May I ask where you found this definition CG?

From a downloadable Dictionary called World Web.

Those are your views as a non Pagan. Here is a Pagan view.
Definition of a Pagan:

A follower of a polytheistic or pantheistic nature-worshipping religion.

Definition of Paganism:

A polytheistic or pantheistic nature-worshipping religion.


I pose the same question to you Vicky....where did you find these definitions?

From a downloadable Dictionary called World Web.



Do you have a link where I can access it?

I pose the same question to you Vicky....where did you find these definitions?

On the link I posted above.
http://www.paganfed.demon.co.uk/

On the link I posted above.
http://www.paganfed.demon.co.uk/


I quoted my definitions from known, world-renown dictionaries, not from a website of the people who profess something... :titongue:

Sounds like when you criticize people for using quotes from the bible to prove the bible is true :)

That's like me being a devil worshiper...and I define angels as "messengers of the devil".....how can someone quote my definition as a true definition of the word angel?

c'mon....I'll wait for CG's link....hopefully that is a better source...

I do use the term mother nature.

but no where in the bible is God ever referred to as a mother, he is always referred to as a father, and he is the creator of the world.

Mother nature is just another attempt by satan to warp the truth.

Do you have a link where I can access it?


http://wordweb.info/

It used to be a free download but it looks like it is not now. But it is still good and worth having on ones computer when one does not have the time or the inclination to get the book off the shelf.

I found another from Webster's New College Dictionary.
"Pagan and heathen are both applied to polytheistic peoples, but pagan often refers specifically to ancient peoples, esp. the Greeks and Romans, and heathen is applied to any of the peoples regarded as primitive idolaters; gentile (often Gentile) is applied to one who is not a Jew, or, among Mormons, to one who is not a Mormon."

It seems to be another case of "you pays your money and you takes your choice" on this one. Pagan means many things to different people. So true of many words and concepts.

I quoted my definitions from known, world-renown dictionaries, not from a website of the people who profess something... :titongue:

Sounds like when you criticize people for using quotes from the bible to prove the bible is true :)

That's like me being a devil worshiper...and I define angels as "messengers of the devil".....how can someone quote my definition as a true definition of the word angel?

c'mon....I'll wait for CG's link....hopefully that is a better source...

A dictionary is not the only source of definition. If you choose it so be it. But you may say what you like Paganism is a religion and it would still be a strong religion to this day if Christians did not murder them all those years ago.

Just take the time and look it up, people practice Paganism as a religion not as a none religion.

First off parietal....you didn't make much of a comment towards me, but I will respond anyway....
No, I did not. I responded to your post, not your person. The text in blue below are your words are they not?

But I will say that it would not be acceptable to most bible supporters....that someone who doesn't support the bible , and to them is a pagan book.....reads it to see Christ's teachings. You should not call it pagan, and then read it to learn Christ's teachings.......it's a paradox...that's like saying..."hmm lemme read this old pagan book to see how Christ says I should live...."
Again, here is my response to that: But it is acceptable to bible-supporters to glean the teachings of YAHWEH's ONLY begotten son amidst the songs of KNOWN occultists (Solomon), their 5lut daddies (David), spineless/**ssy-whipped husbands ("Adam" and Ahab), muscle-bound-devil-may-care-hedonists (Samson), whores (Esther), women with whoredom as their religion (Ruth-the Moabite who happened to be an ancestor of Yeshua Bar Yoseph), murderers (Samuel, Abram/Abraham, Moses, Saul/Paul) and a motley crew of foul mouthed fishermen, a coward doctor and tax collector??

In other words Rizzo, you neglected (either deliberately or unconsciously) to present the antimony. Please present that it would be acceptable to most non-bible supporters...that someone who does support the bible , (with it being a sacred book to them)...reads it to see Christ's teachings-regardless of the evil the Bible tells and give record of.

I do not support the Bible %100 but I also have read and do read it, because I have the ability to glean information pertainent to Yeshua and His way. I know what to keep in mind and at heart and what to throw away. I sense Vicki to be one of similar ilk.


And I personally don't judge other religions like I've said already...so you won't hear me calling other religious documents false or whatever else you say people say about them.
But you have, you've used your judgement to gauge and say what "most Bible supporters would find acceptable" on behalf of whom?
So it is wrong for someone to do that, just as it is wrong for someone to say the bible is pagan...
Another execution of judgement.
...because that word would imply that a person has no religion,or a heathen, which I think is wrong...cuz then Vicky would have been saying that she reads the book of heathens as well. Which is what I was trying to relay to Vicky in my previous posts.
"Pagan/Heathen" objectively means (as aforementioned) someone who doesn't acknowledge YOUR respective deity. Any other implication you gather from the word would be as a result of the influence of your respective religion. And there's really no need for implication. Myself, knowing Vicki - if Vicki wanted to say someone was irreligious(a person has no religion) Vicki would've said that.
** I use hyperdictionary.com

This is why I said that I wouldn't respond cuz there really wasn't much to say about your response to my post, but I had to let you know of your misconceptions about me...and what I posted.
There was no misconception, I merely stated what you either conveniently or accidently left out. There is a flip side to the coin you presented Rizzo and I sought to present it so that you may possibly view the diverse viewpoints objectively. And if you'll notice I actually typed your name out in THIS post as opposed to the other one. This means this post is a comment directed to you, where the other one was an open statement directed to no one in particular.

P.S. Vicki, me a Magi?! LOL No way...not even if you paid me. I like being plain ol'e human.

Vicky was talking about animals being able to understand and speak. She says when that happens then animal marriage/unions should be permited because the animal would understand what is going on, and thus be able to consent to a marriage/union.

I don't know what evolution you speak of, but Darwin's theory says that all living things basically evolved from lower life forms into everything we see today including humans, however it has been scientifically proven that living things produce 'after their kind' like God said in the beginning.

Further evolution is based on mutations giving rise to more complex beings. All scientific evidence has proven that mutations almost always result in loss of genetic information or have no effect at all. Based on animals producing after their own kind, and mutations causing a loss of information, not gain - animals as we know them will continue to produce after their kind and will not evolve into something new - so they won't learn to speak and thereby be able to consent to being married in the future.

And yet some animals can and do communicate with humans, can't they. This ability to communicate with humans is a result of a learning process, wasn't it? Meaning they evolved into being able to do something they weren't inclined to do before. Which, consequently, renders Darwin's Theory of Evolution in this case incorrect.
you are obviously talking about a diffent kind of evolve than the theory of evolution which I was referring to.
Yes sir. Not ALL evolution is based on mutation. And "evolution" for that matter is too vague and tainted a word. Try PHYLOGENY.

By the way, that's cute how you said, "All scientific evidence has proven that mutations almost always result in loss of genetic information or have no effect at all..." yet, somehow managed to arrive at, "Based on animals producing after their own kind, and mutations causing a loss of information, not gain - animals as we know them will continue to produce after their kind and will not evolve into something new - so they won't learn to speak..."
You know full well that there ARE anomalies both in the fields of scientific evidence and animals producing after their own kind (if you've the faith for it).
Scientists today can create those anomalies at will, all they need is the funding and the machinery i.e. Cloning.
As far as 'animals producing after their own kind' have you forgotten Balaam's ride?

I quoted my definitions from known, world-renown dictionaries, not from a website of the people who profess something... :titongue:
Just like all the people who profess to speak a language that "breaks every rule it makes"? People who speak and profess the English language (professors) refer to any of the various "world-renowned" English dictionaries on faith.

That's like me being a devil worshiper...and I define angels as "messengers of the devil".....how can someone quote my definition as a true definition of the word angel?

But Rizzo, some angels ARE messengers of the devil. Who is Asmodeus?
I can vouch that some angels are messengers of the devil BUT I'll eat my own knees off before I kneel before any Satanic altar.
You don't have to be a devil-worshipper to have that point of view - but were one to adopt it hook, line and sinker as the truth and to cease researching it from an objective point of view would probably result in that individual sharing a lot similar to someone who would worship evil.

OkOkOkOk...this is getting drawn out pretty long...and it strays from the original point of the post...all I was saying is that I don't think pagan should not be used to describe the bible...because it is not of a pagan nature from either definition or understanding that is presented...mine or anyone else's.


Cool?.....cool.... :cool:

Rizzo please look at this web site explore it a bit. http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/getting_started_pocm.html

Then go to this site
http://www.reformation.org/meet_the_first_pope.html

Ok I saw them....and what now....?

Ok I saw them....and what now....?

Is there not even a question mark in your head, Dionysus sacrificed on the old rugged cross?
His Father was Zeus and his mother a mortal woman. Immaculate Conception sound familiar