"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/