View Full Version : Witch-hunts resurrected.
segovius
06-17-2005, 10:13 AM
Literally.
It seems that in keeping with the overwhelming evidence that the west is sinking once again into medieval barbarism, churches in the UK are returning to ancient methods of combatting what they see as an outbreak of witchcraft - beatings, torture and child sacrifice.
Full chilling details.. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4098172.stm)
Children are being trafficked into the UK from Africa and used for human sacrifices, a confidential report for the Metropolitan Police suggests.
Children are being beaten and even murdered after being labelled as witches by pastors, the report leaked to BBC Radio 4's Today programme said.
Police face a "wall of silence" in investigations because of fear and mistrust among the groups involved.
It follows the case of a girl who was accused of witchcraft by her guardians.
Three people, including the girl's aunt, were convicted of trying to "beat the devil out of" the un-named 10-year-old - originally from Angola.
So widespread are these crimes becoming that the police have had to coin a phrase 'faith-crimes' to describe them.
The crimes are inextricably linked with the rise of XIan fundamentalism and seem to centre on various churches in the London area although the belief in 'witchcraft' and 'demons' working through children seems widespread throughout the UK now.
A recent report (instigated in the wake of another such murder - the Climbie case) found that:
......People who are desperate seek out churches to cast spells for them.
"Members of the workshop said for spells to be powerful it required a sacrifice of a male child unblemished by circumcision," the report said.
Contributors said boys were being trafficked into the UK for this purpose, but did not give details because they said they feared they would be "dead meat" if they told any more.
Independent adviser to the Met John Azah said that since the Climbie case and the ritualistic murder of a black child known as "Adam", there were concerns the police were only touching the "tip of the iceberg"
It is my firm belief that we will see more and more of this as fundamentalism continues to make greater and greater advances. It is even likely that some form of 'Star Chamber' or 'Inquisition' will be re-instated in the near future.
We have sunk so far into barbarism now that there is no going back.
BigMcLargehuge
06-17-2005, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by segovius
Literally.
It seems that in keeping with the overwhelming evidence that the west is sinking once again into medieval barbarism, churches in the UK are returning to ancient methods of combatting what they see as an outbreak of witchcraft - beatings, torture and child sacrifice.
Full chilling details.. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4098172.stm)
So widespread are these crimes becoming that the police have had to coin a phrase 'faith-crimes' to describe them.
The crimes are inextricably linked with the rise of XIan fundamentalism and seem to centre on various churches in the London area although the belief in 'witchcraft' and 'demons' working through children seems widespread throughout the UK now.
A recent report (instigated in the wake of another such murder - the Climbie case) found that:
It is my firm belief that we will see more and more of this as fundamentalism continues to make greater and greater advances. It is even likely that some form of 'Star Chamber' or 'Inquisition' will be re-instated in the near future.
We have sunk so far into barbarism now that there is no going back.
Segovius turned me into a newt!
I got better...
Placebo
06-17-2005, 10:31 AM
Haha, that's sick. Don't they realize that nothing that religion is simply ritual that has no affect on reality? Not to mention that they're hunting something that doesn't exist.
segovius
06-17-2005, 10:32 AM
Originally posted by BigMcLargehuge
Segovius turned me into a newt!
I got better...
Well, you should be ok if you stay away from London - sound advice for everyone actually :D
Power Apple
06-17-2005, 10:59 AM
Ha ha, I love it how you claim "the" Church is resurrecting witchhunt.
Just like it's "the" muslims who are terrorists perhaps...
heh
rageous
06-17-2005, 11:10 AM
My take on it is this:
If half the people think the religious people are taking over and instituting God's word as policy, while the other half think the liberal God haters are taking over and instituting Satan's word as policy, then the world is probably, in reality, in a pretty good spot overall.
segovious, you haven't 'started the weekend' a little early, by any chance?
From the article linked to:But Pastor Nims Obunge from the Freedom's Arc Church emphasised that most African churches were entirely legitimate and overseen within a wider structure.
"We do not condone any form of cultish practices and I think we need to define the difference between a cult and a church, that's an important thing and I'm a bit wary when we use the term 'church' in a loose fashion."
I'd have to say you JUST MIGHT be hard pressed to, once again, point to a mainstream Christian denomination that supports this wacked-out behavior. However, the pagan roots of this business are much more apparent than the 'church' slur.
Moe_in_Texas
06-17-2005, 12:00 PM
Muslims who hack people heads off are not representative of Islam, but Christians who do horrid things are representative of "The Church"?? Come on.
segovius
06-17-2005, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Power Apple
Ha ha, I love it how you claim "the" Church is resurrecting witchhunt.
Just like it's "the" muslims who are terrorists perhaps...
heh
Yes...light is dawning....there is hope......
Towel
06-18-2005, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by segovius
Yes...light is dawning....there is hope...... Yeah, but Church with a Capital C usually refers to the Roman Catholic Church in particular, at least here in the US. And they've done enough naughty things in the recent and distant past that it seems unfair to tar them with this particular brush, whether it was conscious or not to imply the association.
In the UK, Church might more usually refer to the Episcopal Church, but again there's no reason to imply that they have anything to do with this stuff. They're even making an effort to drag themselves into the 20th Century, unlike certain other Churches.
segovius
06-18-2005, 04:22 AM
Originally posted by Towel
Yeah, but Church with a Capital C usually refers to the Roman Catholic Church in particular, at least here in the US. And they've done enough naughty things in the recent and distant past that it seems unfair to tar them with this particular brush, whether it was conscious or not to imply the association.
In the UK, Church might more usually refer to the Episcopal Church, but again there's no reason to imply that they have anything to do with this stuff. They're even making an effort to drag themselves into the 20th Century, unlike certain other Churches.
My mistake - said 'churches in UK' in main post but capitalised in title by force of habit.
Clearly the Catholic Church is not fundamentalist and may even be an opposing force to that phenomena which is exclusively protestant.
segovius
06-19-2005, 03:53 AM
It's hitting Romania (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4107524.stm) now.
This thing is out of control.
Originally posted by segovius
It's hitting Romania (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4107524.stm) now.
This thing is out of control.
I have two words for you:
Excommunication.
Prison.
e1618978
06-19-2005, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by dmz
I have two words for you:
Excommunication.
Prison.
Four words:
"Religious people are insane"
It is just a matter of how insane, it varies from person to person. When they start nailing nuns to a cross, no that is over the line.
segovius
06-19-2005, 01:00 PM
Originally posted by e1618978
Four words:
"Religious people are insane"
It is just a matter of how insane, it varies from person to person. When they start nailing nuns to a cross, no that is over the line.
If you think that's bad, wait till you see the auto de fé and the updated ducking-stool.
And those are just for the believers.....
Chris Cuilla
06-19-2005, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by e1618978
Four words:
"Religious people are insane"
It is just a matter of how insane, it varies from person to person.
:rolleyes:
And one wonders why it is nearly impossible to have any rational discussion about faith and matters of spirituality or religion on these boards.
e1618978
06-19-2005, 02:26 PM
rational discussion about faith
Self contradictory statement
rageous
06-19-2005, 02:32 PM
cut it out e. there's no need to be so inflammatory.
e1618978
06-19-2005, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by rageous
cut it out e. there's no need to be so inflammatory.
ok - sorry, some days I am more anti-religious than others.
segovius
06-19-2005, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
:rolleyes:
And one wonders why it is nearly impossible to have any rational discussion about faith and matters of spirituality or religion on these boards.
No, one doesn't wonder - one knows.
But then again it depends who is having the discussion.....
Chris Cuilla
06-19-2005, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by segovius
No, one doesn't wonder - one knows.
But then again it depends who is having the discussion.....
Fair enough. And when/if we have someone coming from the perspcetive of:
"Religious people are insane"
It is just a matter of how insane, it varies from person to person.
It is not a very good, respectful, understanding or..dare I say...tolerant attitude...and one not very conducive to having rational and reasoned discussions.
segovius
06-19-2005, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Fair enough. And when/if we have someone coming from the perspcetive of:
It is not a very good, respectful, understanding or..dare I say...tolerant attitude...and one not very conducive to having rational and reasoned discussions.
Well, I take your point and agree to a certain extent but there is a degree of truth in it.
Imo religion is deterioration of spirituality and figures like Jesus were in fact anti-religious so one could argue it.
Chris Cuilla
06-19-2005, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by segovius
Well, I take your point and agree to a certain extent but there is a degree of truth in it.
Imo religion is deterioration of spirituality and figures like Jesus were in fact anti-religious so one could argue it.
Hmmm..."religion" isn't all that complicated...or even nefarious (though clearly there are those that have used religion, religious beliefs and religious followers for nefarious ends).
From here (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion):
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
( You'll not that definition four doesn't have anything to do with God, Jesus, a "spiritual" belief or the Bible or other religious texts. Capitalism could be a religion. )
Perhaps it is definition 1b that you and e#s object to. Fine. To say that Jesus was "anti-religious" is perhaps stretching things. He was certainly confrontational to some of the religious leaders of the day...but that was more about hypocrisy and legalism than an outright assault or dismissal of "religion" at least defined either as above or below. Jesus does, in fact, call for "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe" and I would say that Christianity (in particular) is "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader (Jesus)."
And from the Bible (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?book_id=66&chapter=1&verse=27&version=31&context=verse):
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
hardeeharhar
06-19-2005, 04:08 PM
I like how the Bible, a religious document and not a dictionary, is cited as the source of a definition of religion...
It is cute, really...
Chris Cuilla
06-19-2005, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I like how the Bible, a religious document and not a dictionary, is cited as the source of a definition of religion...
It is cute, really...
It is important to read and understand things in context. It will help you a lot later in life.
I wasn't using that as a general definition of the word, but rather what the Bible says "religion" is. And in the context of Jesus being "anti-religion", it seemed rather appropriate.
:rolleyes:
Originally posted by segovius
Well, I take your point and agree to a certain extent but there is a degree of truth in it.
...yes, but you repeatedly have to resort to hyperbole to eek out your 'degree of truth'. There's something wrong there.
e1618978
06-19-2005, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I like how the Bible, a religious document and not a dictionary, is cited as the source of a definition of religion...
It is cute, really...
Or it would be cute if it wasn't the source of most of the evil and misery in the world.
Think about how great the world would be if Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam all vanished.
No more rednecks pointing to the bible as a reson to discriminate against homosexuals.
No more undue social constraints (women's dress code in islam, no dancing in parts of the US, no more people railing against dungeons and dragons, computer games, and harry potter).
No more missionaries travelling to other countries and filling foreign children with fear of fire and brimstone.
No more rigid rules, written a thousand years ago, governing our behavior.
No more "in god we trust", no more "one nation under god".
Really, everything evil that I can think about could be solved by one of the following changes:
- get rid of religion
- end the war on drugs
- castrate sex offenders on 2nd offence
- end all trade barriers, quotas and subsidies
- remove dictators by force
- merge Africa into a single democratic country
hardeeharhar
06-19-2005, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
It is important to read and understand things in context. It will help you a lot later in life.
I wasn't using that as a general definition of the word, but rather what the Bible says "religion" is. And in the context of Jesus being "anti-religion", it seemed rather appropriate.
:rolleyes:
Jesus was anti-religion in what religion was defined as at the time, either polytheistic worship of the roman gods, or the lock-step Judaism that existed at the time...
e1618978, you do remember Communism, don't you? Does the word "China" ring any bells?
rageous
06-19-2005, 04:28 PM
I'm trying to be patient with you in regards to this thread e1618978.
From the Posting Guidelines (http://forums.appleinsider.com/guidelines.html) .
• AppleOutsider is not a forum to spew vitriol against people, organizations, or theologies...
• Evangelizing viewpoints with no attempt to foster discussion will not be allowed...
Chris Cuilla
06-19-2005, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I like how the Bible, a religious document and not a dictionary, is cited as the source of a definition of religion...
It is cute, really...
Your post implies that only "the dictionary" is the source for word definitions. that and your dismissal of a particular text for the definitions of words demonstrates what appears to be an ignorance about word origins in general.
As an example, Shakespearian literature (meaning...well William Shakespeare as a single individual) is the source a of a great many of our modern, common words (and their definitions).
http://shakespeare.about.com/library/weekly/aa042400a.htm
http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Path=shakespeare/coinages//
"The dictionary" is simply a recording and reference of words with their common usages and definitions.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Jesus was anti-religion in what religion was defined as at the time, either polytheistic worship of the roman gods, or the lock-step Judaism that existed at the time...
Actually He was anti establishment -- the Sanhedrin was too infatuated with Greek notions to accept Him as God's son, since "All is....'.
As a religious figure, I think he was actually somewhat religious Himself. If you look up redundant in the dictionary it says "See redu......
Chris Cuilla
06-19-2005, 04:32 PM
rageous...and I am guilty of continuing to post off-topic (or at least tenuously on-topic). I'll stop now.
e1618978
06-19-2005, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by rageous
I'm trying to be patient with you in regards to this thread e1618978.
From the Posting Guidelines (http://forums.appleinsider.com/guidelines.html) .
All right. Anyway, it looks like I had better get used to religious people:
world population growth rate: 1.4%
christianity growth: 2.3%
islam growth: 2.9%
http://www.religioustolerance.org/growth_isl_chr.htm
segovius
06-19-2005, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by dmz
...yes, but you repeatedly have to resort to hyperbole to eek out your 'degree of truth'. There's something wrong there.
It's called 'style' - you've either got it or you ain't.
:D
Originally posted by segovius
It's called 'style' - you've either got it or you ain't.
:D
:lol:
***nearly blows a Stoli&Tonic/lime twist all over his monitor***
segovius
06-19-2005, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by dmz
:lol:
***nearly blows a Stoli&Tonic/lime twist all over his monitor***
We aim to please :D
hardeeharhar
06-19-2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Your post implies that only "the dictionary" is the source for word definitions. that and your dismissal of a particular text for the definitions of words demonstrates what appears to be an ignorance about word origins in general.
As an example, Shakespearian literature (meaning...well William Shakespeare as a single individual) is the source a of a great many of our modern, common words (and their definitions).
http://shakespeare.about.com/library/weekly/aa042400a.htm
http://www.rhymezone.com/r/gwic.cgi?Path=shakespeare/coinages//
"The dictionary" is simply a recording and reference of words with their common usages and definitions.
Your post ignores that Shakespeare was the source of words and the bible was not...
Try again?
hardeeharhar
06-19-2005, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by dmz
Actually He was anti establishment -- the Sanhedrin was too infatuated with Greek notions to accept Him as God's son, since "All is....'.
As a religious figure, I think he was actually somewhat religious Himself. If you look up redundant in the dictionary it says "See redu......
Actually, Jesus wasn't god's son... it is a much simpler explanation for the last two millennia than anything else....
segovius
06-19-2005, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Your post ignores that Shakespeare was the source of words and the bible was not...
Try again?
Actually there is considerable doubt that Shakespeare (as in the actor from Stratford) was capable of writing his name let alone the masterpieces of the English language.
Just thought I'd point that out in case it affected your theory. Carry on :D
segovius
06-19-2005, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually, Jesus wasn't god's son... it is a much simpler explanation for the last two millennia than anything else....
Let's nail this bad boy down: how can God have a son ?
If there was a Mrs God then ok but oif not then the word 'son' is misleading and erroneous - he may have had some other relationship to God but son he was not.
hardeeharhar
06-19-2005, 04:54 PM
Originally posted by segovius
Actually there is considerable doubt that Shakespeare (as in the actor from Stratford) was capable of writing his name let alone the masterpieces of the English language.
Just thought I'd point that out in case it affected your theory. Carry on :D
Sir, you are correct, alas we have no better descriptor for he who wrote the text upon which all stories that followed were based...
Originally posted by segovius
Let's nail this bad boy down: how can God have a son ?
If there was a Mrs God then ok but oif not then the word 'son' is misleading and erroneous - he may have had some other relationship to God but son he was not.
That would be 'the incarnation', a Mrs. God wouldn't really be neccesary for uncreated being --- now would it? He would need Mary, to keep the prophecies intact, and all the didatictal jazz, but the 'eternally begotten' doesn't need a momma, since it doesn't really apply.
Hassan i Sabbah
06-20-2005, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by e1618978
- merge Africa into a single democratic country
This is... a bad idea, and an impossible idea.
Good lord. Africa's bigger than Central and Southen America. You do know this? It's the most linguistically and culturally diverse continent on the planet. You know this too, right? And we don't have the right to determine African borders anymore. Since the end of colonial government, that's the job of the people who live there.
Nightcrawler
06-20-2005, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by e1618978
Or it would be cute if it wasn't the source of most of the evil and misery in the world.
Think about how great the world would be if Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam all vanished.
No more rednecks pointing to the bible as a reson to discriminate against homosexuals.
No more undue social constraints (women's dress code in islam, no dancing in parts of the US, no more people railing against dungeons and dragons, computer games, and harry potter).
No more missionaries travelling to other countries and filling foreign children with fear of fire and brimstone.
No more rigid rules, written a thousand years ago, governing our behavior.
No more "in god we trust", no more "one nation under god".
Really, everything evil that I can think about could be solved by one of the following changes:
- get rid of religion
- end the war on drugs
- castrate sex offenders on 2nd offence
- end all trade barriers, quotas and subsidies
- remove dictators by force
- merge Africa into a single democratic country
It's really easy, without religion there would be no civilisation. It were religions that made it possible for humans to work together, to create a community that went beyond the lines of tribes up to the point of a state.
But there is more to it, not only were it religions that created law and order, morale and ethics that are the basis for a functioning community, but religions also brought literacy and music to blossom.
Without religion we would still be barbarians, although some might argue that we still are.
Nightcrawler
segovius
06-20-2005, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
Without religion we would still be barbarians, although some might argue that we still are.
I can definitely think of a few neanderthals gracing us with their presence - but even they had a form of religion....
groverat
06-20-2005, 09:21 AM
What's the functional difference between saying that all religious people are insane and that we would all be "barbarians" if it weren't for religion?
None. The only difference is that people choose to get very emotional and defensive when religion is insulted. That's it. There's no logic to it, only the tender nerves of the faithful. That's not a rational basis for creating rules of discussion; tyranny of the emotionalist majority. :rolleyes:
Past that, who says the barbarians didn't have religion?
segovius
06-20-2005, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by groverat
What's the functional difference between saying that all religious people are insane and that we would all be "barbarians" if it weren't for religion?
None. The only difference is that people choose to get very emotional and defensive when religion is insulted. That's it. There's no logic to it, only the tender nerves of the faithful. That's not a rational basis for creating rules of discussion; tyranny of the emotionalist majority. :rolleyes:
Past that, who says the barbarians didn't have religion?
I think Nightcrawler was referring to the historical fact that most (if not all) civilizations have had a religious basis and that therefore the urge towards religious expression is a 'civilized' one rather than a 'barbaric' one.
In fact, I cannot think of a historical civilization that did not have a religious framework - religion is inextricably linked with civilization.
I'm not sure who the barbarians are in this context but as I say, if he meant proto-humans then of course the neanderthals are known to have engaged in religious ritual as are others than homo sapiens.
If 'barbarians' is used in the established way - ie, Huns, Goths and Vandals etc, then clearly these groups had a religious outlook also despite the chaos they specialized in - hell, even Bush has a religious view.
MarcUK
06-20-2005, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by dmz
didatictal
word does not exist. You made it up. And didn't you mean didatictal jizz
e1618978
06-20-2005, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by Nightcrawler
It's really easy, without religion there would be no civilisation. It were religions that made it possible for humans to work together, to create a community that went beyond the lines of tribes up to the point of a state.
But there is more to it, not only were it religions that created law and order, morale and ethics that are the basis for a functioning community, but religions also brought literacy and music to blossom.
Without religion we would still be barbarians, although some might argue that we still are.
Nightcrawler
Sure - religion was required for the start up of civilization, I agree. I just don't think that we require it any longer, just as we no longer require our umbilical cord or placenta.
segovius
06-20-2005, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by e1618978
Sure - religion was required for the start up of civilization, I agree. I just don't think that we require it any longer, just as we no longer require our umbilical cord or placenta.
Maybe we just need a new one.
Maybe they get worn out.
e1618978
06-20-2005, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by segovius
Maybe we just need a new one.
Maybe they get worn out.
BTW - an interesting read on the relationships of civilization to religion can be found in the book "Guns, Germs and Steel".
The fellow who wrote the book thinks that religion was used by early tribal leaders to convince people that they should be concerned for the well-being of people other than their own family. Without religion, groups larger than 20 or so would not have formed.
Religion allowed cheifs to command tribute from large groups of people, so that they did not have to work, also. So the seperation of rich and poor is due to religion also.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.