Graeme Bailey wrote:
> No. In your assessment, paganism cannot be accused of having
> any firm convictions about individual sin
> and consequent inevitable divine judgement...
> no objective universal right and wrong,
> no absolute standards of good and evil....
And why is this necessary for it to be a better religion than
Christianity? And if it had, but different ones from Christianity? Which
one would be 'better' then?
> so the use of the word 'better' would be a value judgement based
> on romanticism rather than facts...
> not on evaluating what is 'truly' and 'universally' good?
And how do you evaluate what is 'truly' and 'universally' good? Except
of course because you believe you know? Tell me facts! Facts that
document that Christianity tells us what is 'universally' and 'truly'
> >> <...>
> >> >Tell me, without resorting to christian moral vitues, what is bad with
> >> >killing a kid?
> I find it unbelievable that you could be serious :-)
Again, you've avoided to answer my question. Please answer my question,
don't tell me that I can't be serious!
> >No, I'm not teasing you. What universally true reason does exist not to
> >kill somebody? Don't try to evade the question, answer it!
> You must answer to God for what you truly believe...
> in your heart of hearts you know that killing is not right.
No, I don't. Actually, if somebody comes to me and tries to kill me, I
thing it is very right to defend myself, and if, for this selfdefense,
it is necessary to kill the one who is trying to kill me I think it is
quite ok if I do so. The same applies if this killer attacks my family,
friends or innocent persons, actually, if he tries to kill anybody.
> >> Doesn't your heart or your conscience say something if
> >> your reasoning processes have become tired or jaded?
> >What's your point? My reasoning processes seem to be quite fine and ok,
> Actually you missed the point... I said above that you should
> listen to your *heart* or your *conscience*,
> ie something deeper and more
> real than just philosophy or reason alone.....
Well, your statement seemed to imply that my reasoning processes have
become tired or jaded, and I tell you that they don't. And I've listened
to my heart, and have no reason to assume that it is something deeper or
more real than my mind - it's something different!
> I hope you get married soon, and have some beautiful
> children of your own, and start to understand the real world :-)
Oh thank you, once again somebody claiming that I should start to
understand the real world - believe me, I try, but my attempts always
point me in another direction than you want me to go. And thank's for
the good wishes, but I'm quite happy with the woman I live with for
quite a while (actually, longer than 50% of the marriages last here in
Austria), even though we are not married.
> >> >In fact, wouldn't it have been better had Adolf Hitler been killed as a
> >> >kid?
> >> Adolf wouldn't have got very far *on his own*?
> >So what? Ok, expand the example to him and his immediate helpers.
> >Wouldn't it have been better if those had been killed as a kid? Again,
> >don't evade the question, answer it.
> No, it would have been better if society had become more
> *intolerant* of some ideas...
Ah, yes, this is the real issue - to be intolerant against some ideas,
because we know what is right! Exactly what every dictator and opressor
> >Isn't it depending on the situation if killing a human is acceptable or
> >not? We can expand the example - what would you say if sombody threatens
> >to blow up a bomb that would devastate a certain area, killing and
> >maiming many, and already has the finger on the trigger - is it ok to
> >kill this person, so that he can't blow up the bomb?
> Why is this person in this state? Poverty, hate, fear?
> I don't think all decisions are easy in this world,
> and each person has to think these things through...
> some would still try to choose a non-violence way if possible...
I never said that one should not try non-violent methods oif possible -
but what if they don't work? Is it better not to kill him and thus
sacrifice many innocent lives? Let hundreds be killed, only to refrain
from killing yourself? Is not your decision not to act, not to stop the
potential killer with all necessary force if you could, the same if you
yourself would have killed those innocents? Would it not be much better
to sacrifice your place in paradise to save their lives by killing the
> Perhaps governments all over the world could
> reduce crime through addressing the real problems of the
> world, as pointed out in the emails about world population.
Ah, so it's the government that is responsible! No blame on you, had the
government done the right thing in time this and that would not have
happened. How easy an excuse!
> For instance, in the second or third century in France
> (I know France didn't exist then Raimund :-)
> even the church silver was sold by at least one enlightened
> individual to feed the poor...
So what? In Austria, we have a public welfare system that feeds the
poor! Still, crimes happen, and even though Austria is a safe country,
we still have at least one murder a day!
> >Well, do you know this? Wherefrom? Perhaps by praying to a fertility
> >godess/god, your crops would grow grow better. Perhaps to win a war,
> >praying to a god of war helps. And who ever said that human sacrifices
> >were made for fun?
> My advice, young man, is stay in academia...
> I just hope when you get a real job in the world
> it isn't in politics, in agriculture or the military :-)
Again, thanks for the advice! As you might already know from one of my
other mails in this thread, I've choosen to do surrogate service instead
of joining the military (for which we have general male subscription in
Austria), working for the Austrian Red Cross (and this for 150% of the
time I would have needed to go to the military) - <emphasis> because I
don't want to kill people, because I do think it is wrong to kill on
command <end emphasis>. But I do not believe that this is universally
> >Wherefrom do you know that it is really true that pleasing such pagan
> >gods would have no effects? Did you make any experiments? Do you have
> >any documentation? No! You simply believe that it would have no effect!
> Are you planning these experiments, Raimund?
I never said. I just wanted to know why you can be so sure! What facts
do you have that it has no effect? None! Thus, your claim is only based
on your belief, not on any facts - which is what I am critizising all
the time! You do want to believe it's true, and therefore it has to be
> >And even if it had no effect, it would be as much murder as capital
> >punishment is, or killing the criminal threatening to kill your wife -
> >if you believe it is necessary to protect somebody or something that is
> >dear to you from harm, it is ok to you.
> For the love of God, no! It is not the same...
Of course it is. If somebody comes to kill you, would you let him have
his way? Really? Ask yourself, if he would try to kill your children,
would you really let him? I don't think so, and if you do, why is
sacrificing the life of your children in the name of your religion any
better than human sacrifices are in Pagan religion?
> you have no reason to experiment with increased crop yields
> with some poor immigrant's life...
I have never said I would. Read the above!
> (I assume you would use immigrants, not your own people? :-)
Leave the smiley away if you don't mean it! Why do you think I would use
immigrants? Do you think I am a racist? A fascist? Actually, the
sentence alone is a incredible insult!
> >Again, I do think that many actions of Genghis Khan were crimes of war,
> >but I do not think that, based on this, he can be as simply and easily
> >condemned as you did - stating that he was nothing but evil!
> Give me an example of one thing he did that was good...
> and what did he go to war for? To conquer the world!
> Familiar subject? Why do people *want* to rule the world?
I don't know, you seem to be the expert on it. You claim that your ideas
are universally true and that therefore everybody should believe in them
as you do. And you obviously want other opinions supressed, why else
would you want paganism to not be revived, not to be allowed?
No doubt Ghengis Khan did a lot of good things for his followers, for
instance - and be it alone that he conquered areas for them where they
had much better living conditions than they had had in Mongolia.
> >Well, I'm gonna think with my mind and you're gonna think with yours,
> >and if we think about the same thing we might come to different
> Not necessarily, you might 'come to your senses'
> and see that you are too easy-going about these things...
> some things are definitely evil...
Ah, this is the crux of the matter. It's that I am senseless, and you
know the truth - and there's no doubt to that! There exists not the
slightest possibility that I could be right!
> I honestly hope you never experience
> or become the victim of murder, rape, torture,
Have you? I have seen quite a lot of victims and know quite a lot of
them from personal contact - after all, I live only a few hundred miles
from an area where, during the last 10 years, 4 armed conflicts were
fought, and only last week met another 140 Albanian refugees from the
Kosovo. Actually, they don't think it was ok that there parents or
children were killed, their women raped, that they were tortured, and
all were extremely thankful that the NATO fought the Serbians to prevent
But after all, what does this have to do with the matter in question?
Would you want me to take on me murder, rape, torture, mutiliation or
anything the like without defending myself?
> >Now as we might come to different results, how do we decide
> >who is right and who is wrong? If I say yes and you say no, how do we
> >know who is right?
> Go and ask a few more people, seek what is true, right and good,
> and you will find it... :-)
If I ask people, I will only get other opinions than mine, but never
truth! And if I ask a hundred persons, I most probably will get one
hundred different answers. This is how this world works - we only have
limited perception of reality, and even if we had truth, there's no way
to positivly proof it. Thus, we always should allow the possibility that
our own opinion might be wrong - something which you are, however, not
willing to do!
> >Or is it then that you are right and I am wrong?
> Yes :-)
Again, leave the smiley away if you don't mean it. This is the point of
all your messages after all, that you are right, and everybody who is of
a different opinion is either blinded by Satan, evil himself, or simply
> >You have not for a
> >second considered the possibility that you might be wrong, at least not
> >from what I can say. And that is something I think to be wrong!
> This is where your argument falls...
Not at all!
> I have received from my Christianity a set of 'values'
> and so I *can* believe that some things are 'wrong'...
> in your opinion there is no possibility of an objective
> 'right' and 'wrong'
Oh yes? Tell me, where do you get the objectivity from? Why is your
opinion superior to mine?
In difference to you, I do not think to have truth, but I do know how to
interpret facts. Opinions that do fit with the facts are what I would
call right, and opinions that don't is what I would call wrong. Opinions
based on no fact at all are something that can't be discussed - one can
believe them, or not, but they can't be evaluated against evidence.
> so why do you call me 'wrong'?
Because most of what you write is against the facts, at least in regard
to Celtic religion and various pagan religions.
However, I don't say you are wrong necessarily with your opinion on
christianity, only that you might be wrong - but this alone is beyond
your ability to accept!
RAY - Mag.phil. Raimund KARL
Universität Wien, Institut für Ur- und Frühgeschichte
A-1190 Wien, Franz Klein Gasse 1
E-Mail: <[log in to unmask]>
Visit the Celtic-L Resources Page at
Privat: A-1120 Wien, Hasenhutgasse 7-11/9/4
Tel/AB/Fax: (+43 1) 8103629 oder mobil: (+43 676) 3048830