Messages From Nancy Ferguson
1 - 20 of 188

JB, Re: Shelby Sherman
of Actually, a male practitioner of Wicca is a male witch. "Warlock" notes one as an "oathbreaker". Just as a Christian is a Christian, be they male or female, a Wiccan is a Wiccan. Take Care, it's a kind of MAGIC OLX 2.2 TD Too much love will kill you...

JB, Re: Shelby Sherman
I would ask whether it was "without objection" or rather just a case of being easier to just agree. Since I doubt that our ages are all that far apart, I would tend to think it was simple agreement. Many pagans *still* feel there is intolerance for their belief systems; how much more so would they have felt in prior eras? To explain a word such as "warlock" would have perhaps left one open to further questions on the need

JB, RE: Warlocks
But, the origins of the word itself should tell you that it originally meant "oath breaker", regardless of the modern or medieval "authority". The explanation I have heard (and no--I have no references to back it up) is that it was used to refer to those, primarily men, who "broke their oaths" with the Christian church. A logical deduction then, as with many now, would be that such oath breakers were in league with the "devil". Witches were in league

S. Sherman, RE: Queen
Be nice...<BG>...I just got here last week and I'd hate to think I started any dissention (sp). Take Care, n. OLX 2.2 TD Can't you see...I'm Mr. Mercury....

Mr. Boehme, RE: Goldfish
a sta As opposed to *me*, who will take a stand on nearly everything -except- the evolution/creation debate...simply cuz, I don't care. I'm far more concerned with, "Now that we're here, what are we doing?" I will say though that, from my observations, evolutionists do seem to carry their arguments through to *my* concerns. The creationists I've read seem to argue the past just for the sake of arguing with no thought for "Where do we go from here?"...like they're

RE: Funny Show Indeed!
I have stayed away from this discussion because, personally, I don't care about the various "hows" of existence--I'm far more concerned with the "whys" and the "what're we gonna do about its". However, I would like to point out that it is obvious that you have not partici- pated in a formal debate. If you had, you would know that most debates *are* won by those with "canny stage presence" who present their evidence clearly and persuasively REGARDLESS of whether

RE: Go ahead
You said: Depending upon your sources, that may not be quite true. YHWH, the tribal God of the Israelites, was originally called "El"--a name that is still honored in names like Beth-El and Isra-El. As "El", He did have a consort and they had children, one of whom was Baal...later slain by El. Afterwards, He went to court and had His name legally changed to YHWH, whereupon He found it necessary to kill another son. For the whole story, try

RE: Go ahead
Yes, I'm a new visitor here...but, I always try to be polite because if I'm not, I tend to get a little--um, shall we be polite and say "ugly". Civility helps me to maintain my equilibrium. Actually, I figure said Consort filed for divorce after the son-killing episode. She's probably still receiving a maintenence allowance...when you're a Goddess, retraining has got to be tough. Well, I guess that's *his* problem. You can't truly know what you believe unless you know

Mr. Saus, RE: Staal kids
just. Thank you for pointing this out. The United States, regardless of the fact that there is a "Dept. of Justice", does not have a justice system; it has a "legal" system--a court-based system. At some point, I hope people will realize that all this means is that the conse- quences given by the court are those that are "legal" and have a basis in legislation, on either a federal, state, or local level. There is no requirement that "justice"

RE: Ark Quality.
Considerably more, actually. According to Genesis 7 and 8: 40 days of rain 150 days that water maintained their crest 150 days for water to recede and the ark to rest on Urartu 40 days before Noah sent out a raven and dove (no time frame given for flying time) 7 days before he sent out another dove 7 days and he sent another that didn't return for a total of 394 days. Elsewhere, it says that the flood lasted

RE: pagans and sides
it mu have Only in the very broadest sense--as in "all powers that a person has come from *whatever*"... Born with it... the Only if one believes in "supernatural beings" being the source of one's entire scope of powers and abilities. It may just be a case of one having "psychic" or "telekinetic" abilities just as some are artistic or musical...just a different portion of the brain being utilized. May I disagree? The fact that something may be outside of

Mr. Young, RE: Illuminati
Maso Which theory??? The theory that *I* heard is that the "Freemasons" were originally made up of the Knights Templar and/or their descend- ents. (Who, by the way were Gnostics for the most part, not your typical Triune God Christians). The Freemason organization offered them a way to further the Templar agenda within the bounds of society after the disbandment of the Knights Templar by the Pope. *IF* one believes in the Illuminati in the first place, then the Freemason

Mr. Young, RE: Stuff
th I think that, in order to continue this discussion, we really need to clarify the definitions that we are using. While you seem to be using "of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible, observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a God, demi-God, spirit, or devil", I use "departing from what is usual or normal esp. so as to *appear* to transcend the laws of nature". With your definition, a "God" (the power

Mr. Young, RE: Stuff 2
is a that it the This does make sense *IF* we confine the definitions of "terrestrial", "extraterrestrial", "supernatural", and "celestial" to the religious definitions. In using the secular definitions however, the same conclusions cannot be made. IMO, the word "supernatural" is not even the appropriate word to use within the religious arena; "supra-natural" would be a better choice, "that which transcends the natural". Take Care, n. OLX 2.2 TD Just waitin' for the Hammer To Fall

Mr. Smith, RE:Definitions
Not me! I've already had the B&B talk with my three sons, all of whom are hormonally impaired right now...Let someone else try it. Although, I admit I was made uncomfortable at the thought of my belly button being bored with a tool. To be fair, I don't think it's so much a "redefining" of terms as it is the failure to start with mutually agreed upon definitions in the first place. If one wishes to have a secular/science/humanistic discussion

Mr. Young, RE: adjectives
reality This is what I mean about definitions and word usage. "Terrestrial" and "extraterrestrial" are adjectives. As such, they need something to be related. Mr. Schneider was perfectly correct in pointing out that the moon is extraterrestrial. If, in your comments, you were referring to "extraterrestrial *beings*, then it should have been noted as such. Simply because an exterrestrial being, rock, plant or whatever is not from earth does not make it "more than natural", just perhaps outside the realm

Mr. Staal, RE: Christnazi
And your justification is....???? Was it not the J/C/I who wrote: "Thou shalt not kill ("murder", in some translations)? Maybe the qualifiers aren't in *my* Bibles...would you care to share them? The Christ was a very pacific individual--other than the Temple incident...at least according to those portions of the Bible to which ordinary individuals have access. Take Care, n. OLX 2.2 TD I've paid my dues...time after time

Mr. Staal, RE: Evaded
do the You replied: It's interesting that you haven't mentioned though that, on I-75, between Monroe and the Ohio line there is a rest area off the northbound lanes, that was closed for several years because of the problems they were having there. It was alternately called "Hooker Heaven" or "Whore Haven". This was a *heterosexual* problem...far more common at rest areas (especially those that cater to semi's) than any homosexual "problems". Although you may not consider this a prob-

Mr. Smith, RE: Ideas
Dear Mr. Smith, I must tell you that I do enjoy our "discussions". You've shown yourself to be a witty and insightful individual who's given me much to think about in our short acquaintance...you've also made me far more conscious of my spelling, punctuation, and grammer than I *ever* was. Anyhoo, you said: By 25, I would expect that one would have a more logical and consistent thought process *unless* there are mitigating circum- stances....like being raised within a fundamental

Mr. Staal,
to No, it doesn't. What the Christ *does* say is something along the lines of "Turn the other cheek"....nor did *that* come with qualifiers...like "Except for when you're really ticked off" or "Except for when you feel your life is threatened". in Well, even back when I was a Christian, I was a Gnostic...so, I believe that *HUMAN* nature was all that the Christ had. And, think of it, He was willing to die for *you* and your sins yet,