim that they are "pagan." This is something I do know a lot about.

Most of the neo-pagan groups who criticize Christians are 10 times worse than the Christians they constantly and unfairly defame. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim.)

-

I am actually supposed to care what you think about my beliefs?

Obviously, you do...

-

But I do not and will not allow you to define me.

Not my definitions, as I had stated. You are the one who gave the broad definition without specific terminology.

I am asking are you a Hellenistic pagan, Celtic pagan, Roman or Egyptian pagan, (etc... ad nauseum), or just a Chaos practitioner?

Or are you just a non-Judaic, non-Christian?

Words do mean things and when you so carelessly throw them out there, I see it and will question it. Language is the totality of a civilization, this is why Marxists and the other Leftists (my enemies) attack our language.

I question the idea that you even know what you believe, since you can't seem to tell me in a clear construction of language and have to resort to informal fallacies of logic in response.

Aristotle was a Hellenistic "pagan," whose categorical logic is what I am using here, along with his knowledge given to us in Poetics.

As an atheist, I maintain that the societal practice of abortion is ritual mass murder upon the altars dedicated to idolatrous vanities, a collective human sacrifice to pagan idols. I don't care much for that type of paganism.

CONSIDER YOUR WORDS CAREFULLY, THEY DO HAVE CONSEQUENCES AND GIVE PEOPLE IMPRESSIONS YOU MAY NOT INTEND...

Anyone care to dispute the following with logical arguments ???

Set, Satan, and Shaitan are the same. "Satan" is a Hebrew word for the pagan Egyptian Set. Satan, Shaitan, Set or Seth ("Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) is a pagan entity, the "adversary" of Judaic theology. (A "pagan" is anyone not Judaic, Christian or Muslim.)

The Greeks called Set "Typhon," who was the war god assigned to Upper Egypt. This also represents another contravention to the "accepted" etymologies of words like "typhoon" in English, which is erroneously listed as the Cantonese "tai fung" in many dictionaries. English has more commonalties with Greek and Latin.

The Egyptian priest Manetho associated the Jews with the Hyksos and Moses with the Egyptian priest Osarsiph. It was at this time that the belief the Jews worshipped an ass – an animal holy to the Egyptian god Set was established. Both the Jews and the pagan Egyptians used the labels (i.e., Satan, Set, Seth, or "Set-hn" as spoken in the ancient Hebrew) to defame each other. How fitting that amidst this epic struggle and bloody conflict, the entity known as Satan was born into the World. Such conflict continued through the Maccabean period (with Antiochus Epiphanes), and continues into modern times on several fronts.

There is a recurring theme that alludes to the hostility between the pagan Egyptians and the Judaic. Often it is claimed by the Neo-Pagans that Satan is only found in Christianity. How can this be if Satan is undeniably a Hebrew word adapted from the name of the pagan Egyptian god Set? This cannot be reconciled with the fact that it is a Hebrew word...

Thomas Hobbes, having been fluent in both Greek and Latin by age 9, has this to support my assertions in Leviathan:

Part III. Of a Christian Commonwealth.

Chap. xxxviii. Of Eternal Life, Hell, Salvation, and Redemption.

[12] And first, for the tormentors, we have their nature and properties exactly and properly delivered by the names of the Enemy (or Satan), the Accuser (or Diabolus), the Destroyer (or Abaddon). Which significant names (Satan, Devil, Abaddon) set not forth to us any individual person, as proper names do, but only an office or quality, and are therefore appellatives, which ought not to have been left untranslated (as they are in the Latin and modern Bibles), because thereby they seem to be the proper names of demons, and men are the more easily seduced to believe the doctrine of devils, which at that time was the religion of the Gentiles, and contrary to that of Moses, and of Christ.

[13] And because by the Enemy, the Accuser, and Destroyer, is meant the enemy of them that shall be in the kingdom of God, therefore if the kingdom of God after the resurrection be upon the earth (as in the former Chapter I have shewn by Scripture it seems to be), the Enemy and his kingdom must be on earth also. For so also was it in the time before the Jews had deposed God. For God's kingdom was in Israel, and the nations round about were the kingdoms of the Enemy; and consequently, by Satan is meant any earthly enemy of the Church.

Consider this, from Hobbes' Leviathan, in 1668:

Part IV. Of the Kingdom of Darkness

Chap. xlvii. Of the Benefit that proceedeth from such Darkness

[21] ...For from the time that the Bishop of Rome had gotten to be acknowledged for bishop universal, by pretence of succsession to St. Peter, their whole hierarchy (or kingdom of darkness) may be compared not unfitly to the kingdom of fairies (that is, to the old wives' fables in England, concerning ghosts and spirits and the feats they play in the night). And if a man consider the original of this ecclesiastical dominion, he will easily perceive that the Papacy is no other than the ghost of the deceased Roman empire sitting crowned upon the grave thereof. For so did the Papacy start out of the ruins of that heathen power.

[22] The language also which they use (both in the churches and in their public acts) being Latin, which is not commonly used by any nation now in the world, what is it but the ghost of the old Roman language?

[23] The fairies, in what nation soever they converse, have but one universal king, which some poets of ours call King Oberon; but the Scripture calls Beelzebub, prince of demons. The ecclesiastics likewise, in whose dominions soever they be found, acknowledge but one universal king, the Pope.

[24] The ecclesiastics are spiritual men and ghostly fathers. The fairies and ghosts inhabit darkness, solitudes, and graves. The ecclesiastics walk in obscurity of doctrine,...