Posts by silentridge8

Nicole Hernandez89 said:So, I’ve spent the last three hours falling down an internet rabbit hole researching this religion called Wicca—and honestly, I’m kind of hooked on what I’ve found so far. I know there have been a few posts about this on the forum already, but I just haven't been able to track down the specific answers I'm looking for.😢To start things off: what actually *is* Wicca as a religion? What’s the end goal here? And what is the actual purpose behind all those rituals? Also, if there happens to be anyone out there who identifies as a "follower" (sorry, I couldn't think of a better way to put it😁)—could you please walk me through it?🙂🙂

Wicca is essentially nature-based. It operates on the idea that humans are an inseparable part of the natural world and should work in harmony with it. Within nature, you have both masculine and feminine principles—in other words, a god and a goddess. These forces are woven into the environment itself, making nature the primary spiritual teacher for practitioners.

The god and goddess together drive the "wheel of the year," marking the shifting seasons through various Wiccan festivals. Most of the gods found in different mythologies are viewed by Wiccans as simply different aspects of the one god and goddess.

What’s the point of the rituals? And if there are any actual "followers" (sorry, I couldn't think of a better word😁) out there, could someone please explain it to me?🙂🙂

Rituals are mostly used to celebrate the cycles of nature and the changing seasons. There are also certain rites involving types of initiation, usually after someone has spent time studying magic.

Susan Price30 said:I'm not exactly advocating for it. I don't mean we should go out of our way to "shield" anyone from anything—that's obviously not right.
It just seems to me that whenever discussions touch on Catholic doctrine or core beliefs, they become the primary target for trolls and bait posts. Whether it’s due to genuine ignorance or something more calculated, it's a pattern...
My suggestion was simply that creating one specific thread, or perhaps a few, might help manage this issue, which hasn't really improved despite all our efforts so far. That's all. 🙂

That’s how Agatha interpreted it, too (as did I). Having a massive pile of top threads at the top makes things messy in general. Plus, given how fragmented Protestant Christianity is, Catholic doctrine often gets "drowned out" because Protestant groups—or aggressive secularists—constantly jump in to correct or debate a faith that they already view as overly rigid or closed off. 🙂

Anyway, we'll just have to see how this plays out.

Susan Price30 said:(Perditicee !! 🙂, I missed you 😘)

The only thing crossing my mind here is this: in what specific way would starting a major thread about Catholicism—given that we already have existing ones or sub-forums dedicated to it—actually threaten or diminish the rights of any religious minority in America?

If it were the *only* major topic or the sole sub-forum available, then maybe you could argue there was some kind of preferential treatment for one group, but honestly, I don't even know what that would look like.

Cheers, Susan Price30, darling 🙂 😘

From what I gathered from Agica (and I’m on her side here), the issue is that discussing Catholic doctrine is significantly harder because the ratio of trolls is much higher compared to other major topics. That’s what triggered the question, "Well, if Catholicism gets its own main thread, why shouldn't other groups have one too?"... To me, there isn't really a logical link between those two things. Just because we aim for "equal conditions for everyone" doesn't mean everyone has to be treated identically, and it feels like people are just twisting the situation after considering what Agica pointed out.

Daniel Ward87 said:
I'll try explaining this one last time.

Even if we happened to be living in Vatican City, where most people identify as Catholic, I suspect the owner and the admin team here would maintain their current stance. It doesn't matter where you are or what the majority thinks; the fundamental rule of Reddit remains— equal rules for everyone.

I honestly don't know how else to frame this so it finally clicks for you.

Regarding that bolded part: "equal rules for everyone" doesn't mean every little subgroup can claim they deserve "equal rights." If we actually went down that road, we'd end up with a mess similar to the legal situation in the United Kingdom, where certain courts were granted a status secondary to British courts. 🤦

The issue is that most people who call themselves cultural Christians have no idea about actual Christian doctrine; they barely know anything about Catholicism. Most debates just boil down to "has the Church fallen to Satan?" I’m genuinely interested in cleaning up the top-tier topics regarding Christianity or other solutions, because right now, Catholic doctrine is buried at the bottom of a PDF list of religions. When Catholic users push back, it just makes it look like they're demanding special privileges at everyone else's expense.

Anthony Perez9 said:Sure, you could claim Briar Rose existed too, but maybe back it up with something. ☕

What you wrote about there being multiple currents doesn't match what I said:

which is:

that most historians believe Jesus was a Jew living in the first century, considered a teacher and crucified.

Believe?
Hardly.
If you actually ask them, most historians will tell you they don't have an issue with some Jew existing who might vaguely align with the person described in the New Testament. There were plenty of those radical street preachers running around back then, and Flavius writes about them.

It's a different thing when a small group of fanatics who can't distinguish terms and refuse to listen to others act like they're doing deep analysis while talking down to everyone.

But YOU'RE the one failing to distinguish between "a historical figure" and "the idea that someone similar might have existed."
It’s a little trick theologians like Ivancic love using to push the idea that Jesus of Nazareth is a historical figure—basically trying to manufacture a scientific consensus to put him on the same level as, say, Caesar or Aristotle.

Unusual, though, that there's a burial after the crucifixion.

? Usually, they just tossed people into unmarked mass graves to make sure the shame was public and served as a warning.

What I mainly meant was that uncertainty doesn't mean a historical person didn't exist.

A historical person can't "not exist" (unless it turns out the evidence was fake or totally misread later). But Jesus is not a historical person. Someone similar might have been around, but maybe not. The Catechism or various religious pamphlets claim He is a historical figure, but He isn't, because there's zero scientifically acceptable proof for it.

Maybe God "granted certain people the knowledge" that Jesus was a real figure back in Israel, but mainstream science doesn't buy it, and frankly, it isn't convincing from a historical standpoint either.

And now you've decided to play the comedian, too.🍿

bluebison25 said:I’m constantly trying to shut down everything Anthony Perez9 writes, but he just dodges every single point, twisting both words and facts. We have to face reality for what it actually is. Numbers are real; they exist so we can calculate our way through life. Plenty of people will try to deny that, and let them. That’s why God hasn't granted them any insight, nor will He. They simply refuse to accept the truth.
Regarding the historical existence of Jesus, people cherry-pick data from historians who supposedly lived during that era and recorded history. Honestly, most of the figures theologians drag up to "prove" Jesus was a historical figure are total fabrications. Those people weren't even born when Jesus was walking the Earth. How can you claim someone existed when the writings about them didn't show up until 100 years later? It's nothing more than the lies and deceptions religions use to manufacture proof where none exists. Simply put, God isn't answering their prayers. If their God even exists, He isn't "listening" to them through prayer, telepathy, or whatever else they try.

Anthony Perez9 is, shall we say, a legend.🙂

When discussing whether Jesus was a historical figure, people rely on data and records from historians who were actually living through those times and documenting history.Every single one of those individuals theologians list as evidence for Jesus being a historical person is a lie. They weren't even born during the era when Jesus lived. How can you claim someone existed when the accounts only started appearing 100 years later? It's just more lies and manipulation used by religions to manufacture proof where none exists. Quite frankly, God isn't answering their prayers. If their God even exists, He isn't "listening" to them via prayer, telepathy, or whatever else they try.

🤣 And you're well on your way to becoming a legend yourself.

Paul Anderson2 said:There are a few different schools of thought on this. One group thinks the whole thing is just a complete legend. Another group thinks it's a legend built on top of real events—you know, real stuff mixed with some embellishments and mystical elements. Then there’s a third group that believes we're looking at actual events, maybe retold in various ways, but ultimately a faithful account of what happened.

I don't think there's a single scientist in that third group who isn't also a convinced Christian.

Sure, it's hard to say what's real and what isn't when there's so little evidence. You can only really speculate on what's more likely or what fits into the general picture we have of those events.

For instance, one thing that doesn't quite fit is how quickly Jesus was taken down from the cross. Usually, people left crucified were left there for days as a warning (kind of like how people were later hung in public places or along roadsides, basically left until they rotted away).

But anyway, that's all off-topic. The real question is—why wouldn't God share that knowledge...

If you were actually paying attention to that part of the conversation, it would be clear I wasn't claiming anything beyond the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure—nothing more, nothing less. What you wrote about there being multiple "schools of thought" doesn't really align with my point: most historians agree that Jesus was a Jew living in the first century who was regarded as a teacher and was crucified.

Furthermore, there's always that inevitable little clique of fanatics who can't distinguish one concept from another and refuse to actually listen to anyone else, preferring to offer their own "analyses" while talking down to everyone.

For instance, one detail that's hard to reconcile is how quickly Jesus was taken down from the cross. Usually, people left on crosses were left for days as a warning—kind of like how public hangings later on would leave bodies exposed by the roadside until they practically rotted away.

It's unusual, though there is mention of a burial after the crucifixion. My point was mainly that a lack of clarity doesn't mean a historical person didn't exist. But then again, like you said, that's moving into OT territory.

rapidbear65 said:To be fair, if I hadn't said anything, nobody would've even noticed. It was just about the "food selection" at our local diner...

The way I read the boss, he already knew exactly what we were having for lunch and dinner anyway.🙂 😁

rapidbear65 said:Since I can't personally see or feel what you're talking about, I'll leave it to you to smell, touch, and taste everything you offered us. That way, you'll be able to convince yourself of exactly what we already know without even trying... cheers!

Well, you've really done it now. You're going to be labeled a total maniac.😢

bluebison25 said:I don't need to spend my time trying to convince myself that Jesus wasn't a historical figure. I already know he never existed. Mathematically speaking, I equate Jesus to the imaginary unit in a set of complex numbers.

That’s why he’s being so evasive.

The math you're calling "science" based on the criteria you set for this thread doesn't even qualify as science.🙂

bluebison25 said:@silentridge8: So, what, we’re supposed to just swallow everything Ivancic writes because he’s some big-shot academic? In another article—written by an atheist, mind you—he presents the exact same evidence that Ivancic uses, leaving the reader to decide for themselves if it holds water. Get it now? The only difference is that you and people like you have to swallow the crap everyone else left behind just so you can feel superior in your faith. I don't have to play along. Is that clear enough for you?

@rapidbear65: Spot on. You can't force me to believe in something I can't see, touch, hear, or verify through actual observation. If it hasn't been witnessed, learned by human reason, and backed up by natural and physical evidence, it isn't real to me.

@silentridge8: I know exactly what you're getting at. Honestly, you aren't saying anything different from me 😁.

It seems like some of this is getting under your skin, which might be why you're twisting my words and using straw man arguments. In his book, Ivancic was simply researching how the Jews of that era viewed Jesus' stance on being the Messiah.

I'm not sure who this "you all" refers to, and I don't understand why you're clinging to Ivancic as a scapegoat. I was speaking about historians in general, and I've already explained twice how historians approach the figure of Jesus.

As for Humphreys—who is basically just a guy with a website—if he wants to try and manufacture his own standard historical research, that's on him (and apparently a problem for some others).

The only ones acting superior here by psychoanalyzing their interlocutors are the vulgarians who look down on others. You seem to think that in order to claim you don't believe in something, you have to convince yourself that Jesus isn't a historical figure. There's no logic in that line of thinking. You can quote someone like Humphreys if you want, but let's not do it in a serious discussion. In any decent debate, people back up their views with what actual professors have written, not just whatever Humphreys puts out there.

bluebison25 said:Do you even grasp the distinction between "believing" and actually knowing? You claim: "most historians today believe that Jesus..." Look, honey, I couldn't care less what anyone chooses to believe. I don't buy into those fairy tales, and that’s what matters most to me. Most people will follow the crowd—let them. As for that slim little atheist manifesto that dismantled all of Miller's lies, at least the author cited his sources while systematically tearing his arguments apart. Whether you liked it or not is irrelevant. Your church is just out for your wallet.

It’s pretty obvious how defensive you get the second someone touches a nerve, isn't it? You're getting worked up because even though the bibliography is a joke, you've decided that since churches want money, Jesus never existed. 😵

Yeah, most historians agree, or rather, they hold the consensus that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew living in the first century who was sentenced to death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate—which was the standard punishment for non-citizens and criminals in the Roman Empire at the time.

Textual criticism and historical methodology are actual scientific disciplines, which clearly doesn't work in your favor here, so you'd rather just ignore them. Maybe that’s why you claim Ivancic was trying to prove the existence of a historical Jesus, even though that wasn't even the point of his book.

People can write whatever they want, but there is such a thing as an academic standard used to evaluate any given article. If you choose to ignore academia entirely and resort to ad hominem attacks (which isn't your first time 😉), it mostly just says something about your own position.

bluebison25 said:Ivancic laid out what he claims is undeniable proof regarding the existence of Jesus. Of course, other people—mostly historians—actually looked at that evidence, applied actual logic, and used scientific reasoning to dismantle his lies. I don't know why you guys struggle so much to grasp that...

@silentridge8: You're talking about the exact same "undeniable" evidence that you believers were clinging to just a moment ago.

Do you even realize that science isn't in the business of proving the existence of God or Jesus??
Don't you get that you can't prove something that doesn't exist and never did??
Do you understand that when those texts from theologians, priests, and other believers about the "proven existence of the Almighty" are published, and you try to label them as "scientific facts," they are debunked instantly? They are never, ever used to explain the laws of nature or physics!

Historians like Kenneth Humphreys? On his own website, he claims to have taught at a college, but also lists himself as a former photographer and a former computer salesman. He’s suspiciously vague about what he actually taught, when, or what his actual field of expertise is.

The vast majority of modern historians accept that Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew living in the first century, regarded as a teacher, who was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate. The idea that there’s a whole crowd of people with personal vendettas trying to "prove" that Jesus of Nazareth never existed is a completely different matter entirely.

Honestly, reading the list at the bottom of that article is almost laughable. Aside from Walkerica and Pagels, they cite a book titled "What Your Church Doesn't Want You to Know." That’s a pretty bold choice for a serious historical or scientific work.

bluebison25 said:@silentridge8: It’s not just about that one video (Zeitgeist). Sure, it might spark some logical thinking, but frankly, I couldn't care less what those people actually do. Take this text, for example—it tackles the whole issue head-on. Even if you won't bother clicking the link, let alone reading it, it doesn't matter. Just look at the bibliography at the bottom; it's massive, and every single book is backed by solid historical and scientific evidence. No question about it.

@Benjamin Taylor6: How exactly are you defining a calling? Look, I have a friend who's heading into the ministry because he claims he heard God's call. Personally, I think he's lying to himself; that "calling" exists solely inside his own head.

I referred to the Zeitgeist crowd because that assessment is spot on, considering the author of this article relies on roughly the same sources used by the people who made Zeitgeist.

I also mentioned journalist Barbara Walker and Elaine Pagels, both of whom are explicitly cited in the bibliography at the end of the piece. This article you shared comes from Kenneth Humphreys' site, which is all about promoting atheism. Honestly, reading through his page, I can't quite wrap my head around his agenda. What exactly is the goal of promoting atheism by trying to "prove" that Jesus never existed?

Like I said, it's always the same old tired argument claiming Jesus isn't a historical figure, and they always recycle the exact same "evidence."

bluebison25 said:I honestly don't get why you're giving me such a hard time:

"After thousands of years of fanaticism—generations upon generations of Christian apologists, theologians, priests, and monks grinding away, all backed by massive amounts of Vatican money—we finally get this little booklet claiming to be the ultimate proof that Jesus Christ was a real historical figure. I’m looking at 'Jesus of Nazareth as a Historical Figure' by Tomislav Ivančić, a doctor of theology from the famous Gregorian University in Rome, just to show you how they approach the whole debate over whether Jesus actually existed. This tiny book tries to answer the single question that holds the entire Church and all organized religion together: What do we actually know for sure about Jesus of Nazareth, the man who declared himself the Christ - Messiah? Are there any eyewitness accounts from the Age of Jesus at all? Positive or negative, it doesn't matter. "

That's the intro to a book that takes every single one of Tomislav Ivančić's 'proofs' and lays them out with a solid historical breakdown. Do you see what I'm getting at here??

The real question is why you refuse to trust established historical science. Once you mention Elaine Pagels and Barbara Walker, it’s pretty clear we're talking about the Zeitgeist crowd. Even the most hardcore atheists tend to stay far away from that group. 🙂

bluebison25 said:Look, I wasn't planning on arguing with you about this, but I don't want to come off as rude, so here's the bottom line: Ivancic wrote that book right here under this title. In it, Ivancic lists all the "irrefutable evidence" proving that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. I actually did some digging and found a text that takes every single one of Ivancic's "proofs" and explains them for what they actually are—no twisting facts, no lies, and no religious dogma—and every single piece of evidence points away from Jesus existing. But honestly, it doesn't matter; you're already convinced Ivancic is right, and that's clearly the only thing you care about. 👍

I find it strange how much you're struggling to grasp this. Ivancicev's book isn't actually trying to prove Jesus was a historical person; writing a book based on the idea that ivanci-pise-krivo-jer-isus-nije-postojao is just kind of ridiculous. His main point is simply highlighting how the same small group of people keeps pushing the narrative that Jesus never existed in the first place. 🙂

bluebison25 said: ?

I can't say I'm surprised by this one. 🙂

If someone spends their time writing books exploring whether a historical figure actually lived up to an idealized version of themselves, then writing a book just to claim "that ideal isn't historical" is nothing more than a joke. 🙂

It's like if someone wrote a whole book about how powerful a Mercedes-Benz engine is based on the specs on the official Mercedes-Benz website, and then I decided to write a book titled "Mercedes-Benz doesn't exist." 😂

Paul Anderson2 said:I don't know, I can't really get behind that idea.

It’s pretty common for people to resort to descriptive rambling when they can't find the actual word or specific name for something. Like, you know that thing—the part that sits on top and keeps everything from spilling out? Well, that thing broke, and that's why...

True, but imagine if an abstract concept simply lacks a word entirely (for context, think about how some might claim there are dozens of different words for "snow" in the Inuit language). Rorty argues that if there's no word, then the concept essentially doesn't exist. He takes it to an extreme because his whole goal is to shake off what we might call a sort of neo-Platonism.

Harold Doyle3 said:🙂
"In the beginning was the Word..." right?

But how do you actually express yourself through language?
( If you say "I"... well, everyone with even a shred of self-awareness says "I," yet every single "I" is unique... or is it?)
And what about people living with split personalities?

Are we expressing ourselves through others, while they express themselves through us?
Isn't that just one big circle?

Benjamin Taylor6 said:Harold Doyle3 says:
Reality itself is just a construct born from human imagination and thought.
(we operate under the assumption that what we perceive as reality actually *is* reality)
Plato's cave

Reality is a shadow. Reality is a cave. But honestly, none of that matters in this specific context:

I’ve always preferred expressing my own truth a bit differently—mostly by swearing like a drunken sailor. 😲

There was this Zen master named Hogen who lived a solitary life in a small temple out in the sticks. One day, four traveling monks show up at his doorstep asking to light a fire in his courtyard just to warm themselves up.
While they’re busy tending the flames, Hogen overhears them bickering about subjectivity versus objectivity. He decides to jump into the fray and asks, "Take this large stone here. In your estimation, does it reside within your mind or outside of it?"
One of the monks replies, "From a Buddhist perspective, everything is an objectification of the mind, so I would say that stone exists within my mind."
"Your head must be incredibly heavy," Hogen remarks, "if you're carrying a stone like that everywhere you go."
There's actually a second part to that story.
The master adds, "So, you believe everything is an illusion—an objectification of the mind—just like this brick I'm holding in my hand while you hold it in your mind?" Then, he drops the brick right on the student's foot, sending him hopping around and howling in pain.
"Why all the shouting and jumping," Hogen asks, "if this brick is nothing more than a figment of your own mind?"

Rorty was mostly trying to say that a "stone" or "bread" exists in its own right, but only because we've assigned those specific names to them within the framework of language.🤔

bluebison25 said:You all seem a bit lost when it comes to distinguishing fact from fiction, but whatever. I’m currently reading a solid critique that dismisses Ivancic’s "book" about Jesus of Nazareth being a Historical figure as nothing more than a fairy tale, systematically tearing down every supposed "proof" and witness. Like Anthony Perez9 pointed out earlier, the only "historians" who would ever try to prove the existence of the supernatural are theologians—people who, much like yourselves, can't tell the difference between reality and make-believe. 🙂

...so, when are you actually going to provide a definition of reality that isn't just some New Age platitude? 🤣

Ivancic isn't claiming Jesus wasn't a historical figure; he's arguing that certain Jewish groups at the time denied He was the Messiah. It's typical to swap terms around like that, but I'm glad you finally realized that original sin isn't about geography or cardinal directions—it's about the Fall itself. 😉