In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Perhaps something really bad would have
happened, but the spell prevented it.
Who can ever say?

The specific spell requested could only have resulted in something bad.

OK, fine.

Then possibly something really good was going to happen to you, but the spell
prevented it.

Point is, proving cause and effect or lack thereof is more difficult than
"nothing happened".

Who determines what is a "legitimate" religion
and what isn't? Who *can* determine such a
thing (other than God?)

You just love to ask the "who determines" question, don't you?

It's a very important question.

Especially
when the answer is bloody obvious - like with most other things, people do.
People either decide it's a legitimate religion or not.

Which people?

There have been times and places where religions like Christianity and Judaism
were not "legitimate religions" because "people" said they weren't.

Are the spiritual beliefs of Native Americans "not legitimate"?

A small, fringe,
group of supposed believers don't make a religion legitimate (Hale-Bop's
Heaven's Gate cult, for example), especially when the vast majority believe
it's a load of crap (and I do suspect the vast majority don't really believe
wiccas can actually cast spells, charms, and so on).

I disagree! Popularity is not a basis for such decisions. Ask Galileo about the
validity of the "vast majority"..

Couldn't the same be said of almost all religions
now in existence? Most are based on a book or
series of books written hundreds or thousands
of years ago. (snip)

However, the practices of today's wiccas seem mostly made up from images
and stories in FICTIONAL movies, television, and books, not religious
material and literature written by those who practice that religion. In
other words, since so little is known of the old pagan religions, wiccas
simply 'borrowed' things like black robes, symbols, supposed spells, and so
on, from relatively modern day fiction.

So? Can anyone *prove* that the old books upon whioch many "legitimate"
religions are based are not fictional - or at least partly fictional? Yet
millions believe they are literally true.

There are plenty of people who will argue with you that the earth, sun , solar
system and everything else are no more than a bit over 6000 years old, because
they interpret their Book that way. Is their religion not legitimate?

Would you say the same thing about the power
of prayer, miracles, transubstantiation, and other
central beliefs of modern Christianity?

It is one thing to pray for assistance from a God and quite another to
actually claim to have personal powers to cast spells, charms, and so on.

How are they different?

I
would ask for similar proof from anyone, in any religion, who claimed to
have such powers (any powers).

And what if they can't demonstrate them? Prayers aren't always answered the way
we want, yet the faith of the people praying is not diminished because God's
responses aren't 100% in line with human desires. Does this mean religions that
involve prayer-for-divine-intervention aren't legitimate?

Fine - but then why discriminate between "legitimate"
and "illegitimate" religions?

Words alone do not discriminate, Jim. Nobody has been deprived of anything
by my words.

Sure they have. You divide religions into two groups according to your
judgement.

Would you want your religion, or lack thereof, labeled "not legitimate"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

OK, fine.

Then possibly something really good was
going to happen to you, but the spell
prevented it.


I'm very surprised you would argue this. Do you really believe these
people have the power to cast spells? Witches, spells, charms, and other
such nonsense, are superstitions, not religions.


Which people?

There have been times and places where
religions like Christianity and Judaism
were not "legitimate religions" because
"people" said they weren't.


In those places and those times, perhaps Christianity and Judaism were not
legitimate religions for those people. Religions are people, Jim. One cannot
exist without the other. Therefore, people are the only ones who can
possibly decide what is and what is not a legitimate religion. If that is
not going to be the case, if people cannot decide for themselves which is
and which isn't a ligitimate religion, exactly who or what would you suggest
should - an empty courtroom without people?

Or, to get back to your specific question, if the people of those times
and places didn't believe in, or accept, Christianity or Judaism, why should
they be judged negatively for that? They have just as much right to believe
in, or not believe in, what they want as Christians or Jews do.


Are the spiritual beliefs of Native Americans
"not legitimate"?


Not for me. Those beliefs might be legitimate for someone else. But,
beyond their right to practice those beliefs, why should I have any interest
whatsoever? None of it becomes an issue for me until it is advocated towards
me and others. At that point, I have a right to participate in the
discussion - including a right to say it is hogwash.


I disagree! Popularity is not a basis for such
decisions. Ask Galileo about the validity of
the "vast majority"..


So, again, what is the basis for such decisions? If people cannot do so,
exactly who or what should decide?


So? Can anyone *prove* that the old books
upon whioch many "legitimate" religions are
based are not fictional - or at least partly
fictional? Yet millions believe they are literally
true.


Religious material and literature written by those who practice a religion
are certainly more far more legitimate than images and stories from
fictional movies, television, and books. I'm not saying mainstream religious
material and literature is accurate or truthful, just far more legitimate as
far as religion is concerned. When a religion's material and literature can
only be traced back to cult figures (using fictional movies, television, and
books as a basis, such as with the wiccas), it does lack credibility as far
as I'm concerned.


How are they different?


I've already answered that - people from most ligitimate religions don't
claim to have personal powers, especially powers they can't prove when asked
to do so. As I've said before, I would ask for similar proof from anyone, in
any religion, who claimed to have such powers (any powers).


Sure they have. You divide religions into
two groups according to your judgement.


According to the dictionary, discrimination is the "unfair treatment of a
person or group on the basis of prejudice." Since no "treatment of a person
or group" is involved, words cannot discriminate in this sense. Prejudice is
also not involved. Instead, I've researched a subject and formed an opinion.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/