Discussion:
That Old Black Magick's got me in it's spell
(too old to reply)
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-18 17:16:48 UTC
Permalink
Occultists of all types recognize the essential similarities between
prayer and magick. It doesn't matter if you ask a Golden Dawn
Ceremonialist, a British Traditional Wiccan, a Dianic, an Erisian, or
even a Satanist. Understanding what prayer is and what magick is,
almost all who practice magick have come to the conclusion that the two
are very closely related, almost the same thing.

They are both a combination of the spiritual and the physical to effect
a change, a definition supplied by Aleister Crowley. In prayer, there
are the pysical motions of the prayer, the spiritual communication, and
the change is whatever is prayed for, even if what is prayed for is
simply a blessing. The only difference between prayer and magick,
then, is who supplies the power to effect the change. In prayer, the
petitioner requests that deity supply that power and effect the change.
In magick, the practitioner supplies the power himself.'

Since praying basically is magick, then what is understood about the
practice of magick applies to prayers too. It has been said that one
Christian would never consider the prayers of another Christian to be
bad. Of course, Mark Twain, in The War Prayer, demonstrated that this
is not true.

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth
to battle - be Thou near them! With them - in spirit - we also go
forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O
Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our
shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of
their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with
shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their
humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of
their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them
out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes
of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the
sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit,
worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and
denied it - for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes,
blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their
steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood
of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is
the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of
all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite
hearts. Amen."

Surely those in the devastated country would consider the prayers for
victory as a curse. That puts that lie to rest.

In addition to the recognition of the essential simliarity of prayer
and magick, almost all practitioners of magick recognize some variant
of what is called "The Threefold Rule". Put simply, what magick you do
comes back to you three times over. The number sometimes varies, and
there are even some who do not believe in this rule, but most do. That
means when you spell or pray for harm to befall another, you are
spelling or praying that harm befall yourself as a consequence. It is
like spitting into the sky, your own spittle will land in your face.

The definition of harm is a broad one, magickally speaking. It
includes not only active harm, but any violation of the free will of
another, even if you have their own supposed best interests at heart.
That is why experienced practitioners look down on "love spells" as
trash. That's what they are.

Praying that someone be made to agree with you is a curse along the
same lines as a love spell. You are praying that the person's free
will be tampered with, that their perceptions be distorted, that they
be made to agree with you. It is, essentially, a variant of the "love
spell" curse. That means that every time someone prays that someone
else agree, the petitioner is doing black magick.

If actively doing the harm yourself is bad, how much worse is it to ask
deity to do the job for you? One could make the argument either way,
but to ask the deity to hurt other people on your belhalf shows a
profound disrespect for the deity. You can't love a God and ask that
God to hurt others for you. If someone asks a God to do such harm, it
proves the petitioner is in no way a servant of the God he asks.

Jason Gastrich has become a practitioner of the left hand path, as I
call it. Others would simply say he's doing black magick all over
these boards. Sit back and enjoy the show. I'm not worried, he really
doesn't know what he's doing. He's slinging impotent curses around,
but even those will catch up to him eventually.

Jason Harvestdancer
Uncle Davey
2005-01-18 19:42:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Occultists of all types recognize the essential similarities between
prayer and magick. It doesn't matter if you ask a Golden Dawn
Ceremonialist, a British Traditional Wiccan, a Dianic, an Erisian, or
even a Satanist. Understanding what prayer is and what magick is,
almost all who practice magick have come to the conclusion that the two
are very closely related, almost the same thing.
They are both a combination of the spiritual and the physical to effect
a change, a definition supplied by Aleister Crowley. In prayer, there
are the pysical motions of the prayer, the spiritual communication, and
the change is whatever is prayed for, even if what is prayed for is
simply a blessing. The only difference between prayer and magick,
then, is who supplies the power to effect the change. In prayer, the
petitioner requests that deity supply that power and effect the change.
In magick, the practitioner supplies the power himself.'
Since praying basically is magick, then what is understood about the
practice of magick applies to prayers too. It has been said that one
Christian would never consider the prayers of another Christian to be
bad. Of course, Mark Twain, in The War Prayer, demonstrated that this
is not true.
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth
to battle - be Thou near them! With them - in spirit - we also go
forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O
Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our
shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of
their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with
shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their
humble homes with hurricanes of fire; help us to wring the hearts of
their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them
out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes
of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the
sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit,
worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and
denied it - for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes,
blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their
steps, water their way with tears, stain the white snow with the blood
of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is
the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of
all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite
hearts. Amen."
Surely those in the devastated country would consider the prayers for
victory as a curse. That puts that lie to rest.
In addition to the recognition of the essential simliarity of prayer
and magick, almost all practitioners of magick recognize some variant
of what is called "The Threefold Rule". Put simply, what magick you do
comes back to you three times over. The number sometimes varies, and
there are even some who do not believe in this rule, but most do. That
means when you spell or pray for harm to befall another, you are
spelling or praying that harm befall yourself as a consequence. It is
like spitting into the sky, your own spittle will land in your face.
The definition of harm is a broad one, magickally speaking. It
includes not only active harm, but any violation of the free will of
another, even if you have their own supposed best interests at heart.
That is why experienced practitioners look down on "love spells" as
trash. That's what they are.
Praying that someone be made to agree with you is a curse along the
same lines as a love spell. You are praying that the person's free
will be tampered with, that their perceptions be distorted, that they
be made to agree with you. It is, essentially, a variant of the "love
spell" curse. That means that every time someone prays that someone
else agree, the petitioner is doing black magick.
If actively doing the harm yourself is bad, how much worse is it to ask
deity to do the job for you? One could make the argument either way,
but to ask the deity to hurt other people on your belhalf shows a
profound disrespect for the deity. You can't love a God and ask that
God to hurt others for you. If someone asks a God to do such harm, it
proves the petitioner is in no way a servant of the God he asks.
Jason Gastrich has become a practitioner of the left hand path, as I
call it. Others would simply say he's doing black magick all over
these boards. Sit back and enjoy the show. I'm not worried, he really
doesn't know what he's doing. He's slinging impotent curses around,
but even those will catch up to him eventually.
Jason Harvestdancer
Are you all right in the crown chakra?

Uncle Davey
Alan OBrien
2005-01-18 23:22:32 UTC
Permalink
<***@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:***@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

"That Old Black Magick's got me in it's spell"

That Old Black Magick's got me in its spell.
10-4
2005-01-30 22:53:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan OBrien
"That Old Black Magick's got me in it's spell"
That Old Black Magick's got me in its spell.
"That Old Black Magic Has me in its spell."

Strangely enough, they quote it as "it's" here too:


http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/ella-fitzgerald/45650.html
Uncle Davey
2005-01-31 00:07:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by 10-4
Post by Alan OBrien
"That Old Black Magick's got me in it's spell"
That Old Black Magick's got me in its spell.
"That Old Black Magic Has me in its spell."
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/ella-fitzgerald/45650.html
Alert the media.

Uncle Davey
(and the copyright lawyers)
10-4
2005-01-31 01:56:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by 10-4
Post by Alan OBrien
"That Old Black Magick's got me in it's spell"
That Old Black Magick's got me in its spell.
"That Old Black Magic Has me in its spell."
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/ella-fitzgerald/45650.html
Alert the media.
Uncle Davey
(and the copyright lawyers)
You also made some grammatical/spelling errors yourself in this thread.
Why be so petty? The words spinter and beam come to mind.
Uncle Davey
2005-01-31 02:45:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by 10-4
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by 10-4
Post by Alan OBrien
"That Old Black Magick's got me in it's spell"
That Old Black Magick's got me in its spell.
"That Old Black Magic Has me in its spell."
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/ella-fitzgerald/45650.html
Alert the media.
Uncle Davey
(and the copyright lawyers)
You also made some grammatical/spelling errors yourself in this thread.
Why be so petty? The words spinter and beam come to mind.
Huh???
Copyright doesn't mean copying something right, you know.

Uncle Davey
10-4
2005-01-31 03:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by 10-4
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by 10-4
Post by Alan OBrien
"That Old Black Magick's got me in it's spell"
That Old Black Magick's got me in its spell.
"That Old Black Magic Has me in its spell."
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/ella-fitzgerald/45650.html
Alert the media.
Uncle Davey
(and the copyright lawyers)
You also made some grammatical/spelling errors yourself in this thread.
Why be so petty? The words spinter and beam come to mind.
Huh???
Copyright doesn't mean copying something right, you know.
Uncle Davey
Nevermind.
10-4
2005-01-31 04:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by 10-4
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by 10-4
Post by Alan OBrien
"That Old Black Magick's got me in it's spell"
That Old Black Magick's got me in its spell.
"That Old Black Magic Has me in its spell."
http://www.lyricsfreak.com/e/ella-fitzgerald/45650.html
Alert the media.
Uncle Davey
(and the copyright lawyers)
You also made some grammatical/spelling errors yourself in this thread.
Why be so petty? The words spinter and beam come to mind.
LMAO I got you mixed up with Alan. Nevermind.

mika
2005-01-19 00:27:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
They are both a combination of the spiritual and the physical to
effect a change, a definition supplied by Aleister Crowley.
What Crowley quote are you speaking of, specifically? The only
definition of magick from Crowley that I'm aware of is magick is the
art and science of causing change according to will. One may interpret
that to mean using "a combination of the spiritual and the physical to
effect a change", but Crowley himself does not explicitly mention
anything about the spiritual world or spirituality in that definition.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
The definition of harm is a broad one, magickally speaking. It
includes not only active harm, but any violation of the free will
of another, even if you have their own supposed best interests at
heart. That is why experienced practitioners look down on "love
spells" as trash.
Experienced practitioners like myself consider typical "love spells" to
be trash because they tend to be short-sighted, ineffectual band-aid
approaches to dealing with deeper issues. I do not believe one can
violate the free will of another simply by performing a spell. If I
perform a spell directed towards you, you still have free will, you are
still responsible for your own choices and your own actions. If you
fear that my spells, or anyone else's, will impact your ability to
choose your own path, then you need to strengthen your will.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
If actively doing the harm yourself is bad, how much worse is it
to ask deity to do the job for you? One could make the argument
either way, but to ask the deity to hurt other people on your
belhalf shows a profound disrespect for the deity.
What diety are you talking about? If I ask Morrigan to bring down fire
and terror to my enemies, I am calling on her with respect to her very
nature.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
You can't love a God and ask that
God to hurt others for you. If someone asks a God to do such
harm, it proves the petitioner is in no way a servant of the God
he asks.
Tell that to Moses.
Uncle Davey
2005-01-19 17:08:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by mika
Post by h***@hotmail.com
They are both a combination of the spiritual and the physical to
effect a change, a definition supplied by Aleister Crowley.
What Crowley quote are you speaking of, specifically? The only
definition of magick from Crowley that I'm aware of is magick is the
art and science of causing change according to will. One may interpret
that to mean using "a combination of the spiritual and the physical to
effect a change", but Crowley himself does not explicitly mention
anything about the spiritual world or spirituality in that definition.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
The definition of harm is a broad one, magickally speaking. It
includes not only active harm, but any violation of the free will
of another, even if you have their own supposed best interests at
heart. That is why experienced practitioners look down on "love
spells" as trash.
Experienced practitioners like myself consider typical "love spells" to
be trash because they tend to be short-sighted, ineffectual band-aid
approaches to dealing with deeper issues. I do not believe one can
violate the free will of another simply by performing a spell. If I
perform a spell directed towards you, you still have free will, you are
still responsible for your own choices and your own actions. If you
fear that my spells, or anyone else's, will impact your ability to
choose your own path, then you need to strengthen your will.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
If actively doing the harm yourself is bad, how much worse is it
to ask deity to do the job for you? One could make the argument
either way, but to ask the deity to hurt other people on your
belhalf shows a profound disrespect for the deity.
What diety are you talking about? If I ask Morrigan to bring down fire
and terror to my enemies, I am calling on her with respect to her very
nature.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
You can't love a God and ask that
God to hurt others for you. If someone asks a God to do such
harm, it proves the petitioner is in no way a servant of the God
he asks.
Tell that to Moses.
You occult practitioners need to sort your act out between you about what
your craft says on these matters as I see a lot of division and
contradiction, here. You cannot both be right. When you have decided
between yourselves what version you as witches want to present, then maybe
let us know....

Uncle Davey
Tom
2005-01-19 21:47:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
You occult practitioners need to sort your act out between you
about what your craft says on these matters as I see a lot of
division and contradiction, here.
One sees precisely the same sort of divisions and contradictions in any
colloquium of physical scientists or religious scholars. This is not a
quality unique to occultists. Even atheists argue among themselves about
exactly how sure they should be that god doesn't exist.
Post by Uncle Davey
You cannot both be right.
This is an interesting statement. Recently I mused about how adopting any
point of view at all necessarily forces one to reject any competing point of
view. Uncle Davey's statement is a good example of this. Indeed, they
cannot both be right. However, they *can* both be wrong, and *must* be
wrong, because Uncle Davey's point of view is the right one.

Isn't that right, Uncle Davey?
Uncle Davey
2005-01-20 00:08:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
You occult practitioners need to sort your act out between you
about what your craft says on these matters as I see a lot of
division and contradiction, here.
One sees precisely the same sort of divisions and contradictions in any
colloquium of physical scientists or religious scholars. This is not a
quality unique to occultists. Even atheists argue among themselves about
exactly how sure they should be that god doesn't exist.
Post by Uncle Davey
You cannot both be right.
This is an interesting statement. Recently I mused about how adopting any
point of view at all necessarily forces one to reject any competing point of
view. Uncle Davey's statement is a good example of this. Indeed, they
cannot both be right. However, they *can* both be wrong, and *must* be
wrong, because Uncle Davey's point of view is the right one.
Isn't that right, Uncle Davey?
I don't know. Obviously I hold these views of mine because I think they are
right, but nobody gave me a, like, certiflicate.

If my views are right, then they are both wrong. If either is right, then I
am wrong.

Yet, oddly enough, in no case is the other completely devoid of some true
parts.

Uncle Davey
Tom
2005-01-20 16:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
This is an interesting statement. Recently I mused about how
adopting any point of view at all necessarily forces one to
reject any competing point of view. Uncle Davey's statement
is a good example of this. Indeed, they cannot both be right.
However, they *can* both be wrong, and *must* be
wrong, because Uncle Davey's point of view is the right one.
Isn't that right, Uncle Davey?
I don't know.
A fair answer. You don't know.
Post by Uncle Davey
Obviously I hold these views of mine because I think they are
right, but nobody gave me a, like, certiflicate.
No college degree?
Post by Uncle Davey
Yet, oddly enough, in no case is the other completely devoid
of some true parts.
Another fair statement. All viewpoints based upon experience are based on
something true. They may go wrong in the details, but there is essentially
some truth in every view.

If that's the case, then why would you feel that these occultists have to
get their stories straight with one another and that both cannot be true?
Uncle Davey
2005-01-21 18:32:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
This is an interesting statement. Recently I mused about how
adopting any point of view at all necessarily forces one to
reject any competing point of view. Uncle Davey's statement
is a good example of this. Indeed, they cannot both be right.
However, they *can* both be wrong, and *must* be
wrong, because Uncle Davey's point of view is the right one.
Isn't that right, Uncle Davey?
I don't know.
A fair answer. You don't know.
Nobody knows. Faith doesn't require knowledge.
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
Obviously I hold these views of mine because I think they are
right, but nobody gave me a, like, certiflicate.
No college degree?
I have an MA from Cambridge University in Modern and Medieval Languages, but
we didn't cover whether prayers are curses on the syllabus. All I learned
about cursing at University was in the Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic
department. There I was told it was necessary to look someone in the eyes,
but I only have my lecturer's word for that, and he was commenting an Old
Norse saga we were deconstructing where this geezer is doing his best to
avoid eye-contact with this nasty piece of work cursing him. I can't
remember which saga it is, though.
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
Yet, oddly enough, in no case is the other completely devoid
of some true parts.
Another fair statement. All viewpoints based upon experience are based on
something true. They may go wrong in the details, but there is essentially
some truth in every view.
And that's the tricky bit. That's why it's easy to swallow the errors in
views, because they come sweetened with truth.

I had an infestation of pharaoh ants, and I poisoned them by putting about
2% boric acid powder in apple mint jelly. The instructions were to get as
close to 2% as possible, as less than that wouldn't give them enough poison
until the bait had dried out and too much and they would smell the poison
and reject the bait. So it is with error and truth.
Post by Tom
If that's the case, then why would you feel that these occultists have to
get their stories straight with one another and that both cannot be true?
One of them, or both, are advised to readjust their views to the truth.

But what is it? Obviously I think my views are the truth, but they might not
be, and if not, there is no apparent mechanism for legal redress once we are
all dead if someone believed my version and was damned for it. The only
satisfaction for them is that I'd be damned too.

But still I believe, what I believe.

Uncle Davey
Tom
2005-01-22 15:25:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
I don't know.
A fair answer. You don't know.
Nobody knows. Faith doesn't require knowledge.
Is that what you're operating on? Faith?
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
Obviously I hold these views of mine because I think they are
right, but nobody gave me a, like, certiflicate.
No college degree?
I have an MA from Cambridge University in Modern and Medieval Languages,
Then somebody did give you a certificate because of your views.
Post by Uncle Davey
but we didn't cover whether prayers are curses on the syllabus.
Only because you didn't bring that particular view up at the time.
Post by Uncle Davey
All I learned
about cursing at University was in the Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic
department. There I was told it was necessary to look someone in the eyes,
For the Evil Eye curse. However, the Evil Tongue curse requires you talk
about someone.
Post by Uncle Davey
but I only have my lecturer's word for that,
That's the problem with many of you school-taught folks. You sit there and
parrot what you're told but you don't do a lick of experimentation on your
own.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
Yet, oddly enough, in no case is the other completely devoid
of some true parts.
Another fair statement. All viewpoints based upon experience
are based on something true. They may go wrong in the details,
but there is essentially some truth in every view.
And that's the tricky bit. That's why it's easy to swallow the errors in
views, because they come sweetened with truth.
That sweetness isn't truth. It's flattery. It's the hard chunks that can't
be chewed easily that are truth.
Post by Uncle Davey
I had an infestation of pharaoh ants, and I poisoned them by putting about
2% boric acid powder in apple mint jelly. The instructions were to get as
close to 2% as possible, as less than that wouldn't give them enough poison
until the bait had dried out and too much and they would smell the poison
and reject the bait. So it is with error and truth.
So it is with curses, as well.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
If that's the case, then why would you feel that these occultists have to
get their stories straight with one another and that both cannot be true?
One of them, or both, are advised to readjust their views to the truth.
We are all best advised to do this. However, it doesn't mean that they
can't both be right. It just means we strongly suspect that neither is
completely right.
Post by Uncle Davey
But what is it? Obviously I think my views are the truth,
You are advised to readjust your views to the truth.
Post by Uncle Davey
but they might not
be, and if not, there is no apparent mechanism for legal redress once we are
all dead if someone believed my version and was damned for it.
It's folly to equate legal decisions with truth.
Post by Uncle Davey
But still I believe, what I believe.
Keep looking for errors.
Isolde
2005-01-22 21:21:49 UTC
Permalink
I was finishing my remarks saying that just because I may not have the same
views on the order events happened on that vital morning as another brother
doesn't mean that any division is due because of it. We are not all clones
with the same views about everything. As long as we believe the same core
Gospel truths, we are brethren.
-Uncle Davey, Jan 22, in the thread " Post-resurrection Chronology
(again)"
You occult practitioners need to sort your act out between you about what
your craft says on these matters as I see a lot of division and
contradiction, here. You cannot both be right. When you have decided
between yourselves what version you as witches want to present, then maybe
let us know....
-Uncle Davey, Jan 19, in the thread "That Old Black Magick's got me in
it's spell"

Uncle Davey, you need to sort out whether you think people of the same
religion have to believe exactly the same thing on all matters or not.
When you've decided which opinion you want to present, then maybe let
us know...
Uncle Davey
2005-01-22 23:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isolde
I was finishing my remarks saying that just because I may not have the same
views on the order events happened on that vital morning as another brother
doesn't mean that any division is due because of it. We are not all clones
with the same views about everything. As long as we believe the same core
Gospel truths, we are brethren.
-Uncle Davey, Jan 22, in the thread " Post-resurrection Chronology
(again)"
You occult practitioners need to sort your act out between you about what
your craft says on these matters as I see a lot of division and
contradiction, here. You cannot both be right. When you have decided
between yourselves what version you as witches want to present, then maybe
let us know....
-Uncle Davey, Jan 19, in the thread "That Old Black Magick's got me in
it's spell"
Uncle Davey, you need to sort out whether you think people of the same
religion have to believe exactly the same thing on all matters or not.
When you've decided which opinion you want to present, then maybe let
us know...
OK. Nice one.
It's ok to differ on secondary issues, but it's not ok to differ on primary
issues.

For us, the primary issue is that god came in the flesh, in the person of
Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for our sins, and he was raised again on
the third day. A further primary issue is that we have no righteousness of
our own, but need to repent and ask Christ to accept us in His covenant, and
to have our names written in the Lamb's book of life. Then we are born again
and set our hearts on what pleases God.

A secondary issue would be the number of times Mary Magdalene visits the
empty tomb, how many chords a worship hymn needs to have and how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin.

The issues that Harvestdancer and this other witch were disputing seemed
more primary than secondary to me, but since I am not of your craft and
fully intend to stay that way, what do I know?

Best,

Uncle Davey
http://www.usenetposts.com
http://www.unctopia.blogspot.com
Tom
2005-01-23 15:38:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
It's ok to differ on secondary issues, but it's not ok to differ on primary
issues.
Who gets to decide what the "primary issues" are? Who decides what's "OK"
to disagree with?
Post by Uncle Davey
For us, the primary issue is that god came in the flesh, in the person of
Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for our sins, and he was raised again on
the third day.
Some Christians disagree with your version of the divine nature of Jesus.

Specifically, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with this
doctrine. Now, you may decide that these people are not "true Christians",
but that's not what they say.

So here we have a disagreement on a primary issue (as you define it) between
two factions of Christianity.

In the history of Christianity, there seems to be a tried and true method of
resolving such disagreement. The better armed faction kills off the poorer
armed faction. The Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD, decided that Arius, a
prominent churchman of the time, was incorrect in asserting that Jesus was
not actually the same being as Jehovah, but was created by Jehovah and thus
is not God, but a lesser divine being. The Council denounced Arianism.
They were able to do so because the Emperor Constantine (and you couldn't
get any better armed that he was, at the time) simply refused to allow any
Arians to participate in the Council. He stacked the deck.

Is that how you recommend solving theological disputes? By political
chicanery and force of arms?
Post by Uncle Davey
A further primary issue is that we have no righteousness of
our own, but need to repent and ask Christ to accept us in His covenant, and
to have our names written in the Lamb's book of life. Then we are born again
and set our hearts on what pleases God.
There could be many ways to be born again. You seem to believe that there
is only one. This could very well be inaccurate. Have you tested it?
Uncle Davey
2005-01-23 19:18:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Uncle Davey
It's ok to differ on secondary issues, but it's not ok to differ on
primary
Post by Uncle Davey
issues.
Who gets to decide what the "primary issues" are? Who decides what's "OK"
to disagree with?
That would have been the Council of Nicea, Tom.
Fourth century.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Uncle Davey
For us, the primary issue is that god came in the flesh, in the person of
Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for our sins, and he was raised again on
the third day.
Some Christians disagree with your version of the divine nature of Jesus.
Specifically, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with this
doctrine. Now, you may decide that these people are not "true
Christians",
Post by Uncle Davey
but that's not what they say.
Well, I'm going with the consensus of the Church fathers at Nicea on this
one, after all, there are plenty of scriptures that show the divinity of
Christ, and a mere creature would not have been in a position to take our
sins as christ did. This means inevitably those sects which discard the
deity of Christ inevitably turn to works for their righteousness also.
Post by Uncle Davey
So here we have a disagreement on a primary issue (as you define it) between
two factions of Christianity.
Well I don't accept that JWs and Unitarians are Christians. In the case of
JWs that feeling is no doubt mutual, with Unitarians there may be a broader
response, but I don't care.
Post by Uncle Davey
In the history of Christianity, there seems to be a tried and true method of
resolving such disagreement. The better armed faction kills off the poorer
armed faction. The Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD, decided that Arius, a
prominent churchman of the time, was incorrect in asserting that Jesus was
not actually the same being as Jehovah, but was created by Jehovah and thus
is not God, but a lesser divine being. The Council denounced Arianism.
They were able to do so because the Emperor Constantine (and you couldn't
get any better armed that he was, at the time) simply refused to allow any
Arians to participate in the Council. He stacked the deck.
All things worked together for good, then.
Post by Uncle Davey
Is that how you recommend solving theological disputes? By political
chicanery and force of arms?
You are oversimplifying matters. Even if I accept the point about Arians
being kept away by force of arms, which I would like proof of anyway, the
discussions leading up to the point where Constantine and all the Fathers
decided what they thought were not all done at knifepoint. The scriptures
are anyway clear on the deity of Christ. It is obvious which side was right.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Uncle Davey
A further primary issue is that we have no righteousness of
our own, but need to repent and ask Christ to accept us in His covenant,
and
Post by Uncle Davey
to have our names written in the Lamb's book of life. Then we are born
again
Post by Uncle Davey
and set our hearts on what pleases God.
There could be many ways to be born again. You seem to believe that there
is only one. This could very well be inaccurate. Have you tested it?
There are only two men, two covenants to be born into, Tom. The first Adam
and the second.

If you have a third Adam, born of a virgin and dying for us all over again,
and being resurrected, then by all means show him to us.

Uncle Davey
Tom
2005-01-24 07:11:17 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
Who gets to decide what the "primary issues" are? Who decides what's "OK"
to disagree with?
That would have been the Council of Nicea, Tom.
Fourth century.
Like I said earlier, that was power and politics. Not everyone agreed with
them then and not everybody agrees with them now.

If you want to play politics with your god, far be it for me to stop you,
but you shouldn't operate under the delusion that political bully-boy
tactics are divine revelations in everyone's eyes.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
Some Christians disagree with your version of the divine nature of Jesus.
Specifically, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with this
doctrine. Now, you may decide that these people are not "true
Christians", but that's not what they say.
Well, I'm going with the consensus of the Church fathers at Nicea on this
one, after all, there are plenty of scriptures that show the divinity of
Christ,
Not everyone interprets scriptures the same way among you Christians.
Hadn't you noticed?

Feel free to express your own beliefs, but don't presume to speak for all
Christians. You don't. You speak for exactly one Christian. Other
Christians can and do disagree with you.
Post by Uncle Davey
and a mere creature would not have been in a position to take our
sins as christ did.
As you believe he did, anyway. Other Christians believe differently.

You have held "occultists" to a standard that your own religion cannot
successfully hold. Specifically, you have sneered at them for not having a
monolithic belief system in which they all argee, even though it's clearly
demonstrable that Christian belief systems are not in agreement on what you
choose to call "primary issues". In your attempt to defend that ridiculous
posture, you have been forced to the absurdity of claiming to speak for all
Christians, past, present, and future in matters of metaphysical doctrine.
Post by Uncle Davey
This means inevitably those sects which discard the
deity of Christ inevitably turn to works for their righteousness also.
So what if they do? They still call themselves Christians and you can't
make them stop, no matter how many dead emperors you invoke.
Post by Uncle Davey
Well I don't accept that JWs and Unitarians are Christians.
Of course you don't, but it doesn't matter what *you* accept or reject. You
don't hold the copyright on the label "Christian". Your definition of the
term may fit your particular sect, but it doesn't fit everybody's.

Christian viewpoints areas splintered and contentious as those of the
occultists you sneered at.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
There could be many ways to be born again. You seem to believe that there
is only one. This could very well be inaccurate. Have you tested it?
There are only two men, two covenants to be born into, Tom. The first Adam
and the second.
So you believe. Other Christians believe differently. And, yes, I know you
don't choose to call them Christians, but they do so in all sincerity and
you can't convince them not to. None of this is testable. You make one
claim; somebody else makes another.
Post by Uncle Davey
If you have a third Adam, born of a virgin and dying for us all over again,
and being resurrected, then by all means show him to us.
Have you got Mary's hymen on display so that we can all see for ourselves
that she was really a virgin when she had Jesus, as you claim? By all means
show us the physical evidence for this miraculous occurrence.
Uncle Davey
2005-01-24 17:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
Who gets to decide what the "primary issues" are? Who decides what's
"OK"
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
to disagree with?
That would have been the Council of Nicea, Tom.
Fourth century.
Like I said earlier, that was power and politics. Not everyone agreed with
them then and not everybody agrees with them now.
If you want to play politics with your god, far be it for me to stop you,
but you shouldn't operate under the delusion that political bully-boy
tactics are divine revelations in everyone's eyes.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
Some Christians disagree with your version of the divine nature of
Jesus.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
Specifically, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with this
doctrine. Now, you may decide that these people are not "true
Christians", but that's not what they say.
Well, I'm going with the consensus of the Church fathers at Nicea on this
one, after all, there are plenty of scriptures that show the divinity of
Christ,
Not everyone interprets scriptures the same way among you Christians.
Hadn't you noticed?
Feel free to express your own beliefs, but don't presume to speak for all
Christians. You don't. You speak for exactly one Christian. Other
Christians can and do disagree with you.
I make that point all the time. If I do say 'we' then I am only referring to
people who believe as I do on that specific point.

Nevertheless, the belief in the Trinity is where I personally make the
biggest single cut-off between 'us' and 'them'. That and salvation by faith
in what Jesus did, alone.
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
and a mere creature would not have been in a position to take our
sins as christ did.
As you believe he did, anyway. Other Christians believe differently.
Those who believe that Christ is not God I personally do not call
Christians.
They are usurpers of His deity, and blasphemers.
Post by Tom
You have held "occultists" to a standard that your own religion cannot
successfully hold. Specifically, you have sneered at them for not having a
monolithic belief system in which they all argee, even though it's clearly
demonstrable that Christian belief systems are not in agreement on what you
choose to call "primary issues". In your attempt to defend that ridiculous
posture, you have been forced to the absurdity of claiming to speak for all
Christians, past, present, and future in matters of metaphysical doctrine.
Post by Uncle Davey
This means inevitably those sects which discard the
deity of Christ inevitably turn to works for their righteousness also.
So what if they do? They still call themselves Christians and you can't
make them stop, no matter how many dead emperors you invoke.
I don't call them Christians, but of course they will continue to make that
claim for themselves. He who accepts Thomas calling him God in John 20 vv
28-29 will show them in due course whether he is God or not.
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
Well I don't accept that JWs and Unitarians are Christians.
Of course you don't, but it doesn't matter what *you* accept or reject.
You
Post by Tom
don't hold the copyright on the label "Christian". Your definition of the
term may fit your particular sect, but it doesn't fit everybody's.
There is nevertheless a large consensus about what does constitute Christian
belief to this day. Each of those non-trinitarian sects doesn't believe that
all the other non-trinitarian sects are Christian either. Each of them sees
themsleves as having a monoploly on truth, whereas among the trinitarian
believers there is much more unity than you might think at first glance.
That's why I'm continually backing Brother Jason up even when there are no
doubt dozens of minor issues we could disagree on. They don't matter, and
we'll laugh over them in heaven.
Post by Tom
Christian viewpoints areas splintered and contentious as those of the
occultists you sneered at.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
There could be many ways to be born again. You seem to believe that
there
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Tom
is only one. This could very well be inaccurate. Have you tested it?
There are only two men, two covenants to be born into, Tom. The first Adam
and the second.
So you believe. Other Christians believe differently. And, yes, I know you
don't choose to call them Christians, but they do so in all sincerity and
you can't convince them not to. None of this is testable. You make one
claim; somebody else makes another.
Post by Uncle Davey
If you have a third Adam, born of a virgin and dying for us all over
again,
Post by Uncle Davey
and being resurrected, then by all means show him to us.
Have you got Mary's hymen on display so that we can all see for ourselves
that she was really a virgin when she had Jesus, as you claim? By all means
show us the physical evidence for this miraculous occurrence.
Do I look like a first century BC gynaecologist, to you?

Uncle Davey
Jason Gastrich
2005-01-24 18:45:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
It's ok to differ on secondary issues, but it's not ok to differ on
primary issues.
Who gets to decide what the "primary issues" are? Who decides what's
"OK" to disagree with?
In short, the "primary issue" is the doctrine of salvation.
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
For us, the primary issue is that god came in the flesh, in the
person of Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for our sins, and he was
raised again on the third day.
Some Christians disagree with your version of the divine nature of Jesus.
Specifically, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with
this doctrine. Now, you may decide that these people are not "true
Christians", but that's not what they say.
So here we have a disagreement on a primary issue (as you define it)
between two factions of Christianity.
JW's and Unitarians have some very different beliefs. One needs to believe
in the biblical Jesus Christ, repent, and trust in Him in order to be saved.
If a person is trusting in a false Christ, then they won't be saved.

I've studied these other sects and I have answers for them. Would you like
me to get into them here?
Post by Tom
In the history of Christianity, there seems to be a tried and true
method of resolving such disagreement. The better armed faction
kills off the poorer armed faction. The Council of Nicaea, in 325
AD, decided that Arius, a prominent churchman of the time, was
incorrect in asserting that Jesus was not actually the same being as
Jehovah, but was created by Jehovah and thus is not God, but a lesser
divine being. The Council denounced Arianism. They were able to do
so because the Emperor Constantine (and you couldn't get any better
armed that he was, at the time) simply refused to allow any Arians to
participate in the Council. He stacked the deck.
Is that how you recommend solving theological disputes? By political
chicanery and force of arms?
The Bible was completed in the 1st century. This council was unnecessary.
They merely put their stamp of approval on the scriptures that were already
being circulated and accepted.

No, I don't approve of murdering people with theological differences.
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
A further primary issue is that we have no righteousness of
our own, but need to repent and ask Christ to accept us in His
covenant, and to have our names written in the Lamb's book of life.
Then we are born again and set our hearts on what pleases God.
There could be many ways to be born again. You seem to believe that
there is only one. This could very well be inaccurate. Have you
tested it?
No, there couldn't be. If there is a God, then He has a nature. The
biblical God has a specific way to be saved and go to Heaven. This is
revealed in the Bible.

God bless,
Jason
--
--------

Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!

John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."

Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."

ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-24 22:45:36 UTC
Permalink
You ought to consider replying to the main point of this thread,
instead of this particular tangent.

Jason Harvestdancer
Tom
2005-01-25 07:35:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
It's ok to differ on secondary issues, but it's not ok to differ on
primary issues.
Who gets to decide what the "primary issues" are? Who decides what's
"OK" to disagree with?
In short, the "primary issue" is the doctrine of salvation.
What is the "doctrine of salvation", specifically? Doesn't its
interpretation vary from one Christian sect to another?
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Tom
Some Christians disagree with your version of the divine nature of Jesus.
Specifically, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with
this doctrine. Now, you may decide that these people are not "true
Christians", but that's not what they say.
So here we have a disagreement on a primary issue (as you define it)
between two factions of Christianity.
JW's and Unitarians have some very different beliefs.
Very true. Then again, one might say the same about you. Or me.

The point here is that not all those who call themselves Christians believe
the same things. I make this point in response to Uncle Davy's implication
that a difference in beliefs between two occultists must somehow reflect
badly on occultism itself. Perhaps it's time to consider Matthew 7:3 or
Luke 6:41.
Post by Jason Gastrich
I've studied these other sects and I have answers for them. Would you like
me to get into them here?
It's unnecessary. I am aware that you believe differently from other people
who also call themselves Christians. Indeed, that's my point.
Post by Jason Gastrich
The Bible was completed in the 1st century. This council was unnecessary.
The Emperor Constantine did not think it was unnecessary. Another
difference of opinion, I see.
Post by Jason Gastrich
No, I don't approve of murdering people with theological differences.
That's good. The capital punishment angle does seem excessive, in the light
of Matthew 7. I would suggest that the most you should do, as a good
Christian, is pester non-believers.

I think it is our god-given right to pester people who don't believe as we
do. So long as we stay off their lawns and don't impede their movements.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Tom
There could be many ways to be born again. You seem to believe that
there is only one. This could very well be inaccurate. Have you
tested it?
No, there couldn't be. If there is a God, then He has a nature.
Are you sure? The whole point of being supernatural is to be above nature,
isn't it?

A god with a fixed nature would be a natural being, not a supernatural
being. And then we get into the old omnipotence conundrum. If God cannot
change His nature, he isn't all-powerful. Since we also believe God is
all-poweful, then we cannot presume that He has a fixed and constant nature.
Can we?
Jason Gastrich
2005-01-25 21:08:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Tom
Post by Uncle Davey
It's ok to differ on secondary issues, but it's not ok to differ on
primary issues.
Who gets to decide what the "primary issues" are? Who decides
what's "OK" to disagree with?
In short, the "primary issue" is the doctrine of salvation.
What is the "doctrine of salvation", specifically? Doesn't its
interpretation vary from one Christian sect to another?
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Tom
Some Christians disagree with your version of the divine nature of Jesus.
Specifically, Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses do not agree with
this doctrine. Now, you may decide that these people are not "true
Christians", but that's not what they say.
So here we have a disagreement on a primary issue (as you define it)
between two factions of Christianity.
JW's and Unitarians have some very different beliefs.
Very true. Then again, one might say the same about you. Or me.
The point here is that not all those who call themselves Christians
believe the same things. I make this point in response to Uncle
Davy's implication that a difference in beliefs between two
occultists must somehow reflect badly on occultism itself. Perhaps
it's time to consider Matthew 7:3 or Luke 6:41.
Post by Jason Gastrich
I've studied these other sects and I have answers for them. Would
you like me to get into them here?
It's unnecessary. I am aware that you believe differently from other
people who also call themselves Christians. Indeed, that's my point.
I think you're missing the point.

There is one truth and one God.

I didn't offer you answers to prove that I believed differently than some
cultists. I offered you answers to prove to you that they are wrong about
the scriptures.

What is your theological persuasion?

Regards,
Jason
--
--------

Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!

John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."

Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."

ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
Tom
2005-01-26 15:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Tom
It's unnecessary. I am aware that you believe differently from other
people who also call themselves Christians. Indeed, that's my point.
I think you're missing the point.
I'm not missing your point, but you seem to be missing mine.
Post by Jason Gastrich
There is one truth and one God.
I am aware that you believe that. I am pointing out that others believe
differently. Uncle Davey sought to criticize another faith for having
disagreements among its self-proclaimed adherents. I chose to point out
that this is equally true of Christians, like yourself and Uncle Davey.
Post by Jason Gastrich
I didn't offer you answers to prove that I believed differently than some
cultists.
I don't require proof of anything. I wasn't asking for your answers, except
as they might be used to illustrate my point..
Post by Jason Gastrich
I offered you answers to prove to you that they are wrong about
the scriptures.
Your answers do not prove anything to me, although you may feel that they
are proof for you. Our standards of evidence are different.
Post by Jason Gastrich
What is your theological persuasion?
I am not persuaded by any theology. It appears to me that they all have
their merits and flaws.
personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk
2005-01-26 23:40:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
There is one truth and one God.
Well, that can be argued any number of ways, but basically I agree, and
here's why:

(Note: to follow this, one must first have an open imagination... VERY
open!)

*What IF* -- computers are actually silicone-based life forms?
After all, they evolve, have families, are loved (and hated!)
They exhibit quirks in behavior!
They consume, they produce, and they can certainly "multiply!"

Aside from all the anthropomorphisms (hope I used that word correctly) if we
were to assume that these silicone-based life forms had a sense of the
Divine Nature of the universe, and if they were to formulate an ultimate
highest truth, what would it be? After all, *everything* (just about) that
a computer does is based upon ones and zeros, or specifically, high signals
and low signals. In order to determine a "truth", bits must be compared and
tabulated before an answer is achieved.

So... what, to a computer, is a "higher truth"? Indeed, what is the HIGHEST
truth a computer can safely rely upon in order to achieve a proper
conclusion?...

The answer (a truth) first needs a question, and that question is:

"Is the POWER ON?"

If a computer cannot ask that first, primary question, it cannot answer
anything else, for in fact, it is dead (due to no power). Thus, when the
power IS on, the computer may ask, and upon achieving that Truth from the
Great High Bit, it can then pass the truth of that condition on to other
memory locations and processor banks within its system.

So... if a computer can have a highest, single "ONE TRUTH", then why can't a
human being? Only here's the catch: Humans don't realize that their
highest truth is that their POWER is ON.

Take this post as satire, take it as wisdom, take it out and feed it to the
dog, it makes no difference to me. I'm only here to point out that Truth
[ "> There is one truth and one God" ] may be different for different
people, different creatures, or even different life forms.

"There's a little bit of truth in all religions, but no religion has all the
truth."

Dick Silk -- The Computer Tutor
http://personalpages.tds.net/~rcsilk
for rates and online chat

- * <-- Tribble ./* <-- Tribble with pet on a leash.

When replying, please do *not* clip alt.magick. Thanks.
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-24 22:32:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
OK. Nice one.
It's ok to differ on secondary issues, but it's not ok to differ on primary
issues.
For us, the primary issue is that god came in the flesh, in the person of
Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for our sins, and he was raised again on
the third day. A further primary issue is that we have no
righteousness of
Post by Uncle Davey
our own, but need to repent and ask Christ to accept us in His
covenant, and
Post by Uncle Davey
to have our names written in the Lamb's book of life. Then we are born again
and set our hearts on what pleases God.
A secondary issue would be the number of times Mary Magdalene visits the
empty tomb, how many chords a worship hymn needs to have and how many angels
can dance on the head of a pin.
The issues that Harvestdancer and this other witch were disputing seemed
more primary than secondary to me, but since I am not of your craft and
fully intend to stay that way, what do I know?
Actually, I notice Mika didn't dispute my comparison of prayer and
magick, only the particulars of my post.

Thus, we agree in the major issues and disagree on the minor ones.

Also, I don't know that Mika is a witch. I am, but I posted this to
alt.magick, where practitioners of many types congregates. Some here
might prefer the Golden Dawn, some Qaballah, some Enochian, some
Wiccan, some Asatru, some Voudun, some Erisian, etc. Get my drift?
This isn't even one religion here.

Jason Harvestdancer
Uncle Davey
2005-01-24 23:14:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Uncle Davey
OK. Nice one.
It's ok to differ on secondary issues, but it's not ok to differ on
primary
Post by Uncle Davey
issues.
For us, the primary issue is that god came in the flesh, in the
person of
Post by Uncle Davey
Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for our sins, and he was raised
again on
Post by Uncle Davey
the third day. A further primary issue is that we have no
righteousness of
Post by Uncle Davey
our own, but need to repent and ask Christ to accept us in His
covenant, and
Post by Uncle Davey
to have our names written in the Lamb's book of life. Then we are
born again
Post by Uncle Davey
and set our hearts on what pleases God.
A secondary issue would be the number of times Mary Magdalene visits
the
Post by Uncle Davey
empty tomb, how many chords a worship hymn needs to have and how many
angels
Post by Uncle Davey
can dance on the head of a pin.
The issues that Harvestdancer and this other witch were disputing
seemed
Post by Uncle Davey
more primary than secondary to me, but since I am not of your craft
and
Post by Uncle Davey
fully intend to stay that way, what do I know?
Actually, I notice Mika didn't dispute my comparison of prayer and
magick, only the particulars of my post.
Thus, we agree in the major issues and disagree on the minor ones.
Also, I don't know that Mika is a witch. I am, but I posted this to
alt.magick, where practitioners of many types congregates. Some here
might prefer the Golden Dawn, some Qaballah, some Enochian, some
Wiccan, some Asatru, some Voudun, some Erisian, etc. Get my drift?
This isn't even one religion here.
Jason Harvestdancer
What's an Enochian, when it's at home?

Uncle Davey
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 06:52:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
OK. Nice one.
It's ok to differ on secondary issues, but it's not ok to differ on
primary issues.
For us, the primary issue is that god came in the flesh, in the
person of Jesus Christ, to die on the cross for our sins, and he
was
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
raised again on the third day. A further primary issue is that we
have no righteousness of our own, but need to repent and ask
Christ
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
to accept us in His covenant, and to have our names written in
the
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Lamb's book of life. Then we are born again and set our hearts on
what pleases God.
A secondary issue would be the number of times Mary Magdalene visits
the empty tomb, how many chords a worship hymn needs to have and
how
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The issues that Harvestdancer and this other witch were disputing
seemed more primary than secondary to me, but since I am not of
your
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
craft and fully intend to stay that way, what do I know?
Actually, I notice Mika didn't dispute my comparison of prayer and
magick, only the particulars of my post.
Thus, we agree in the major issues and disagree on the minor ones.
Also, I don't know that Mika is a witch. I am, but I posted this to
alt.magick, where practitioners of many types congregates. Some here
might prefer the Golden Dawn, some Qaballah, some Enochian, some
Wiccan, some Asatru, some Voudun, some Erisian, etc. Get my drift?
This isn't even one religion here.
What's an Enochian, when it's at home?
My argument was so good you reply with gibberish.

Jason Harvestdancer
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-24 22:29:50 UTC
Permalink
It is true that different practitioners don't agree. Not all
practitioners are witches, either. Some are ceremonialists, or other
forms as well. I know of several followers of "The One True God" (tm)
who disagree as well.

Jason Harvestdancer
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-24 22:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by mika
Post by h***@hotmail.com
They are both a combination of the spiritual and the physical to
effect a change, a definition supplied by Aleister Crowley.
What Crowley quote are you speaking of, specifically? The only
definition of magick from Crowley that I'm aware of is magick is the
art and science of causing change according to will. One may
interpret
Post by mika
that to mean using "a combination of the spiritual and the physical to
effect a change", but Crowley himself does not explicitly mention
anything about the spiritual world or spirituality in that
definition.

Hm, I know I got that definition somewhere. I may have erred.
Post by mika
Post by h***@hotmail.com
The definition of harm is a broad one, magickally speaking. It
includes not only active harm, but any violation of the free will
of another, even if you have their own supposed best interests at
heart. That is why experienced practitioners look down on "love
spells" as trash.
Experienced practitioners like myself consider typical "love spells" to
be trash because they tend to be short-sighted, ineffectual band-aid
approaches to dealing with deeper issues. I do not believe one can
violate the free will of another simply by performing a spell. If I
perform a spell directed towards you, you still have free will, you are
still responsible for your own choices and your own actions. If you
fear that my spells, or anyone else's, will impact your ability to
choose your own path, then you need to strengthen your will.
I agree, they are trash. However, I am using them as an example for
those who are distinctly not experienced, an example they may be able
to relate to.
Post by mika
Post by h***@hotmail.com
If actively doing the harm yourself is bad, how much worse is it
to ask deity to do the job for you? One could make the argument
either way, but to ask the deity to hurt other people on your
belhalf shows a profound disrespect for the deity.
What diety are you talking about? If I ask Morrigan to bring down fire
and terror to my enemies, I am calling on her with respect to her very
nature.
I agree with a ceveat. Morrigan might bring down fire if you say "I'm
going to bring down fire, assist me please", but Morrigan isn't going
to bring down fire if you say "I'm a weaking pacifist who wouldn't hurt
a fly, so would you do this for me?"

In the case that started this thread, the one who I'm trying to educate
is a follower of The One True God (tm), and The One True God has, from
what I've been told, isn't very inclined in that direction. Even
though many people pray in that direction, as evidenced by Mark Twain's
short story on the War Prayer.

Jason Harvestdancer
Aristos
2005-01-19 02:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
In addition to the recognition of the essential simliarity of prayer
and magick, almost all practitioners of magick recognize some variant
of what is called "The Threefold Rule". Put simply, what magick you do
comes back to you three times over.
Go drown yourself.
Tom
2005-01-19 22:21:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Aristos
Post by h***@hotmail.com
In addition to the recognition of the essential simliarity of prayer
and magick, almost all practitioners of magick recognize some variant
of what is called "The Threefold Rule". Put simply, what magick you do
comes back to you three times over.
Go drown yourself.
Uh oh. Now you've done it. Just for that, three people are going to tell
you to go drown yourself.
Uncle Davey
2005-01-20 00:08:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Post by Aristos
Post by h***@hotmail.com
In addition to the recognition of the essential simliarity of prayer
and magick, almost all practitioners of magick recognize some variant
of what is called "The Threefold Rule". Put simply, what magick you do
comes back to you three times over.
Go drown yourself.
Uh oh. Now you've done it. Just for that, three people are going to tell
you to go drown yourself.
And in rhyming couplets too.

Uncle Davey
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-25 16:53:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread. Instead
he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.

Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
Jason Gastrich
2005-01-25 21:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread. Instead
he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every prayer thread
I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?

Do you really think you've earned my respect?

Be thankful that Davey will talk to you.

Regards,
Jason
--
--------

Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!

John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."

Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."

ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 00:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread. Instead
he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every prayer thread
I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
I think I'd call that lying, Jason.

Wilful lying, after I've already explained to this self-professed male witch
that prayer and magic are pretty much opposites to each other.

He has his fixed idea, and is not open to what God has said on the matter,
namely that the practice of witchcraft is sinful, whereas prayer is right
and required of us. The distinction between white and black magick that he
makes is not biblical, and I see no forms of witchcraft sanctioned in the
Bible.

Messing with these forces seems to be a short cut to getting possessed or at
least in a great deal of trouble.

Thankfully, Jesus is stronger, and has put the demons in their place.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Do you really think you've earned my respect?
Be thankful that Davey will talk to you.
I've got broad shoulders, and sometimes I think too broad....

But the guy is going to hell as at this time, dragging others into the pit
with himself, and so any chance I get to remind him of the truth and the
mercy of God, as well as the inevitable victory of Jesus Christ our Saviour,
and maybe help turn him away from that terrible fate, I'll take it.

Uncle Davey
George Peatty
2005-01-26 02:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
He has his fixed idea, and is not open to what God has said on the matter,
namely that the practice of witchcraft is sinful, whereas prayer is right
and required of us. The distinction between white and black magick that he
makes is not biblical, and I see no forms of witchcraft sanctioned in the
Bible.
I certainly do not agree with the OP, and will say before going further that
I am not supporting, explaining, or attempting to justify his claims. But,
I'm not altogether sure I agree here, either.

Obviously, I agree that witchcraft is never sanctioned in the Bible, but
miracles are, and both sides can perform them. Pharaoh's magicians were
able to duplicate in some small measure the plagues sent by God through
Moses. (Why they would is a matter I've never been able to figure out)

The False Prophet will perform miracles in support of the AntiChrist
(Revelation 13) and will lead many of our scientifically enlightened
skeptics here into the service of the Beast thereby.

To the unchurched, there must not be a lot of surface difference between
divine miracles and demonic imitations, so I see where the OP makes his
distinctions between white and black magic. What he doesn't realize is it's
a distinction without a difference, since only miracles done in the name of
Jesus Christ are divinely allowed.

To tie up loose ends, all of this talk .. and work .. of magic is part of
the demonic ministry of confusion, I believe. Miracles are given as a sign
of the rightness of doctrine, and demonic counterfeits are performed to
pollute that doctrine.
Tom
2005-01-26 16:12:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Obviously, I agree that witchcraft is never sanctioned in the Bible, but
miracles are, and both sides can perform them.
I question whether there are only two sides. Or maybe there aren't any
sides, except as we choose to demark them for our own purposes..
Post by George Peatty
Pharaoh's magicians were
able to duplicate in some small measure the plagues sent by God through
Moses. (Why they would is a matter I've never been able to figure out)
We have only the bible author's version of that story. It might be that the
Pharoah's magicians made a laughingstock out of Moses' paltry tricks, from
their point of view.

In my study of claims of divine intervention, I;'ve found that there is a
very strong tendency for the faithful of any religion to attribute natural
disasters and chance fortuity to their respective gods.
Post by George Peatty
To the unchurched, there must not be a lot of surface difference between
divine miracles and demonic imitations, so I see where the OP makes his
distinctions between white and black magic.
To the churched, there is only one difference between divine miracles and
demonic imitations. It's whether or not the miracle in question is
interpreted as one of their own or one of some other religion's. The very
same occurrence can be a miracle in one view and a demonic imitation in
another.
Post by George Peatty
To tie up loose ends, all of this talk .. and work .. of magic is part of
the demonic ministry of confusion, I believe.
I agree with you that there is no greater danger to faith than confusion.
Of course, simply feeling that you are not confused doesn't mean you're not
wrong.
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 17:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by George Peatty
Post by Uncle Davey
He has his fixed idea, and is not open to what God has said on the matter,
namely that the practice of witchcraft is sinful, whereas prayer is right
and required of us. The distinction between white and black magick that he
makes is not biblical, and I see no forms of witchcraft sanctioned in the
Bible.
I certainly do not agree with the OP, and will say before going further that
I am not supporting, explaining, or attempting to justify his claims.
But,
Post by George Peatty
I'm not altogether sure I agree here, either.
Obviously, I agree that witchcraft is never sanctioned in the Bible, but
miracles are, and both sides can perform them. Pharaoh's magicians were
able to duplicate in some small measure the plagues sent by God through
Moses. (Why they would is a matter I've never been able to figure out)
The False Prophet will perform miracles in support of the AntiChrist
(Revelation 13) and will lead many of our scientifically enlightened
skeptics here into the service of the Beast thereby.
To the unchurched, there must not be a lot of surface difference between
divine miracles and demonic imitations, so I see where the OP makes his
distinctions between white and black magic. What he doesn't realize is it's
a distinction without a difference, since only miracles done in the name of
Jesus Christ are divinely allowed.
To tie up loose ends, all of this talk .. and work .. of magic is part of
the demonic ministry of confusion, I believe. Miracles are given as a sign
of the rightness of doctrine, and demonic counterfeits are performed to
pollute that doctrine.
God's prophets don't perform the miracles, God does.

God parts the Red Sea, not Moses.
God makes the plagues, not Joseph.
The miracles done on our side are by the power of God, and we are passive.
The counterfeit miracles done by magicians are the result of years of study
and dedication, and tremendous mental and spiritual exertions.
That's why I'm saying that what we are doing and what they are doing are
near opposites. If you (as in 'one') blur that disctinction, then how can
you be sure to do the maximum possible for God but without falling into the
sin of the practice of magick?

Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 18:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by George Peatty
Post by Uncle Davey
He has his fixed idea, and is not open to what God has said on the
matter,
Post by George Peatty
Post by Uncle Davey
namely that the practice of witchcraft is sinful, whereas prayer is right
and required of us. The distinction between white and black magick that
he
Post by George Peatty
Post by Uncle Davey
makes is not biblical, and I see no forms of witchcraft sanctioned in the
Bible.
I certainly do not agree with the OP, and will say before going further
that
Post by George Peatty
I am not supporting, explaining, or attempting to justify his claims.
But,
Post by George Peatty
I'm not altogether sure I agree here, either.
Obviously, I agree that witchcraft is never sanctioned in the Bible, but
miracles are, and both sides can perform them. Pharaoh's magicians were
able to duplicate in some small measure the plagues sent by God through
Moses. (Why they would is a matter I've never been able to figure out)
The False Prophet will perform miracles in support of the AntiChrist
(Revelation 13) and will lead many of our scientifically enlightened
skeptics here into the service of the Beast thereby.
To the unchurched, there must not be a lot of surface difference between
divine miracles and demonic imitations, so I see where the OP makes his
distinctions between white and black magic. What he doesn't realize is
it's
Post by George Peatty
a distinction without a difference, since only miracles done in the name
of
Post by George Peatty
Jesus Christ are divinely allowed.
To tie up loose ends, all of this talk .. and work .. of magic is part of
the demonic ministry of confusion, I believe. Miracles are given as a
sign
Post by George Peatty
of the rightness of doctrine, and demonic counterfeits are performed to
pollute that doctrine.
God's prophets don't perform the miracles, God does.
God parts the Red Sea, not Moses.
God makes the plagues, not Joseph.
Sorry, Moses, obviously.
Post by Uncle Davey
The miracles done on our side are by the power of God, and we are passive.
The counterfeit miracles done by magicians are the result of years of study
and dedication, and tremendous mental and spiritual exertions.
That's why I'm saying that what we are doing and what they are doing are
near opposites. If you (as in 'one') blur that disctinction, then how can
you be sure to do the maximum possible for God but without falling into the
sin of the practice of magick?
Uncle Davey
Uncle Davey
Tom
2005-01-27 05:48:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
God's prophets don't perform the miracles, God does.
God parts the Red Sea, not Moses.
God seemed especially fond of doing miracles that helped Moses out,
according to the bible. He seems less forthcoming with such spectacular
effects for others. God does seem to play favorites when it comes to
dispensing miracles. I can see how one might get the idea that there is
something special about a particular person when it comes to
miracle-working.
Post by Uncle Davey
God makes the plagues, not Joseph.
Well, Joseph told everyone that God was responsible for the plagues. Of
course, they didn't have very good critical thinking skills back then and
tended to believe whatever sounded convincing, whether it was true or not.

There is a difference between God actually performing a miracle and somebody
saying that God performed a miracle, too.

I agree with you about the apparent miracles of magicians, though. They
aren't really miracles at all. They just seem like them to people who don't
understand what's going on.

Here's a definition of magic from a classic grimoire, the Lesser Key of
Solomon, that says pretty much exactly what you were saying.
"Magic is the Highest, most Absolute, and most Divine Knowledge of Natural
Philosophy, advanced in its works and wonderful operations by a right
understanding of the inward and occult virtue of things; so that true Agents
being applied to proper Patients, strange and admirable effects will thereby
be produced. Whence magicians are profound and diligent searchers into
Nature; they, because of their skill, know how to anticipate an effect, the
which to the vulgar shall seem to be a miracle."
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 06:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every
prayer
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
I think I'd call that lying, Jason.
Yes, he is lying.
Post by Uncle Davey
Wilful lying, after I've already explained to this self-professed male witch
that prayer and magic are pretty much opposites to each other.
And I disputed your uninformed opinion and presented a contrary one.
Post by Uncle Davey
He has his fixed idea, and is not open to what God has said on the matter,
namely that the practice of witchcraft is sinful, whereas prayer is right
and required of us. The distinction between white and black magick that he
makes is not biblical, and I see no forms of witchcraft sanctioned in the
Bible.
My god does not say that witchcraft is sinful, and the Bible is just a
book according to my god.
Post by Uncle Davey
Messing with these forces seems to be a short cut to getting
possessed or at
Post by Uncle Davey
least in a great deal of trouble.
Then tell Gastrich to stop doing so.
Post by Uncle Davey
Thankfully, Jesus is stronger, and has put the demons in their place.
But Gastrich invites them in.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Do you really think you've earned my respect?
Be thankful that Davey will talk to you.
I've got broad shoulders, and sometimes I think too broad....
It helps to have that when you're an attack poodle.
Post by Uncle Davey
But the guy is going to hell as at this time, dragging others into the pit
with himself, and so any chance I get to remind him of the truth and the
mercy of God, as well as the inevitable victory of Jesus Christ our Saviour,
and maybe help turn him away from that terrible fate, I'll take it.
Hardly. I'm going to Eliseum, not to any pit. Hades, however, has
various tortures available for hypocrites.

Jason Harvestdancer
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 16:17:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every
prayer
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
I think I'd call that lying, Jason.
Wilful lying, after I've already explained to this self-professed male witch
that prayer and magic are pretty much opposites to each other.
Just to keep you honest, we never agreed that your definition is
correct. You keep pretending that we did agree, and that is a lie. I
explained to the self-professed male christian that prayer and magick
are very similar. You didn't agree to my definitions, but you do
understand my definitions. You cannot call me a liar for using my
definitions.

According to my definitions, Gastrich is doing black magick. That is
not a lie. Why do you lie about that?

Jason Harvestdancer
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 18:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every
prayer
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
I think I'd call that lying, Jason.
Wilful lying, after I've already explained to this self-professed
male witch
Post by Uncle Davey
that prayer and magic are pretty much opposites to each other.
Just to keep you honest, we never agreed that your definition is
correct.
I never said we did. I told you that they are opposites, and therefore as
far as I am concerned you know that from our perspective they are opposites,
and no magick is being performed here.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
You keep pretending that we did agree, and that is a lie.
You're lying now, because I didn't say that, let alone keep saying it, and
please if you can prove the contrary with a message ID.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
I
explained to the self-professed male christian that prayer and magick
are very similar. You didn't agree to my definitions, but you do
understand my definitions. You cannot call me a liar for using my
definitions.
They are lies because you are applying them to our side. Surely Jason would
know if he were doing magick or not?
Post by h***@hotmail.com
According to my definitions, Gastrich is doing black magick. That is
not a lie. Why do you lie about that?
Jason Harvestdancer
It is a lie, because you have been put on notice from someone who shares the
major part of his theology that no magick is being done. Magick is not done
"accidentally". If magick is not intended, none is done.

Uncle Davey
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 20:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every
prayer
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
I think I'd call that lying, Jason.
Wilful lying, after I've already explained to this self-professed
male witch that prayer and magic are pretty much opposites to
each other.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Just to keep you honest, we never agreed that your definition is
correct.
I never said we did. I told you that they are opposites, and
therefore as
Post by Uncle Davey
far as I am concerned you know that from our perspective they are opposites,
and no magick is being performed here.
No, you say "wilfull lying, after I've already explained to this..."
That implies that I agree with your definitions. I have said that your
definitions are bunk, pure bunk, so therefore when I use my definitions
it's not "willful lying" and when you say that it is, you are guilty of
willful lying.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
You keep pretending that we did agree, and that is a lie.
You're lying now, because I didn't say that, let alone keep saying it, and
please if you can prove the contrary with a message ID.
I didn't say "you keep saying that we did agree", I said "you keep
pretending that we agree", because when you accuse me of "willful
lying" after you "explained this", that implies that your explanation
was accepted. Your explanation was thrown out with the rest of the
trash.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
I explained to the self-professed male christian that prayer and
magick
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
are very similar. You didn't agree to my definitions, but you do
understand my definitions. You cannot call me a liar for using my
definitions.
They are lies because you are applying them to our side. Surely Jason would
know if he were doing magick or not?
No, he would not know. While there are some Christians who do
deliberately practice magick, many Christians do not. Those who do not
are much less likely to recognize it if they saw it.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
According to my definitions, Gastrich is doing black magick. That is
not a lie. Why do you lie about that?
It is a lie, because you have been put on notice from someone who shares the
major part of his theology that no magick is being done. Magick is not done
"accidentally". If magick is not intended, none is done.
To say "one cannot accidentally do magick" is to say "one cannot create
an effect of the will without the will". It does not mean "someone
with the will in their ignorance cannot do magick". Gastrich has the
will, the intent, the desire, but not the knowledge. By the *correct*
definition of "accidental magick" he most certainly is doing magick,
and black magick at that since his will is to interfere with the free
will of others.

Jason Harvestdancer
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 06:42:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every prayer thread
I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
For reasons I detailed in the first post in this thread. Do you need
me to repeat myself?

I accuse you of doing black magick because that's what you are doing.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Do you really think you've earned my respect?
Oh I'm hurt.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Be thankful that Davey will talk to you.
Of course he talks to me, he's your attack poodle.
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 20:24:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rainey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every prayer
thread
Post by Jason Gastrich
I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
For reasons I detailed in the first post in this thread. Do you need
me to repeat myself?
I accuse you of doing black magick because that's what you are doing.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Do you really think you've earned my respect?
Oh I'm hurt.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Be thankful that Davey will talk to you.
Of course he talks to me, he's your attack poodle.
Transparencies like this went out with overhead projectors.

Uncle Davey
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 20:39:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once.
But he
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract
everyone.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every prayer
thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
For reasons I detailed in the first post in this thread. Do you need
me to repeat myself?
I accuse you of doing black magick because that's what you are doing.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Do you really think you've earned my respect?
Oh I'm hurt.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Be thankful that Davey will talk to you.
Of course he talks to me, he's your attack poodle.
Transparencies like this went out with overhead projectors.
Do you reply even when you have nothing to say?

Jason Harvestdancer
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 21:22:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once.
But he
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract
everyone.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every
prayer
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
For reasons I detailed in the first post in this thread. Do you
need
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
me to repeat myself?
I accuse you of doing black magick because that's what you are
doing.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Do you really think you've earned my respect?
Oh I'm hurt.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Be thankful that Davey will talk to you.
Of course he talks to me, he's your attack poodle.
Transparencies like this went out with overhead projectors.
Do you reply even when you have nothing to say?
Jason Harvestdancer
Just because it goes over your head, it doesn't make it nothing.

I'm commenting that your attempts to divide Christian brethren are too
transparent to fool me, and that is the only relevant comment worth making
on the rubbish you have been spouting about me as an attack poodle.

When you come across as a brindled chihuahua that thinks it's a black cat.

Uncle Davey
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 22:32:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Transparencies like this went out with overhead projectors.
Do you reply even when you have nothing to say?
Just because it goes over your head, it doesn't make it nothing.
I'm commenting that your attempts to divide Christian brethren are too
transparent to fool me, and that is the only relevant comment worth making
on the rubbish you have been spouting about me as an attack poodle.
Actually, I'm trying to get Gastrich to defend himself. There are no
Christian brethren present to divide.

Jason Harvestdancer
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 23:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Transparencies like this went out with overhead projectors.
Do you reply even when you have nothing to say?
Just because it goes over your head, it doesn't make it nothing.
I'm commenting that your attempts to divide Christian brethren are
too
Post by Uncle Davey
transparent to fool me, and that is the only relevant comment worth
making
Post by Uncle Davey
on the rubbish you have been spouting about me as an attack poodle.
Actually, I'm trying to get Gastrich to defend himself. There are no
Christian brethren present to divide.
Jason Harvestdancer
Well, if you are saying that I'm not a Christian, there's no need for you to
speak to me any longer on the subject.

Uncle Davey
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-28 16:54:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Transparencies like this went out with overhead projectors.
Do you reply even when you have nothing to say?
Just because it goes over your head, it doesn't make it nothing.
I'm commenting that your attempts to divide Christian brethren are
too transparent to fool me, and that is the only relevant comment
worth
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
making on the rubbish you have been spouting about me as an
attack
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
poodle.
Actually, I'm trying to get Gastrich to defend himself. There are no
Christian brethren present to divide.
Well, if you are saying that I'm not a Christian, there's no need for you to
speak to me any longer on the subject.
I don't know yet whethrer or not you are. However, for there to be
Christian bretheren, there needs to be more than one Christian. If you
are Christian, there is one Christian in this thread.
Jason Harvestdancer
Jason Gastrich
2005-01-26 23:16:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Transparencies like this went out with overhead projectors.
Do you reply even when you have nothing to say?
Just because it goes over your head, it doesn't make it nothing.
I'm commenting that your attempts to divide Christian brethren are
too transparent to fool me, and that is the only relevant comment
worth making on the rubbish you have been spouting about me as an
attack poodle.
Actually, I'm trying to get Gastrich to defend himself. There are no
Christian brethren present to divide.
Jason Harvestdancer
You might as well give up on this one, Jason. I don't need any defense to
pray to the Creator.

Regards,
Jason
--
--------

Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!

John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."

Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."

ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-28 16:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Transparencies like this went out with overhead projectors.
Do you reply even when you have nothing to say?
Just because it goes over your head, it doesn't make it nothing.
I'm commenting that your attempts to divide Christian brethren are
too transparent to fool me, and that is the only relevant comment
worth making on the rubbish you have been spouting about me as an
attack poodle.
Actually, I'm trying to get Gastrich to defend himself. There are no
Christian brethren present to divide.
You might as well give up on this one, Jason. I don't need any defense to
pray to the Creator.
The sin of Black Magick does need a defense. You need no
justification to commit horrible sins? Is that what the doctrine of
eternal security teaches, that you can blaspheme because you're saved?
Jason Harvestdancer
Uncle Davey
2005-01-29 11:19:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Transparencies like this went out with overhead projectors.
Do you reply even when you have nothing to say?
Just because it goes over your head, it doesn't make it nothing.
I'm commenting that your attempts to divide Christian brethren are
too transparent to fool me, and that is the only relevant comment
worth making on the rubbish you have been spouting about me as an
attack poodle.
Actually, I'm trying to get Gastrich to defend himself. There are
no
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Christian brethren present to divide.
You might as well give up on this one, Jason. I don't need any
defense to
Post by Jason Gastrich
pray to the Creator.
The sin of Black Magick does need a defense. You need no
justification to commit horrible sins? Is that what the doctrine of
eternal security teaches, that you can blaspheme because you're saved?
Jason Harvestdancer
These prayers are not black magick, or any other kind of magick, and neither
are they blasphemies.

Hth.

Best,

Uncle Davey
http://www.usenetposts.com
http://www.unctopia.blogspot.com
David
2005-01-29 14:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Transparencies like this went out with overhead projectors.
Do you reply even when you have nothing to say?
Just because it goes over your head, it doesn't make it
nothing.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
I'm commenting that your attempts to divide Christian brethren are
too transparent to fool me, and that is the only relevant comment
worth making on the rubbish you have been spouting about me as an
attack poodle.
Actually, I'm trying to get Gastrich to defend himself. There are
no
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Christian brethren present to divide.
You might as well give up on this one, Jason. I don't need any
defense to
Post by Jason Gastrich
pray to the Creator.
The sin of Black Magick does need a defense. You need no
justification to commit horrible sins? Is that what the doctrine of
eternal security teaches, that you can blaspheme because you're saved?
Jason Harvestdancer
These prayers are not black magick, or any other kind of magick, and neither
are they blasphemies.
Hth.
Why would you expect that to help, Davey?

They're just assertions - assertions made by someone who believes that
a dead person is, one day, going to come back and take him to Heaven.

They are assertions made by one who ignores evidence, believing in a
strange form of Omphalism, which was created solely to be an airtight,
anti-scientific and anti-intellectual "shield" against encroaching
evidence that shows that Christian fundamentalism is intellectually and
scientifically untenable, irrational, and impossible.

In other words, they are assertions made by a fellow who believes what
he WANTS to believe - not what IS, in fact, he believes REGARDLESS of
what IS.

So why would you think it would help to make those kinds of assertions?
Uncle Davey
2005-01-29 15:28:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Transparencies like this went out with overhead projectors.
Do you reply even when you have nothing to say?
Just because it goes over your head, it doesn't make it
nothing.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
I'm commenting that your attempts to divide Christian brethren
are
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
too transparent to fool me, and that is the only relevant
comment
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
worth making on the rubbish you have been spouting about me as
an
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
attack poodle.
Actually, I'm trying to get Gastrich to defend himself. There
are
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
no
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Christian brethren present to divide.
You might as well give up on this one, Jason. I don't need any
defense to
Post by Jason Gastrich
pray to the Creator.
The sin of Black Magick does need a defense. You need no
justification to commit horrible sins? Is that what the doctrine
of
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
eternal security teaches, that you can blaspheme because you're
saved?
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Jason Harvestdancer
These prayers are not black magick, or any other kind of magick, and
neither
Post by Uncle Davey
are they blasphemies.
Hth.
Why would you expect that to help, Davey?
They're just assertions - assertions made by someone who believes that
a dead person is, one day, going to come back and take him to Heaven.
They are assertions made by one who ignores evidence, believing in a
strange form of Omphalism, which was created solely to be an airtight,
anti-scientific and anti-intellectual "shield" against encroaching
evidence that shows that Christian fundamentalism is intellectually and
scientifically untenable, irrational, and impossible.
In other words, they are assertions made by a fellow who believes what
he WANTS to believe - not what IS, in fact, he believes REGARDLESS of
what IS.
So why would you think it would help to make those kinds of assertions?
Because they show that from our Evangelical perspective, these prayers are
not magical.

If you are now saying that from the point of view of the intellectuality and
scientificness and rationality that you claim I reject Jason's prayers ARE
black magick, then your ideas of rationalism, science and intellectuality
are a little bit different than mine.

Uncle Davey
David
2005-01-29 15:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Transparencies like this went out with overhead
projectors.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Do you reply even when you have nothing to say?
Just because it goes over your head, it doesn't make it
nothing.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
I'm commenting that your attempts to divide Christian brethren
are
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
too transparent to fool me, and that is the only relevant
comment
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
worth making on the rubbish you have been spouting about me as
an
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
attack poodle.
Actually, I'm trying to get Gastrich to defend himself.
There
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Uncle Davey
are
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
no
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Christian brethren present to divide.
You might as well give up on this one, Jason. I don't need any
defense to
Post by Jason Gastrich
pray to the Creator.
The sin of Black Magick does need a defense. You need no
justification to commit horrible sins? Is that what the
doctrine
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Uncle Davey
of
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
eternal security teaches, that you can blaspheme because you're
saved?
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Jason Gastrich
Jason Harvestdancer
These prayers are not black magick, or any other kind of magick, and
neither
Post by Uncle Davey
are they blasphemies.
Hth.
Why would you expect that to help, Davey?
They're just assertions - assertions made by someone who believes that
a dead person is, one day, going to come back and take him to Heaven.
They are assertions made by one who ignores evidence, believing in a
strange form of Omphalism, which was created solely to be an
airtight,
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by Uncle Davey
anti-scientific and anti-intellectual "shield" against encroaching
evidence that shows that Christian fundamentalism is intellectually and
scientifically untenable, irrational, and impossible.
In other words, they are assertions made by a fellow who believes what
he WANTS to believe - not what IS, in fact, he believes REGARDLESS of
what IS.
So why would you think it would help to make those kinds of
assertions?
Post by Uncle Davey
Because they show that from our Evangelical perspective, these
prayers are
Post by Uncle Davey
not magical.
"From our Evangelical [sic] perspective" is an important qualifier,
don't you think?
Post by Uncle Davey
If you are now saying that from the point of view of the
intellectuality and
Post by Uncle Davey
scientificness and rationality that you claim I reject Jason's
prayers ARE
Post by Uncle Davey
black magick, then your ideas of rationalism, science and
intellectuality
Post by Uncle Davey
are a little bit different than mine.
No, Davey, I wouldn't claim that.

Hear that whooshing sound?

We seem to hear it a lot, lately, in discussions in which you are
involved.
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-30 19:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Transparencies like this went out with overhead projectors.
Do you reply even when you have nothing to say?
Just because it goes over your head, it doesn't make it
nothing.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
I'm commenting that your attempts to divide Christian brethren are
too transparent to fool me, and that is the only relevant comment
worth making on the rubbish you have been spouting about me as an
attack poodle.
Actually, I'm trying to get Gastrich to defend himself. There are
no Christian brethren present to divide.
You might as well give up on this one, Jason. I don't need any
defense to pray to the Creator.
The sin of Black Magick does need a defense. You need no
justification to commit horrible sins? Is that what the doctrine of
eternal security teaches, that you can blaspheme because you're saved?
These prayers are not black magick, or any other kind of magick, and neither
are they blasphemies.
These "prayers" are are magick, of the black variety. You ducked the
question, though. If you have eternal security (once saved always
saved) is any blasphemy excused? Can you commit any sin, no matter how
horrible, if you have eternal security?

If you have eternal security, are you free to commit any sin, no matter
how horrible?

Don't duck that quesiton, Davey. It's an important one.
Jason Harvestdancer
Jason Gastrich
2005-01-26 23:15:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every prayer
thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
For reasons I detailed in the first post in this thread. Do you need
me to repeat myself?
I accuse you of doing black magick because that's what you are doing.
This is like you calling my Ford Thunderbird a bicycle. After you do it
enough, we just pat you on the head and say, "It's ok. You'll be all
right."

Regards,
Jason
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Do you really think you've earned my respect?
Oh I'm hurt.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Be thankful that Davey will talk to you.
Of course he talks to me, he's your attack poodle.
--
--------

Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!

John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."

Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."

ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-27 05:58:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every prayer
thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
For reasons I detailed in the first post in this thread. Do you need
me to repeat myself?
I accuse you of doing black magick because that's what you are doing.
This is like you calling my Ford Thunderbird a bicycle. After you do it
enough, we just pat you on the head and say, "It's ok. You'll be all
right."
If you seriously believe it is like calling your Ford Thunderbird a
bicycle, then you haven't understood a single word of this thread. Try
re-reading the first post with comprehension as your goal, and you
might realize that I'm calling your Ford Thunderbird an automobile, and
you are trying to pretend that I'm calling it a bicycle.
Jason Harvestdancer
Jason Gastrich
2005-01-27 08:23:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But
he avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every
prayer thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
For reasons I detailed in the first post in this thread. Do you
need me to repeat myself?
I accuse you of doing black magick because that's what you are doing.
This is like you calling my Ford Thunderbird a bicycle. After you
do it enough, we just pat you on the head and say, "It's ok. You'll
be all right."
If you seriously believe it is like calling your Ford Thunderbird a
bicycle, then you haven't understood a single word of this thread.
Try re-reading the first post with comprehension as your goal, and you
might realize that I'm calling your Ford Thunderbird an automobile,
and you are trying to pretend that I'm calling it a bicycle.
Jason Harvestdancer
Nah. It's good that you affirm the power of prayer, though. A hearty amen
to that!

To the biblical, Christian God be the glory. I give my prayers to Him.

God bless,
Jason
--
--------

Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!

John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."

Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."

ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-27 14:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once.
But
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
he avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this
thread.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract
everyone.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every
prayer thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
For reasons I detailed in the first post in this thread. Do you
need me to repeat myself?
I accuse you of doing black magick because that's what you are doing.
This is like you calling my Ford Thunderbird a bicycle. After you
do it enough, we just pat you on the head and say, "It's ok.
You'll
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
be all right."
If you seriously believe it is like calling your Ford Thunderbird a
bicycle, then you haven't understood a single word of this thread.
Try re-reading the first post with comprehension as your goal, and you
might realize that I'm calling your Ford Thunderbird an automobile,
and you are trying to pretend that I'm calling it a bicycle.
Nah.
You're not interested in comprehension?
Post by Jason Gastrich
It's good that you affirm the power of prayer, though. A hearty amen
to that!
So we agree it's a form of magick.
Post by Jason Gastrich
To the biblical, Christian God be the glory. I give my prayers to Him.
How does he feel about black magick done in his name?
Jason Harvestdancer
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 06:56:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every prayer thread
I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
It seems to bother you quite a lot. For some reason it really does get
to you. Perhaps you are bothered by the fact that someone is making an
informed case that your practices are VERY sinful. Or perhaps you are
bothered by the way I phrase the accusation, since no Christian would
ever be accused of doing black magick.

Perhaps, if it bothers you so much, you should mend your ways and seek
the God you claim to believe in.

Jason Harvestdancer
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 20:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Isolde
Post by Jason Gastrich
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every prayer
thread
Post by Jason Gastrich
I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
It seems to bother you quite a lot. For some reason it really does get
to you. Perhaps you are bothered by the fact that someone is making an
informed case that your practices are VERY sinful. Or perhaps you are
bothered by the way I phrase the accusation, since no Christian would
ever be accused of doing black magick.
Who knows the secrets of the black magick box?

Uncle Davey
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 20:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every prayer
thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
It seems to bother you quite a lot. For some reason it really does get
to you. Perhaps you are bothered by the fact that someone is making an
informed case that your practices are VERY sinful. Or perhaps you are
bothered by the way I phrase the accusation, since no Christian would
ever be accused of doing black magick.
Who knows the secrets of the black magick box?
My, that was SO very relevant to the discussion.

Jason Harvestdancer
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 21:19:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every
prayer
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
It seems to bother you quite a lot. For some reason it really does
get
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
to you. Perhaps you are bothered by the fact that someone is
making an
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
informed case that your practices are VERY sinful. Or perhaps you
are
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
bothered by the way I phrase the accusation, since no Christian
would
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
ever be accused of doing black magick.
Who knows the secrets of the black magick box?
My, that was SO very relevant to the discussion.
Jason Harvestdancer
It was a chocolate advert from the 1970s.

Uncle Davey
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 22:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Who knows the secrets of the black magick box?
My, that was SO very relevant to the discussion.
It was a chocolate advert from the 1970s.
Is that supposed to explain it's relevancy?

Jason Harvestdancer
Jason Gastrich
2005-01-26 23:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every prayer
thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
It seems to bother you quite a lot. For some reason it really does
get to you. Perhaps you are bothered by the fact that someone is
making an informed case that your practices are VERY sinful. Or
perhaps you are bothered by the way I phrase the accusation, since no
Christian would ever be accused of doing black magick.
Perhaps, if it bothers you so much, you should mend your ways and seek
the God you claim to believe in.
Jason Harvestdancer
Pride.

You overestimate my feelings toward your nonsense. It surely doesn't bother
me quite a lot. It barely bothers me at all because it's foolishness. My
ignoring your every accusation in every, recent prayer thread should have
been a big hint for you. The next step is PLONKING you so I don't even have
to read your nonsense.

You mentioned your importance in the newsgroups and you on Sinky's
googlegroup2. It's rich that you think you're correct enough to bother me,
but I'll continue to pray EVERY day for unbelievers; whether you write a few
accusatory lines or not. It really matters little to me.

As I said, it's like you calling my Ford Thunderbird a bicycle. How
"bothered" should I feel about something that absurd? Nobody agrees with
your nonsense, anyway.

The bottom line is this: I have a mandate from my Creator to pray for all
people. Your quibbling will NEVER get me to stop.

Regards,
Jason
--
--------

Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!

John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."

Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."

ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-27 05:56:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Jason Gastrich
What is it called when you accuse me of black magick in every prayer
thread I create in the Christian/religious newsgroups?
It seems to bother you quite a lot. For some reason it really does
get to you. Perhaps you are bothered by the fact that someone is
making an informed case that your practices are VERY sinful. Or
perhaps you are bothered by the way I phrase the accusation, since no
Christian would ever be accused of doing black magick.
Perhaps, if it bothers you so much, you should mend your ways and seek
the God you claim to believe in.
Pride.
Yes, you are guilty of that.
Post by Jason Gastrich
You overestimate my feelings toward your nonsense. It surely doesn't bother
me quite a lot. It barely bothers me at all because it's
foolishness. My
Post by Jason Gastrich
ignoring your every accusation in every, recent prayer thread should have
been a big hint for you. The next step is PLONKING you so I don't even have
to read your nonsense.
It bothers you enough to send in Uncle Davey to defend you and distract
the conversation as much as possible. You ignore the accusation
because you DON'T WANT TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR YOUR ACTIONS! You
hate that I am accusing you of black magick. It's even worse than
accusing you of being a sinner because this is a sin that's practically
inexcusable in Christianity.
Post by Jason Gastrich
You mentioned your importance in the newsgroups and you on Sinky's
googlegroup2. It's rich that you think you're correct enough to bother me,
but I'll continue to pray EVERY day for unbelievers; whether you write a few
accusatory lines or not. It really matters little to me.
Stinky? Well, that's a new one, and apparently you read that group.
But yes, I have actually studied Christian theology, more than just a
cursory reading of the Bible. I don't have the verses memorized for
two reasons - I went for understanding as opposed to memorization, and
I have many religions to study. But that's all beside the point.

It's one thing to pray for unbelievers, if you pray as your deity
commands. However, your public proclamations are indeed a violation of
your religion. AND they are a violation of the ethics of magick. You
aren't simply praying that they see the light, you are praying that
they see YOUR light. Now THAT'S pride.
Post by Jason Gastrich
As I said, it's like you calling my Ford Thunderbird a bicycle. How
"bothered" should I feel about something that absurd? Nobody agrees with
your nonsense, anyway.
I have never called your Forth Tunderbird a bicycle. That would be
almost as absurd as you pretending that you aren't bothered by what I
write. However, you raise an interesting point. Do you HONESTLY
believe that what is right and what is wrong is a matter of democratic
opinion? If everyone said that the moon was made of Green Cheese,
would they be right? That is the level of your argument in your
defense?

There are several who are in agreement with me, some in this thread.
Then there are those with different theological opinions who understand
mine enough to realize that, from my point of view, my accusations are
very serious and hold a lot of water.
Post by Jason Gastrich
The bottom line is this: I have a mandate from my Creator to pray for all
people. Your quibbling will NEVER get me to stop.
The real bottom line is this: my accusations might convince you to obey
your Creator for once in your life.

Jason Harvestdancer
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 00:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread. Instead
he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.

Uncle Davey
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 06:49:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Once upon a time, a drunk collapsed in a gutter. Along came a pig and
did lie down in the gutter with the drunk.

A couple of sober individuals walked by, and glancing at the couple in
the gutter one did utter "You can tell a man by the company he keeps."

The pig got up and walked away.

You do lie in the gutter with Gastrich, and do his dirty work for him.
You call him brother, after ample demonstrations of his anti-christian
thought and blatant hypocrisy.

Is he your brother?

Jason Harvestdancer
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 20:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rainey
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Once upon a time, a drunk collapsed in a gutter. Along came a pig and
did lie down in the gutter with the drunk.
A couple of sober individuals walked by, and glancing at the couple in
the gutter one did utter "You can tell a man by the company he keeps."
The pig got up and walked away.
Spoken like a true puritan.
Post by Rainey
You do lie in the gutter with Gastrich, and do his dirty work for him.
You call him brother, after ample demonstrations of his anti-christian
thought and blatant hypocrisy.
Is he your brother?
Yes. Seventy time seven times yes, and more.
He has his faults, as do I, but no-one has been able to show the major
accusations that have been flying around against him, and the best of them
have been exposed as mere trollery.

He has been doing sterling work for the last four weeks in Usenet, and has
handled himself in the main extremely well.

When you bunch back each other up, then why isn't that doing each other's
dirty work?
Hmmmmmmn?
Because it's nothing more than playground rhetoric used to cause division,
that's why.
Save it for your peers.

Uncle Davey
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 20:31:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once.
But he
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract
everyone.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Once upon a time, a drunk collapsed in a gutter. Along came a pig and
did lie down in the gutter with the drunk.
A couple of sober individuals walked by, and glancing at the couple in
the gutter one did utter "You can tell a man by the company he keeps."
The pig got up and walked away.
Spoken like a true puritan.
Nice ducking the issue. There is a moral to that story. I suppose you
know what "moral to the story" means. Look for it. It's in there.
Didn't your own Jesus like to use parables?
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
You do lie in the gutter with Gastrich, and do his dirty work for him.
You call him brother, after ample demonstrations of his
anti-christian
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
thought and blatant hypocrisy.
Is he your brother?
Yes. Seventy time seven times yes, and more.
So you share anti-christian thought and blatant hypocrisy? He's a
phony christian, and you claim him as brother in that?
Post by Uncle Davey
He has his faults, as do I, but no-one has been able to show the major
accusations that have been flying around against him, and the best of them
have been exposed as mere trollery.
Or you have refused to acknowledge the existance of the evidence.
Post by Uncle Davey
He has been doing sterling work for the last four weeks in Usenet, and has
handled himself in the main extremely well.
Do you consider it "sterling work" to make religion itself look bad?
Post by Uncle Davey
When you bunch back each other up, then why isn't that doing each other's
dirty work?
Good point. You actually have a good point. However, David S., for
example, didn't send me in to do his work for him. I'm doing my own
distinct and separate criticism of the black works of Gastrich. David
S. probably disagrees with me on religious matters as much as you
disagree with me.

In other words, even though we're criticising the same person, we're
not acting in concert.
Post by Uncle Davey
Hmmmmmmn?
Because it's nothing more than playground rhetoric used to cause division,
that's why.
Save it for your peers.
Tell your boss (Gastrich) to answer the accusations himself instead of
hiding behind you. That's downright cowardly.

Jason Harvestdancer
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 21:15:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once.
But he
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract
everyone.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Once upon a time, a drunk collapsed in a gutter. Along came a pig
and
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
did lie down in the gutter with the drunk.
A couple of sober individuals walked by, and glancing at the couple
in
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
the gutter one did utter "You can tell a man by the company he
keeps."
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
The pig got up and walked away.
Spoken like a true puritan.
Nice ducking the issue. There is a moral to that story. I suppose you
know what "moral to the story" means. Look for it. It's in there.
Didn't your own Jesus like to use parables?
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
You do lie in the gutter with Gastrich, and do his dirty work for
him.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
You call him brother, after ample demonstrations of his
anti-christian
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
thought and blatant hypocrisy.
Is he your brother?
Yes. Seventy time seven times yes, and more.
So you share anti-christian thought and blatant hypocrisy? He's a
phony christian, and you claim him as brother in that?
I don't think he is phoney at all.
He's one of a tiny number of sound Christians I've seen on Usenet.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
He has his faults, as do I, but no-one has been able to show the
major
Post by Uncle Davey
accusations that have been flying around against him, and the best of
them
Post by Uncle Davey
have been exposed as mere trollery.
Or you have refused to acknowledge the existance of the evidence.
I treat the so-called 'evidence' with skepticism, which has so far been
justified.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
He has been doing sterling work for the last four weeks in Usenet,
and has
Post by Uncle Davey
handled himself in the main extremely well.
Do you consider it "sterling work" to make religion itself look bad?
I don't think we're interested in promoting 'religion itself' whatever that
is.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
When you bunch back each other up, then why isn't that doing each
other's
Post by Uncle Davey
dirty work?
Good point. You actually have a good point. However, David S., for
example, didn't send me in to do his work for him.
You are implying that Jason sent me to do his for him. This is false, and
proveably false, as I have been saying doctrinally the self same things much
longer than I met Jason on line.

If you look further back in my posting history, it should be obvious to you
that I am saying the same things as I was saying for a long time before
Brother Jason appeared on Usenet in June 2003. I was posting five years
prior to that, although at the outset I was far from God and wrote a lot of
stuff I don't like re-reading now.

But by 2000 I was already doing a lot of religious debate.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
I'm doing my own
distinct and separate criticism of the black works of Gastrich. David
S. probably disagrees with me on religious matters as much as you
disagree with me.
Yet oddly you can gang up on us no trouble.

Why is that? Psalm 2 has the answer.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
In other words, even though we're criticising the same person, we're
not acting in concert.
Nor am I.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Hmmmmmmn?
Because it's nothing more than playground rhetoric used to cause
division,
Post by Uncle Davey
that's why.
Save it for your peers.
Tell your boss (Gastrich) to answer the accusations himself instead of
hiding behind you. That's downright cowardly.
Jason Harvestdancer
He has his style and I have mine.

I have maybe more ability to suffer certain types of people gladly.

Which may not necessarily be a good thing, but there it is.

Uncle Davey
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-26 22:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once.
But he avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of
this
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
thread. Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to
distract
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Once upon a time, a drunk collapsed in a gutter. Along came a pig
and did lie down in the gutter with the drunk.
A couple of sober individuals walked by, and glancing at the couple
in the gutter one did utter "You can tell a man by the company
he
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
keeps."
The pig got up and walked away.
Spoken like a true puritan.
Nice ducking the issue. There is a moral to that story. I suppose you
know what "moral to the story" means. Look for it. It's in there.
Didn't your own Jesus like to use parables?
Heh. That got no response.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
You do lie in the gutter with Gastrich, and do his dirty work for
him. You call him brother, after ample demonstrations of his
anti-
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
christian thought and blatant hypocrisy.
Is he your brother?
Yes. Seventy time seven times yes, and more.
So you share anti-christian thought and blatant hypocrisy? He's a
phony christian, and you claim him as brother in that?
I don't think he is phoney at all.
He's one of a tiny number of sound Christians I've seen on Usenet.
Now THAT's and example of faith.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
He has his faults, as do I, but no-one has been able to show the
major accusations that have been flying around against him, and
the best
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
of them have been exposed as mere trollery.
Or you have refused to acknowledge the existance of the evidence.
I treat the so-called 'evidence' with skepticism, which has so far been
justified.
When you use the word, does 'skepticism' mean 'cover eyes and plug
ears'?
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
He has been doing sterling work for the last four weeks in
Usenet,
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
and has handled himself in the main extremely well.
Do you consider it "sterling work" to make religion itself look bad?
I don't think we're interested in promoting 'religion itself'
whatever that
Post by Uncle Davey
is.
You're allegedly interested in promoting a particular religion, but
instead make all religions, especially the one promoted, look bad.

Nice dodge, by the way.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
When you bunch back each other up, then why isn't that doing each
other's dirty work?
Good point. You actually have a good point. However, David S., for
example, didn't send me in to do his work for him.
You are implying that Jason sent me to do his for him. This is false, and
proveably false, as I have been saying doctrinally the self same things much
longer than I met Jason on line.
If you look further back in my posting history, it should be obvious to you
that I am saying the same things as I was saying for a long time before
Brother Jason appeared on Usenet in June 2003. I was posting five years
prior to that, although at the outset I was far from God and wrote a lot of
stuff I don't like re-reading now.
But by 2000 I was already doing a lot of religious debate.
So you agreed before you met. That doesn't mean he's not having you do
his dirty work for him. All it means is that you agreed before you
met.

I'm a chair of a regional chapter of a political party. There are
people in the party older than me and have been in the party longer
than me. Does that mean I'm not chair?
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
I'm doing my own
distinct and separate criticism of the black works of Gastrich.
David
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
S. probably disagrees with me on religious matters as much as you
disagree with me.
Yet oddly you can gang up on us no trouble.
Which is the point. I'm doing my own separate work on Gastrich, which
he is running from. That he's managed to get many people to feel
similarly is obviously the fault of those other people.

"The hardest part is admitting everyone else has a problem."
Post by Uncle Davey
Why is that? Psalm 2 has the answer.
Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel
together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the LORD shall have them in
derision.
Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore
displeasure.
Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son;
this day have I begotten thee.
Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and
the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in
pieces like a potter's vessel.
Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the
earth.
Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his
wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their
trust in him.

Are you saying that David S. and I are the heathen kings of the earth
and Gastrich is the Lord against which we conspire? Gastrich has less
to do with the Christian deity than I do, and I have nothing to do with
that one.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
In other words, even though we're criticising the same person, we're
not acting in concert.
Nor am I.
Which is why he relies on you do to his dirty work for him.
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Hmmmmmmn?
Because it's nothing more than playground rhetoric used to cause
division, that's why.
Save it for your peers.
Tell your boss (Gastrich) to answer the accusations himself instead of
hiding behind you. That's downright cowardly.
He has his style and I have mine.
Apparently his style is to have you do all the work for him.
Post by Uncle Davey
I have maybe more ability to suffer certain types of people gladly.
You have greater ability to make noise in the face of a consistent,
principled attack.
Post by Uncle Davey
Which may not necessarily be a good thing, but there it is.
Sometimes people who have the talent of making lots of distracting
noise can be useful. I don't use them myself, but I've seen it done
effectively.

Jason Harvestdancer
Jason Gastrich
2005-01-26 23:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Once upon a time, a drunk collapsed in a gutter. Along came a pig
and did lie down in the gutter with the drunk.
A couple of sober individuals walked by, and glancing at the couple
in the gutter one did utter "You can tell a man by the company he
keeps."
The pig got up and walked away.
Spoken like a true puritan.
Post by h***@hotmail.com
You do lie in the gutter with Gastrich, and do his dirty work for
him. You call him brother, after ample demonstrations of his
anti-christian thought and blatant hypocrisy.
Is he your brother?
Yes. Seventy time seven times yes, and more.
He has his faults, as do I, but no-one has been able to show the major
accusations that have been flying around against him, and the best of
them have been exposed as mere trollery.
He has been doing sterling work for the last four weeks in Usenet,
and has handled himself in the main extremely well.
When you bunch back each other up, then why isn't that doing each
other's dirty work?
Hmmmmmmn?
Because it's nothing more than playground rhetoric used to cause
division, that's why.
Save it for your peers.
Uncle Davey
Thanks, brother. God bless you. You're in my prayers.

Sincerely,
Jason
--
--------

Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!

John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."

Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."

ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
Jason Gastrich
2005-01-26 23:23:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Once upon a time, a drunk collapsed in a gutter. Along came a pig and
did lie down in the gutter with the drunk.
A couple of sober individuals walked by, and glancing at the couple in
the gutter one did utter "You can tell a man by the company he keeps."
The pig got up and walked away.
You do lie in the gutter with Gastrich, and do his dirty work for him.
You call him brother, after ample demonstrations of his anti-christian
thought and blatant hypocrisy.
Is he your brother?
Jason Harvestdancer
This is rich coming from a professing witch.

Regards,
Jason
--
--------

Jesus Christ Saves Ministries
http://www.jcsm.org
Over 70,000 web pages!

John 8:36 reads, "Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be
free indeed."

Galatians 5:1 reads, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which
Christ has made us free, and do not be entangled again with a yoke of
bondage."

ICQ#: 20731140
AIM: MrJasonGastrich
YIM: Jesus_Saved_Jason
Uncle Davey
2005-01-26 23:37:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Once upon a time, a drunk collapsed in a gutter. Along came a pig and
did lie down in the gutter with the drunk.
A couple of sober individuals walked by, and glancing at the couple in
the gutter one did utter "You can tell a man by the company he keeps."
The pig got up and walked away.
You do lie in the gutter with Gastrich, and do his dirty work for him.
You call him brother, after ample demonstrations of his anti-christian
thought and blatant hypocrisy.
Is he your brother?
Jason Harvestdancer
This is rich coming from a professing witch.
True.

Davey
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-27 05:48:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once.
But he
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract
everyone.
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Once upon a time, a drunk collapsed in a gutter. Along came a pig and
did lie down in the gutter with the drunk.
A couple of sober individuals walked by, and glancing at the couple in
the gutter one did utter "You can tell a man by the company he keeps."
The pig got up and walked away.
You do lie in the gutter with Gastrich, and do his dirty work for him.
You call him brother, after ample demonstrations of his
anti-christian
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
thought and blatant hypocrisy.
Is he your brother?
This is rich coming from a professing witch.
True.
I understand that every religion considers, at some level, every other
religion to be wrong. My sin, therefore, is in not being a Christian.
I profess a different faith.

However, Jason's sin is in professing a faith and not following
through.

No, it's not "rich". You are both wrong.

Jason Harvestdancer
h***@hotmail.com
2005-01-27 05:46:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Uncle Davey
And in rhyming couplets too.
Gastrich obviously read this thread, he replied in it once. But he
avoids most of it, especially the main thrust of this thread.
Instead he sends his trained attack poodle to distract everyone.
Davey, don't you ever get tired of doing Gastrich's dirty work?
Jason Harvestdancer
He ain't heavy, he's my brother.
Once upon a time, a drunk collapsed in a gutter. Along came a pig and
did lie down in the gutter with the drunk.
A couple of sober individuals walked by, and glancing at the couple in
the gutter one did utter "You can tell a man by the company he keeps."
The pig got up and walked away.
You do lie in the gutter with Gastrich, and do his dirty work for him.
You call him brother, after ample demonstrations of his
anti-christian
Post by Jason Gastrich
Post by h***@hotmail.com
thought and blatant hypocrisy.
Is he your brother?
This is rich coming from a professing witch.
You ducked the question again.

You really do know nothing about witchcraft, do you?

Why do you do so much black magick? While we don't have the same
concept of Sin as you do, if we did then black magick would certainly
be a sin. Yet you indulge so frequently.

Jason Harvestdancer
Rainey
2005-01-20 07:30:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Occultists of all types recognize the essential similarities between
prayer and magick.
I believe, if you have to ask, you won't get a damn thing.
Fuckabuncha prayer.
--
"Does not matter - Need not be"
Tom
2005-01-20 16:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rainey
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Occultists of all types recognize the essential similarities between
prayer and magick.
I believe, if you have to ask, you won't get a damn thing.
Fuckabuncha prayer.
Prayer is not necessarily the same as asking for something.

No matter what you do, whether you say "prayers" or perform "spells", you
always get something. It isn't always what you want, though.

You know this, I suspect.
Rainey
2005-01-20 17:51:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom
Prayer is not necessarily the same as asking for something.
No matter what you do, whether you say "prayers" or perform "spells",
you always get something. It isn't always what you want, though.
You know this, I suspect.
I never liked the connotation of prayer. Praying to some higher power for
help. I mean, if it works for someone else, that's ok. Actually praying has
NEVER worked for me and in fact made me feel more helpless. Instead of
praying, I get off my arse and (do my best to)
make it work.

Yes, Tom, you are completely right. The Stones say it best, "You can't
always get what you want". Even further, that which you need can be
veeeerryyy suprising and sometimes hurtful.
--
"Does not matter - Need not be"
Melkor
2005-01-25 23:41:38 UTC
Permalink
On 18 Jan 2005 09:16:48 -0800, ***@hotmail.com wrote:
Enough, it is finished.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...