Today in the Abortion thread I received an angry diatribe about why an atheist should discuss morality. It was almost immediately deleted, so I couldn’t vent my spleen at the [ideologically opposed individual].

I’m used to this; Actually being a pagan I am either called an atheist agnostic or Satanist pretty much regularly. But it’s always one type of Christian who consistently hits me with those labels. They think that because I do not ‘believe’ in their god I believe in none, need to be convinced (The worst of the lot, you wade through fifty e-mails from the same guy and all of his friend who are sending you scripture) or gasp I worship the OTHER guy

However my creative juices are flowing, and I’m in the mood for an argument. So I will lay out what the term means in words of as few syllables as I can get away with. I will point out where their view of the universe as a whole is skewed, then I will invite commentary.

While the title does not suggest it, this is for anyone of any religious bent, so if you feel the need to lay your spiritual beliefs on the altar of truth, it is here and ready.

I will say this exactly once. Any attacks on someone’s religion beyond rationale discussion will be harshly dealt with. People have said I have a mod’s powers, and I don’t know that I do. But tick me off, and I might just find out. If not I am sure our resident momerator will take you to task and whip on you like a baby harp seal. You can debate the concepts, the attitudes, and attitudes of the religions displayed here to your heart’s content otherwise.

Definitions:

To save us trouble I went to an online dictionary;

PAGAN

1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.

2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.

Heathen

1. an unconverted individual of a people that do not acknowledge the God of the Bible; a person who is neither a Jew, Christian, nor Muslim; pagan.

2. an irreligious, uncultured, or uncivilized person.

–adjective

3. of or pertaining to heathens; pagan.

4. irreligious, uncultured, or uncivilized.

Atheist

a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Agnostic

1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.

2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.

Finally

Satanist

1. the worship of Satan or the powers of evil.

2. a travesty of Christian rites in which Satan is worshiped.

I added Heathen because the Asartu, a religion over 4,000 years old and recognized in the Scandinavian peninsula follow the old Norse gods, and they do not like being called Pagans, so I am giving them their due..

So by definition, using definitions one and 2 of Pagan, and one of Heathen, I am both. But I believe in gods, just do not accept that yours is paramount. I think that it cannot be unknowable because God expects us to learn and grow. We may not learn it in our lifetime, but God expects us to accept that too.

As for Satanist, I have this question for you; If I were a Satanist I would be practicing your rituals in a perverted manner. It’s like calling an Anarchist a Nazi or Communist. If I do not practice or accept your religion, therefore it is a null term.

Religious supremacy:

Oddly enough the only peoples who have ever claimed consistently that their god is supreme and must be worshiped everywhere have been the Offshoots of Judaism, Jews, Christians and Moslems. It has been done in a watered down form by others. Antiochus who was one of the men that took over part of Alexander’s empire wanted his fiath in the Greek’s to be throughout his realm, and he ran straight into the Maccabees.

The Romans asked that you at least give their gods lip service, but that ran into, again, Jewish intransigence. In fact Palestine of that time was the only subjugated region where the local laws were not allowed. The Jews averaged more executions a year than the entire empire combined. Most of them for religious offenses. That is why Jesus was tried by the San Hedrin, but Pilate had to have him executed. Legally a death sentence right down to stoning required Roman approval.

But when the Christians took control of the Roman empire in the 3rd century, they did it by grabbing everything they could from the other ‘pagan’ religions and filing the serial numbers off it. Before you start screaming bias, this is recorded by the early church themselves St Thomas Aquinas suggested converting the Celts by ‘taking over their religious festivals’. They took the entire liturgy and vestments from the Mithraicism along with the cross symbol because it gave them inroads into the army. When a Pagan named Constantius was crowned as emperor, the early church stopped him from attacking them by declaring him head of the church and protector of the faith.

So we have Christianity already veering sharply away from what Jesus taught and becoming not a religion but a political entity, looking at all of those people who didn;t believe what they did,

THE PAGANS AND THE HEATHENS

At that time, the Church declared anyone not of the faith to be either Pagans or heathens, an attitude that they got from the old Pagan Roman Empire. The Pagani were the yokels. The rubes in the sticks that hadn’t been to the Big City and therefore didn’t know what they were missing. They would come around eventually. The Heathens were those nasty brutish Celts of Scotland and Germany. Too stupid to understand the truth.

But they had their own faiths, worshiped their own god, and wanted to be left alone. Lip service to Rome, Hah! The peoples decided that they would convert over their dead bodies to either version of Rome.

They were the forerunners of my own faith, serving our gods, our ways, and wanting to be left alone.

Which specific gods I worship can be discussed if anyone really wants to know. But mine were chosen because they tend to have aspects of me in their personalities. Like the Saints of the Catholic church, I talk to whoemever would be the most help at that time. I started with only four, but I added one after I met my soon to be ex because when I came into her life, he decided to take me on the joyride along with her.

So:

I am not an atheist, because i believe in god.

I am not an agnostic

I am definitely not a satanist

I am a Pagan,

I am a Heathen

I am by definition a Witch

And I am damn proud of it.

All right. Your turn.

PAGAN

1. one of a people or community observing a polytheistic religion, as the ancient Romans and Greeks.

2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

3. an irreligious or hedonistic person.
I'd also like to add that the word itself comes from the Latin term meaning countryside. This ties in to earlier practicioners who lived in the countryside. Like anything in culture, it changed to now refer to those who believe in polytheism than any of the monotheistic religions.

Before you start screaming bias, this is recorded by the early church themselves St Thomas Aquinas suggested converting the Celts by ‘taking over their religious festivals’. They took the entire liturgy and vestments from the Mithraicism along with the cross symbol because it gave them inroads into the army.
This is true in that many symbols we use now have pagan origins. One good example is the shape of the Jesus fish. The body shape is an almond shape and is associated with feminimity and fertility. Put three together and you get the triquetra which is now associated with the Holy Trinity. Wiccans associate it with the Triple Goddess.

I don't condemn people for being what they are even more so when it comes to the actual subject of religion. This I attribute mainly to my training in anthropology and my research passion which includes this topic. Also I have a tendency to approach things as a form of what is called cultural relativism. This has gotten me in trouble with my family in that they seem to think that I will pagan on them. They are traditional Mexican Catholics so I know where they tend to stand. What they don't realize is that I see it as a means of obtaining knowledge. Hard to explain but I hope you get the gist of what I mean.

Greetings fellow Pagan.

1. Er...at least according to wikipedia, there are many different religions out there claiming to be Satanism. The one that I am most familar with is the
Church of Satan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Satan), as somewhat Atheist sect that cares for the supporting of the Self, or the Ego. Satan doesn't actually exist, except as a symbol and as a metphoarical figure. These Satanists believe that everyone is actually their own God, so worshipping yourself is good, since you are God.

2. The first "monthesitic" religion is actually considered pagan by the Judeo-Chrisitan-Islamic religions...Zoroastrianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism). They were the dominant power in Western and Central Asia, and had teachings that seems remarkably similar. There is struggle between good and evil, and the people are forced to choose. Those who ally with Good goes to a very good place which we would see as Heaven, and those who ally with Evil goes to a very bad place which we would see as Hell. The Jews probralay came in contact with Zorastrainism after the Persian emproer allowed them to return to Palestine. My philopshy teacher said that, if religion was a business, Zorastranism was booming, because it had some components that made people want to buy its "product": (it explains the injustice in the land, it promises that evil people get punished, and it rewards those who do good). It also offers some complusion in buying: If people don't buy into this religion, they are seen as evil, and therefore, get punished.

You could probraly throw that in to say that the foundations of all these religions are in fact based on Zorastrainism, but I, a religious person, wouldn't give much merit to your ideas. Still, here you go.

One of the funniest religious comments I ever heard came from my then-Atheist roommate at college. Mind you, we were going to a Christian college and so we had to take a couple courses on the Bible and Doctrine/Ethics.

Well, apparently one day, my roommate was sitting in a Bible class and the prof said something about the Jews being God's Chosen People. She raised her hand, and when he called on her, she said "Of course they're God's Chosen People. They created him!" She said the prof wasn't too happy about that one....

The other thing is trying to explain what adultery is to a 9 year old who had heard about the 10 Commandments in Sunday School class. We managed to dance around that one rather carefully.

I'm surprised you showed up SS001. Not by your comments however.

The best version of the Devil I had ever seen was in the new version of the movie Bedazzled. Not because is was Elizabeth Hurley, but because 'She' give the guy everything he demands in the pact, but when he refuses to make the final wish (And condemn himself to hell,( instead he wishes that the woman he love is happy, and what happened ti him is incidental. A selfless act.

She releases him from the contract, and explans that her job 'working' for god is to be the spoiler or the devil's advocate (Pun not intended) with the assignment of giving some men the chance to screw up their lives but it was still them screwing it up.

The visual representation of the devil was done by takin the representations of Pan Sylvanus and Cernunnos, then take the natural attributes of that god and remove all the postive qualities. A god of death but not of balance. Of excess and madness without the things that make partying hardy and sexual enjoyment soemthing peopel will do willingly. Then they made him a straight out liar.

As for Zoastrianism, I left them out because I started from the Roman era. As a 'religous person' of my own, I challenge you 'I don';t believe it because I am religious. The statement like being called a Satanist is a null term if you will not explain the basis of that faith.

As for whether being a pagan is a religion or not, the US Supreme Court classed Pagans of all types as religions in a case heard in the late 90s. The only codicil they add to that ruling was 'A religion can teach anything up to and including mass murder and human sacrifice as long as the member understand that their religious freedom does not contravene civil and criminal law'

I'm pretty sure that Ahura Mazda was/is thought of as supreme, and you also failed to mention (given your temporal parameters, it is hardly a surprise, however) the Aten cult, in which the Aten, and the Royal family, were supreme above all else, to the point that the other, old gods were suppressed. It should not, however, be confused with monotheism - the royal family were divine, and worshipped by the people - they alone, and more specifically Pharaoh, had direct access to the Aten.

The Horus/Set myth may also be a war between factions regarding which cult was supreme.

Also, it should be noted that if you rejected the divinity of the Roman princeps, or indeed did not believe in the Proto-Indo-European gods (Zeus/Jupiter/Ra, Set/Aries/Mars etc), or other polytheistic gods, you were certainly shunned socially, and possibly (in the case of rejecting the divinity of the emperor) put to death in various public and unpleasant manners.

I'd post my beliefs and unpack them so that the reasons behind them are clear, but unfortunately I don't have the rest of my life. Or two millennia. I'd post links to relevant documents, but again, time would be an issue. I will choose three, however:
My Creed (http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm), As it were, what it is to practise my beliefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pange_Lingua), and One of the greatest scriptural teachings of our faith. (http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/5)

I'm a Roman Catholic. Our church's teaching are...big. If you imagine that the average Pope releases at least two doctrinal documents in his Papacy, add in another three from other major theologians, and multiply that by 267, then add in further material in the form of the New Testament, and...You have a lot of doctrine, to say the least, hence my recalcitrance in posting it (and I don't want to face another interrogation from Achilles :xp: )...

We get plenty of schtick from the other denominations, and a lot of unfounded insults and in some areas, attacks, even to this day, not to mention the 270-odd years of persecution and propaganda which even now haven't quite dissipated . So to some degree, though obviously not to the same extent, I can sympathise, mach.

I'm curious to know which 'type of Christian' this is - denominationally, or otherwise.

All such sects are granted, DI. But none of them waged massive wars against others because of their faiths even when those faiths were divided merely by a schism such as occured between the Catholics and the Protestants.

In Christianity you have mistranslations which cause a lot of problems. The phrase 'suffer not a witch to live' is linked in two way to this problem. First, it could be translated as 'suffer not a woman of power to live, and most Talmudic theologians agree that a more literal translation would be 'suffer not a poisoner to live'. Since poison is the weapon of choice in a lot of murders committed by women you can understand the problem.

Another such is the commandment you get hit with every time you speak of defending yourself against violence and killing someone. 'You will not kill' but the direct translation is 'you will not murder'.

As for Catholicism, I have nothing against them specifically. What they have done in history has been recorded not only by their own hand, but by those who detract them. They are not the ones who claim that the 'burning times' as my religion calls the witchcraft trial era never happened.

I simply request that since I have a religion of my own, it not be tossed aside as nonexistent or just an adjunct of their own.

All such sects are granted, DI. But none of them waged massive wars against others because of their faiths even when those faiths were divided merely by a schism such as occured between the Catholics and the Protestants.
Perhaps, but I don't think 'a mere schism' is quite the write phrase -it impliesa lack of size to the theological divide, which even now is proving far from easy to overcome. There was also a good deal of politics tied up in religion at the time, and some switched sides to suit the times - Henry of Navarre famously saying that 'Paris is worth a Mass!' - a prime example...

In Christianity you have mistranslations which cause a lot of problems. The phrase 'suffer not a witch to live' is linked in two way to this problem. First, it could be translated as 'suffer not a woman of power to live, and most Talmudic theologians agree that a more literal translation would be 'suffer not a poisoner to live'. Since poison is the weapon of choice in a lot of murders committed by women you can understand the problem.
Absolutely. This is one argument often used in favour of having a central body hand you an authoritative interpretation...

Another such is the commandment you get hit with every time you speak of defending yourself against violence and killing someone. 'You will not kill' but the direct translation is 'you will not murder'.

The way I see it, it comes down to Aquinas' interpretation of Natural Law- you have, in this case, ten Basic Goods (killing, I think we can agree, generally being bad), but there are occasions when the rule cannot be applied utterly rigidly - it needs more specific definition to an extent where the circumstances must be defined.

As for Catholicism, I have nothing against them specifically. What they have done in history has been recorded not only by their own hand, but by those who detract them. They are not the ones who claim that the 'burning times' as my religion calls the witchcraft trial era never happened.

True, but the amount of blood Catholics are guilty of letting has been talked up since the Reformation, and even now that mud still sticks- the Spanish Inquisition is a prime example.

I simply request that since I have a religion of my own, it not be tossed aside as nonexistent or just an adjunct of their own.
QFE/T. I know where you're coming from there...

Perhaps, but I don't think 'a mere schism' is quite the write phrase -it impliesa lack of size to the theological divide, which even now is proving far from easy to overcome. There was also a good deal of politics tied up in religion at the time, and some switched sides to suit the times - Henry of Navarre famously saying that 'Paris is worth a Mass!' - a prime example...

But it started if you recall with a doctrinal debate. It was overreaction pretty much up the line from the local bishop to the pope which caused it to get out of hand. If someone had actually debated Luther's contentions and had made the simple doctrinal changes it would have caused (Which would have actually brought it closer to the faith it claimed to be) the 30 years war would never have happened.


...but the amount of blood Catholics are guilty of letting has been talked up since the Reformation, and even now that mud still sticks- the Spanish Inquisition is a prime example.


As for the Christian detractors of Catholicism, my answer to them is when you can show God and man hands untainted by the blood of your own excesses, I'll listen to you.

(and I don't want to face another interrogation from Achilles :xp: )... Why start a new one when so many questions could be answered by wrapping up the others that are already in progress :D

Why start a new one when so many questions could be answered by wrapping up the others that are already in progress :D

I started this one because coming from a stance of morality, you ust be willing to explain what that moral center is. You can't just say, 'because it's wrong'. People on any issue use this but are never willing to state exactly why is it just wrong.

If it is a moral decision based on your faith, you can show what part of that faith lead to that conclusion. If your faith does not have such a link than you are making a personal decision outside of the realm of faith.

A lot of the 'it shouldn't be done because God won't allow it' crap came from that personal rather than moral center. Refusing to accept the moon landing, even (Yes I did the research) having a train travel faster that 30 miles an hour.

So if you don't want to give us a link to that moral center?

Well that's just wrong

Hi machievelli,

My post was a reference to all the other unfinished dialogs that DI and I have going in other threads. It was not specific to the topic being discussed here.

Your post seems to be entirely out of context, however I think that if you really want to know where I stand on morality, you should revisit the Ethics and Religion thread. I'll be happy to clarify my position there, if you would like.

Thanks!

But it started if you recall with a doctrinal debate. It was overreaction pretty much up the line from the local bishop to the pope which caused it to get out of hand. If someone had actually debated Luther's contentions and had made the simple doctrinal changes it would have caused (Which would have actually brought it closer to the faith it claimed to be) the 30 years war would never have happened.
Mmm...Perhaps.

Changing doctrine isn't allowed in Catholicism, tho. Only further development.

As for the Christian detractors of Catholicism, my answer to them is when you can show God and man hands untainted by the blood of your own excesses, I'll listen to you.
Quite. But then, they don't tend to be very good at the listening to opposing opinions, and a whole lot better at the 'the end of days' speeches, and spouting about the Wrath of God (tm) upon the sinful etc, in my experience.

@Achilles: Far too much effort to be worth it :D

Mmm...Perhaps.
Changing doctrine isn't allowed in Catholicism, tho. Only further development.



But you forget the 14th century Catholicism had changed doctrine drastically from what Jesus taught From incorporating the idea that they had the right to control the legitimacy of monarchies and succession, to making the church one of only two money lending organizations of the time, which meant they controlled politics and finances They even flip-flopped on the treatment of those members of other religions. They were tolerant until the 12th century, and a man could be tried for heresy if they said a witch or priest of another religion had any power, yet did a volte face less than a century later, and men who said they did not have such powers, automatically bestowed by the devil. That was when full scale repression of 'Pagans' began

So returning to an older closer to the orginal doctrine would not have been a change, it would have been proper development.

But you forget the 14th century Catholicism had changed doctrine drastically from what Jesus taught From incorporating the idea that they had the right to control the legitimacy of monarchies and succession, to making the church one of only two money lending organizations of the time, which meant they controlled politics and finances They even flip-flopped on the treatment of those members of other religions. They were tolerant until the 12th century, and a man could be tried for heresy if they said a witch or priest of another religion had any power, yet did a volte face less than a century later, and men who said they did not have such powers, automatically bestowed by the devil. That was when full scale repression of 'Pagans' began

So returning to an older closer to the orginal doctrine would not have been a change, it would have been proper development.
That's not doctrine - that's politics ;)

The problem was that the temporal and spiritual powers of the Papacy became intermingled, IMO. Also, are you sure it was only one of two? I'm sure the Genoese, the Milanese and the Czechs were building up money-lending businesses at that time...

Several ideas did come to be accepted as norms, such as the controlling of politics, but there were other reasons for it than simply that the Church felt big...There do seem to have been efforts to make Europe more peaceful, and there was a general backlash against the previous subjugation of the Church to the Holy Roman Emperor before Gregory VIIth...Also, I think the expulsions and repressions began with the English expulsion of the Jews under Edward Longshanks. But I'm not sure...my expertise lies more in the region of the twelfth century BC....

they don't tend to be very good at the listening to opposing opinions <snip>

@Achilles: Far too much effort to be worth it :D The juxtaposition of these two statements is just great!

While I am very confident in my arguments, I really was hoping that you might be able to provide some information to counter them, so that I could increase my understanding on those subjects. Since you seem to be unwilling to do so, then I have assume that you aren't interested in listening to opposing viewpoints yourself. Personally, I think that's a shame.

Thanks for your time.

One of the funniest religious comments I ever heard came from my then-Atheist roommate at college. Mind you, we were going to a Christian college and so we had to take a couple courses on the Bible and Doctrine/Ethics.

Well, apparently one day, my roommate was sitting in a Bible class and the prof said something about the Jews being God's Chosen People. She raised her hand, and when he called on her, she said "Of course they're God's Chosen People. They created him!" She said the prof wasn't too happy about that one....

hahaha, I think I like that person already, never has a truer word been spoken!

That's not doctrine - that's politics ;)

The problem was that the temporal and spiritual powers of the Papacy became intermingled, IMO. Also, are you sure it was only one of two? I'm sure the Genoese, the Milanese and the Czechs were building up money-lending businesses at that time...

At the time the three you mentioned and the Venitiians were.

But all of those places left the loaning of money to one group, and would for about another century. That group was the Jews. Of course the scene in Mechant of Venice probably played out several times throughout history too.

If it is a moral decision based on your faith, you can show what part of that faith lead to that conclusion. If your faith does not have such a link than you are making a personal decision outside of the realm of faith.
Looking at it from an anthropological view, you can say that morality is part of culture. In anthropological terms, culture is a set of learned behaviors that distinguishes one group from another. Culture us not static but rather dynamic and it changes through two ways: innovation and invention. There are different methods of how change reaches a group but these are the how. Culture itself hosts the ideas of morality but as I mentioned before, it is learned. You aren't born with culture.

As for Catholicism, I have nothing against them specifically. What they have done in history has been recorded not only by their own hand, but by those who detract them. They are not the ones who claim that the 'burning times' as my religion calls the witchcraft trial era never happened.
History has always had two sides of the same story but that is over simplifying things. Truth be told there are multiple sides to the same story and they all see the same thing differently. After reading teh DaVinci Code I took the phrase that history is written by the winners to heart and in turn developed my somewhat cynical view of history depending on the subject. Though I think mach is a bigger cynic than I.

As to the witch hunts, I think they were unwarranted. Some of those people that were persecuted were people like midwives because of their knowledge of herbal remedies. What I found amusingly ridiculous was that these people knew the healing properties of God's green earth and yet they were asscoisted with witchcraft because of this knowledge. People's stupidity never ceases to amaze me, even my own.

Reminder to everyone--please be careful how you word things, especially in the middle of controversial topics. When you're reading, don't assume that what sounds to you like an obnoxious comment was actually meant that way. It's possible that the author had other intents. If you have questions about possible interpretations, you can always PM that person to find out what they meant. You'd think that in a more formal argument that emoticons would somehow be bad, but I think in this situation they are quite possibly even more essential, and I'd encourage people to use them to make sure your message comes across correctly. I've seen enough threads in another forum die prematurely because of obnoxious, condescending, and snippy remarks, and I really don't want that to happen in this forum. Please remember to consider how it would feel for you to receive the message you're about to send.

That is all for now....

One of the funniest religious comments I ever heard came from my then-Atheist roommate at college. Mind you, we were going to a Christian college and so we had to take a couple courses on the Bible and Doctrine/Ethics.

Well, apparently one day, my roommate was sitting in a Bible class and the prof said something about the Jews being God's Chosen People. She raised her hand, and when he called on her, she said "Of course they're God's Chosen People. They created him!" She said the prof wasn't too happy about that one....
Which is why I never went to Catholic school. Though I did make an exception by attending a Jesuit college. Then again they don't count since historically the Church has persecuted them as much as the Inquisition did in Europe. At least the Jesuits were more into teaching and learning the secular subjects.

As an anthropologist, I am interested in the pagan beliefs because honest truth, some ideas and symbols are the basis for modern Christian symbols today. You'd be surprised at how many people I talk to stay riveted to my conversation because I know this stuff.

Which is why I never went to Catholic school. Though I did make an exception by attending a Jesuit college. Then again they don't count since historically the Church has persecuted them as much as the Inquisition did in Europe. At least the Jesuits were more into teaching and learning the secular subjects.
Which inquisition are we referring to?

The Medieval Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Portuguese Inquisition, The Goa Inquisition or the Roman Inquisition, which later evolved into the modern Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?

Also, the Jesuits were repressed once under pressure from the secular monarchs of Europe, and restored once. That was the limit of the repression as far as I am aware.

As an anthropologist, I am interested in the pagan beliefs because honest truth, some ideas and symbols are the basis for modern Christian symbols today. You'd be surprised at how many people I talk to stay riveted to my conversation because I know this stuff.
There was a degree of syncretism in the early church, but how much, I think, is debatable, as is the extent to which paganism survived the ancient world and was re-founded in the 19th century...

Darth InSidious: I referring to the Spanish Inquisition. As to syncretism, few people know about that at least those that I hang out with. They get that shocked look on their face and then ask me how I know all this stuff. Believe me, knowing things like that is part of my job since it is my area of study.

The Spanish Inquisition is in fact largely talked up. Historically, it was far from the atrocity made out, and was more of an incompetence. The reason for its fame as an atrocity is thanks to the Black Legend, and protestant historians such as John Motley. Modern thought shows quite a different position, however, and I would suggest reading up on the works of Henry Kamen in particular on this subject.

As for syncretism - to what extent do you refer? The most that I know of is that Christmas is thought to have been moved to coincide with the Roman Saturnalia, (a theory which, last I checked, was fairly disputed) and that Satan's appearance is thought to draw on ancient pagan belief, and things of that ilk.

Or are you trying to flog the old Osiris/Yeshua/Jesus dead horse?

Whatever that horse is I have no clue. You could even say I like exploring the conspiracy of the DaVinci Code though more likely it holds little to no water. I like to see the connections but I am more interested in the migration theories. The Wiccan stuff is just gravy.

Show me ANY modern day document that describes Satanism as Devil Worship and was written by a Satanist?

As for Satanist, I have this question for you; If I were a Satanist I would be practicing your rituals in a perverted manner.

Satanism is NOT devil worship.

I hate to pull the link, but some materials inappropriate for a PG-13 site can be found there. If there's another link that meets PG-13 standards, feel free to post it. Thanks, Jae

Go here and look for yourself.

Have any of you read the Satanic Bible? Not if you think Satanism is devil worship.

1. Er...at least according to wikipedia, there are many different religions out there claiming to be Satanism. The one that I am most familar with is the
Church of Satan, as somewhat Atheist sect that cares for the supporting of the Self, or the Ego. Satan doesn't actually exist, except as a symbol and as a metphoarical figure. These Satanists believe that everyone is actually their own God, so worshipping yourself is good, since you are God.

Exactly. This is what I was getting too. Every other Satanist who does not follow LaVey gets there crap from stupid offshoots of this real Church of Satan. Again, show me a text coming from a devil worshipping writer the claims devil worshipping to be Satanism?

There is none.

'A religion can teach anything up to and including mass murder and human sacrifice as long as the member understand that their religious freedom does not contravene civil and criminal law

Let me remind you all that in the early texts of the Bible, Human Sacrifice, and animal Sacrifice were common among the people of God and the likes. An offshoot of Christianity (the People’s Temple) in the early 60s (I think) was responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of people (the Kool-aid Incident).

Paganism is truly ‘earth-worship’. There are many offshoots of it, and one of them is MAINLY Wicca.

Wicca is the main offshoot of paganism because it is the most common group known. There are other pagans out their who probably do follow the say the old Greecian gods and the like but we don't really hear to much about them. Wicca is used because in a general sense, the belief is the same. There are offshoots of Wiccans that totally disregard the credo of Wicca which is "Do as ye will but ye shall harm no one" and will use their beliefs to harm others. They are referred to as sorcerers. As you can see, any religious group will have its offshoots. It is much like culture and its changes.