WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingabouttheplace,

You claimed that religious claims were based on dishonesty.

Another straw man - I claimed no such thing. What I do "claim" though is that your behaviour here is deeply dishonest - you just ignore arguments you don't like but can't rebut; you endlessly misrepresent your interlocutors; you cling to your misunderstandings as a man clings to a plutonium parachute no matter how often those misunderstandings are explained to you.

And that's a very different thing.

That's not to say that some religious claims are not dishonest of course - look at the Chaucerian frauds who masquerade as TV evangelists in the US to demand money from the frightened and the gullible for example - but that's a different matter.   

Let me state this for you clearly Hillside. Neither you nor I can ''prove'' our core beliefs. That is why we have the word belief.

Oh dear. It's back to Epistemology 101 for you I'm afraid. Of course we all rely ultimately on axioms for our beliefs, but once you accept them - that you exist at all for example - then you have a model to contextualise the way the Universe at least appears to be. Within that context we can for example assign a high probability to light travelling at 186,000 miles per second and so we call that a "fact". We cannot though assign a high probability to Stan the Stork delivering babies, so we call that a "conjecture" or a "guess".

And your claims about a god are in the second category, not the first. And if you insist otherwise on the basis of your various broken arguments ("I intuit it" for example) then you have no choice but to let Stan under the wire too.

Apart from that though...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingabouttheplace,

You claimed that religious claims were based on dishonesty.

Another straw man - I claimed no such thing.

Let's see.


Quote from: bluehillside on Today at 09:39:57 AM

''what some of us object to though is the deep irrationality and dishonesty on which your claims rest................''

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingabout,

Let's see.


Quote from: bluehillside on Today at 09:39:57 AM

''what some of us object to though is the deep irrationality and dishonesty on which your claims rest................''

Quite. Which bit of the word "your" is confusing you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingabout,

Let's see.


Quote from: bluehillside on Today at 09:39:57 AM

''what some of us object to though is the deep irrationality and dishonesty on which your claims rest................''

Quite. Which bit of the word "your" is confusing you?

Yes, but how are my claims different from orthodox mainstream Christianity?

You see you have made a generic fallacy.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingabout,

Yes, but how are my claims different from orthodox mainstream Christianity?

No idea - I've yet to see any two Christians agree on all the particulars about their beliefs, but for all I know your beliefs may well be in line with the broad consensus. That though has nothing to do with the point - namely that you use deep dishonesty of the types I've described on which to rest your claims.

Now for all I know not all Christians do that - maybe some of them are just honestly mistaken for example, and maybe even some of them have arguments that aren't full of holes. Who can say, but my comment was very clearly centred on the deep dishonesty on which you - Vlad - rest your claims.

You see you have made a generic fallacy.

You see, I haven't. You have though posted yet another straw man.

Coda: for what it's worth, I don't think that you're lying when you tell us that you believe in your god. So far as I can tell you actually mean it, however wrongheaded others may think you to be about that. Your dishonesty though is all about how you conduct yourself when others ask you questions, rebut your arguments etc. Ignoring them, misrepresenting them with straw men, throwing abuse and insult around are all forms of dishonesty - and that's all that's being said here. Alan Burns for example I also think to be truthful in his beliefs, albeit that he's lost in a hopeless whirl of irrationality and factual mistake to get him there, but he doesn't also indulge in dishonest behaviours of this type.   

[floo]

This forum is a good example of Christian believers having very different takes on their faith; they certainly don't all sing from the same hymn sheet by any means.

If having a faith does it for a person that is fine always providing it is measured, questioning, and not a cause of harm to that person or others.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingabout,

Yes, but how are my claims different from orthodox mainstream Christianity?

No idea - I've yet to see any two Christians agree on all the particulars about their beliefs, but for all I know your beliefs may well be in line with the broad consensus. That though has nothing to do with the point - namely that you use deep dishonesty of the types I've described on which to rest your claims.

Now for all I know not all Christians do that - maybe some of them are just honestly mistaken for example, and maybe even some of them have arguments that aren't full of holes. Who can say, but my comment was very clearly centred on the deep dishonesty on which you - Vlad - rest your claims.

You see you have made a generic fallacy.

You see, I haven't. You have though posted yet another straw man.

Coda: for what it's worth, I don't think that you're lying when you tell us that you believe in your god. So far as I can tell you actually mean it, however wrongheaded others may think you to be about that. Your dishonesty though is all about how you conduct yourself when others ask you questions, rebut your arguments etc. Ignoring them, misrepresenting them with straw men, throwing abuse and insult around are all forms of dishonesty - and that's all that's being said here. Alan Burns for example I also think to be truthful in his beliefs, albeit that he's lost in a hopeless whirl of irrationality and factual mistake to get him there, but he doesn't also indulge in dishonest behaviours of this type.

If people were not philosophical materialist or naturalist around here I might be misrepresenting them.....but they are.

Calling me ''Vlunderingabout'' doesn't help you in any appeal against throwing abuse and insult. Neither does hyperbolic, patronising and blanket dismissal like that you have thrown at Alan Burns ''he's lost in a hopeless whirl of irrationality and factual mistake''.

[ippy]

I asked that because it is clear from some of the things thrown out on this forum that some believers have changed the truth and substituted others.

As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.

                                       "WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus"?

                       Nothing, because it's never happened or is it very likely to happen.

                                                              Next question?

ippy

Could you believe that because you cherry pick the things you take in when reading?

As the bible warns against putting burdens on others I thought I would ask
what the believers actually believe saves them.

Yes, Ippy you are free to ask but not qualified to answer.

If you have evidence to support what you say that would be very nice.
But if you haven't wouldn't it be best to learn why others believe then try and disprove the words of Christ.

Thank you for the suggestions but isn't asking non-believers to prove a negative, the equivalent  of, "shut up" and that's not very nice of you.

You are totally unable to accept that there is not a single piece of credible evidence that would support the superstitious, mythical or magical parts your manual that without them the whole of the book falls apart.

Every time these facts are put to you you either don't answer or start quoting reams of text from the very book that you are unable to verify as factual in the first place.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingaboutlikeaproverbialbullinachinashop,

If people were not philosophical materialist or naturalist around here I might be misrepresenting them.....but they are.

No they're not. When will you finally realise what a crock this PM bullshit is? Yet again - some of us find your claims about "God" to be more probably not true than true for exactly the same reason that you find stork theory to be more probably not true than true. Neither of us need rely on PM for our conclusions, each of us accept that theoretically at least the other could be correct, but each of us conclude too both that the complete absence definitions gives us nothing with which to engage and, even even if we took the others' claimed characteristics about our beliefs at face value for definitional purposes, the total absence of a method of any kind to distinguish our claims from just guessing about stuff means that we can safely discount each others' beliefs.

I have no hope whatever that you'll finally grasp this, but there it is nonetheless. After all your countless straw men, stupidities, misunderstood terms, evasions and abuse you are STILL left with your ludicrous PM schtick all over the floor. 

Calling me ''Vlunderingabout'' doesn't help you in any appeal against throwing abuse and insult.

Yes it does. Stop just ignoring arguments you can't rebut, misrepresenting every argument you think you do comprehend, and throwing abuse at anyone who disagrees with you and I'll stop using the term.

Seems fair enough to me.

Neither does hyperbolic, patronising and blanket dismissal like that you have thrown at Alan Burns ''he's lost in a hopeless whirl of irrationality and factual mistake''.

A fair point if he wasn't lost in a hopeless whirl of irrationality and factual mistake, but unfortunately...

...have you even seen his responses to the people who trouble to explain evolution theory to him for example?   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingaboutlikeaproverbialbullinachinashop,

If people were not philosophical materialist or naturalist around here I might be misrepresenting them.....but they are.

No they're not. When will you finally realise what a crock this PM bullshit is?

At last.......an admission from Bluehillside that his core belief is bullshit......My work here is done.

[Sassy]

I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.

What stands out is the words from God:-

Psalm 14:1 (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.

Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.

Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.

[floo]

I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.

What stands out is the words from God:-

Psalm 14:1 (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.

Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.

Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.

And your posts have credibility do they Sass? You have no more knowledge of the elusive, 'TRUTH' than us heathen. To claim you have in an untruth!

[Owlswing]

I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.

What stands out is the words from God:-

Psalm 14:1 (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.

Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.

Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.

Sassy

Really!

You are spouting, in my particular case, the same venom that led to the murders of tens of thousands as witches in the 14th to 17th centuries.

You are entitled to what you perceive as the truth ot the Truth, others are equally entitled to reject it. You accept your Truth because you are too terrified of the consequences of rejecting it - I can reject your truth because I have no fear whatsoever of punishment for doing so.

Your god, to you, is a loving entity of total perfection, to me he is a vicious sadistic mysogynistic tyrant; my deities, male and female, hence no mysogyny, are not perfect as they have the same emotions as us mere mortals, they are, therefore, far more understnding of our little peccadiloes.

I have stated before that, as I am concerned, you can believe just what you like, I do not have to agree with it and, unsurprisingly, I do not agree with it.

You, and others like you, I regret to say, and here is where we diverge, you do not and will not allow me the same freedom of thought and continue to condemn my beliefs and railing against me when I do the same to yours!

Unless and until someone known to an trusted by me, provable to be that someone to the n^th degree, returns from the dead and tells me that my beliefs are wrong I will continue in them. I wish that I could believe that if you had the same experience you would acknowledge your error but I have no doubt whatsoever that you would reject even that!       

[OH MY WORLD!]

Oh good grief here we have floo writing about credibility and Matty wailing about the witch hunts in the days of yore.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2SvBBckJik

[floo]

I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.

What stands out is the words from God:-

Psalm 14:1 (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.

Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.

Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.

Sassy

Really!

You are spouting, in my particular case, the same venom that led to the murders of tens of thousands as witches in the 14th to 17th centuries.

You are entitled to what you perceive as the truth ot the Truth, others are equally entitled to reject it. You accept your Truth because you are too terrified of the consequences of rejecting it - I can reject your truth because I have no fear whatsoever of punishment for doing so.

Your god, to you, is a loving entity of total perfection, to me he is a vicious sadistic mysogynistic tyrant; my deities, male and female, hence no mysogyny, are not perfect as they have the same emotions as us mere mortals, they are, therefore, far more understnding of our little peccadiloes.

I have stated before that, as I am concerned, you can believe just what you like, I do not have to agree with it and, unsurprisingly, I do not agree with it.

You, and others like you, I regret to say, and here is where we diverge, you do not and will not allow me the same freedom of thought and continue to condemn my beliefs and railing against me when I do the same to yours!

Unless and until someone known to an trusted by me, provable to be that someone to the n^th degree, returns from the dead and tells me that my beliefs are wrong I will continue in them. I wish that I could believe that if you had the same experience you would acknowledge your error but I have no doubt whatsoever that you would reject even that!       

Good post. As you say unsubstantiated beliefs can lead to appalling crimes like the burning of witches, and other dastardly deeds.

BTW I bought a new witch's broomstick yesterday and personalised it with a glitter it looks really nice!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingabout,

Wow! I wrote: “Stop just ignoring arguments you can't rebut, misrepresenting every argument you think you do comprehend...” and you replied with:

At last.......an admission from Bluehillside that his core belief is bullshit......My work here is done.

When we both knew that I meant your PM bullshit argument. I even took the trouble to tell you in the next sentence why your argument about PM is bullshit!

Uncanny eh? Do you think I might have the power of prophecy or something? Look, I’ll set it out even more plainly for you:

"No they're not. When will you finally realise what a crock YOUR PM bullshit ARGUMENT is? Yet again - some of us find your claims about "God" to be more probably not true than true for exactly the same reason that you find stork theory to be more probably not true than true. Neither of us need rely on PM for our conclusions, each of us accept that theoretically at least the other could be correct, but each of us conclude too both that the complete absence definitions gives us nothing with which to engage and, even if we took the other’s claimed characteristics about our beliefs at face value for definitional purposes, the total absence of a method of any kind to distinguish our claims from just guessing about stuff means that we can safely discount each others' beliefs.

I have no hope whatever that you'll finally grasp this, but there it is nonetheless. After all your countless straw men, stupidities, misunderstood terms, evasions and abuse you are STILL left with your ludicrous PM schtick all over the floor.” 

You're welcome.
 
Oh hang on – I feel another prophecy coming on…

...yup, here it comes: I hereby predict that yet again Vlad the Blunderer will either just ignore this rebuttal to his argument or will so hopelessly misrepresent it that his straw man version will need a postcode of its own.

Let’s see shall we?

Why exactly do you reject my stork belief?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have to laugh that Owl and bhs THINK that being in agreement with Floo actually carries any weight to their diabolical posts.
Truth is they think they can somehow tell God, that he is wrong about his own teachings, reinvent Jesus Christ and know more than Christians who have actually read the bible.

What stands out is the words from God:-

Psalm 14:1 (KJV)

14 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

It seems Gods words say it better than any believer could about OWL, BHS and FLOO.

Fools because they have said there is no God in their heart. Even more foolish that they believe their writings (part of their works) which are basically insults constitute an argument in support of their disbelief.
You can insult me all you want but there is no escaping the truth. You don't have an intelligent or educated argument between you.

Carry on... show yourselves up all you want. Hide behind your ignorance because that is all your posts actually show.
You cannot argue against the word of God because none of you actually know it.

Sassy

Really!

You are spouting, in my particular case, the same venom that led to the murders of tens of thousands as witches in the 14th to 17th centuries.

You are entitled to what you perceive as the truth ot the Truth, others are equally entitled to reject it. You accept your Truth because you are too terrified of the consequences of rejecting it - I can reject your truth because I have no fear whatsoever of punishment for doing so.

Your god, to you, is a loving entity of total perfection, to me he is a vicious sadistic mysogynistic tyrant; my deities, male and female, hence no mysogyny, are not perfect as they have the same emotions as us mere mortals, they are, therefore, far more understnding of our little peccadiloes.

I have stated before that, as I am concerned, you can believe just what you like, I do not have to agree with it and, unsurprisingly, I do not agree with it.

You, and others like you, I regret to say, and here is where we diverge, you do not and will not allow me the same freedom of thought and continue to condemn my beliefs and railing against me when I do the same to yours!

Unless and until someone known to an trusted by me, provable to be that someone to the n^th degree, returns from the dead and tells me that my beliefs are wrong I will continue in them. I wish that I could believe that if you had the same experience you would acknowledge your error but I have no doubt whatsoever that you would reject even that!       

Good post. As you say unsubstantiated beliefs can lead to appalling crimes like the burning of witches, and other dastardly deeds.

BTW I bought a new witch's broomstick yesterday and personalised it with a glitter it looks really nice!

But Owlswings gods and goddesses do not exist. Owlswing has said as much and atheists are happy that that, as far as pagans are concerned, is the case.
The only God Owlswing treats as though he exists is the God of Christianity.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlunderingabout,

But Owlswings gods and goddesses do not exist.

How would you - or anyone else - know that?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingabout,

Wow! I wrote: “Stop just ignoring arguments you can't rebut, misrepresenting every argument you think you do comprehend...” and you replied with:

At last.......an admission from Bluehillside that his core belief is bullshit......My work here is done.

When we both knew that I meant your PM bullshit argument. I even took the trouble to tell you in the next sentence why your argument about PM is bullshit!

Uncanny eh? Do you think I might have the power of prophecy or something? Look, I’ll set it out even more plainly for you:

"No they're not. When will you finally realise what a crock YOUR PM bullshit ARGUMENT is? Yet again - some of us find your claims about "God" to be more probably not true than true for exactly the same reason that you find stork theory to be more probably not true than true. Neither of us need rely on PM for our conclusions, each of us accept that theoretically at least the other could be correct, but each of us conclude too both that the complete absence definitions gives us nothing with which to engage and, even if we took the other’s claimed characteristics about our beliefs at face value for definitional purposes, the total absence of a method of any kind to distinguish our claims from just guessing about stuff means that we can safely discount each others' beliefs.

I have no hope whatever that you'll finally grasp this, but there it is nonetheless. After all your countless straw men, stupidities, misunderstood terms, evasions and abuse you are STILL left with your ludicrous PM schtick all over the floor.” 

You're welcome.
 
Oh hang on – I feel another prophecy coming on…

...yup, here it comes: I hereby predict that yet again Vlad the Blunderer will either just ignore this rebuttal to his argument or will so hopelessly misrepresent it that his straw man version will need a postcode of its own.

Let’s see shall we?

Why exactly do you reject my stork belief?

What arguments cannot be rebutted?

As far as yours are concerned my greatest joy is when Nearly Sane pulls you up whenever you claim that methodological materialism backs up your core beliefs.

Then there is the matter of you trying to avoid categorisation of your core beliefs.''I'm not a philosophical materialist'' and then you are because '' Vlad cannot possibly understand my philosophical materialism.

All that means is that you want the inquisitorial role.

Here are our objections to you Hillside.

Your definitions -Non standard, self generated and fluid.

Your categorisation-wrong in many cases.

Your moral philosophy- a mere act of labelling.

Your Zeitgeist hypotheses- debateable and wooly.

Your Ad hominems.

Your appeal to science as the basis of your core beliefs-it isn't- and from which we can draw your adherence to the science vs religion schtick.

[Owlswing]

. . . I bought a new witch's broomstick yesterday and personalised it with a glitter it looks really nice!

Hmm. Question - is it all plastic? If "yes" - it is NOT a witch's broomstick - it is what a toy manufacturer thinks that a witch's broomstick looks like.

If it is not ythe the handle cannot be made of bamboo cane. It must be made of a solid length of wood, a branch or even a broomstick. The bristles should be made of springy twigs.

The broom has a couple of uses.

The first is the one that gave rise to the fallacy that witches rode on a broomstick. What actually happened was that, as part of a ritual to encourage the growth of crops, a witch would sit astride her broomstick and leap into the air - the level the broomstick reached indicating, in a form of sympathetic magic, to the crop how high it was required to grow.

Fallacy two comes into play when it was used in a fertility ritual.

Witches were perfectly aware that it took two to make a baby, male and female. In fertility rituals the broom was "ridden" with the bristles forward. The reason for this was (is, the ritual can still be performed if requested - and it is) the requirement for both sexes; the witch representing the female and the broomstick the male. How? Simple! Any real witches broomstick handle has the end that is buried within the twigs of the broom carved into the shape of the male penis. Thus in a fertility ritual the witch was able to bring both sexes to the ritual.   

[Owlswing]

But Owlswings gods and goddesses do not exist. Owlswing has said as much and atheists are happy that that, as far as pagans are concerned, is the case.

The only God Owlswing treats as though he exists is the God of Christianity.

My deities, male and female do exist, in exactly the same way as your god exists.

IN YOUR BELIEF, YOUR FAITH. IN MY BELIEF, IN MY FAITH.

You can no more provide solid verifiable proof that your deity exists andwhere outside your faith than I can do the same for mine!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlunderingabout,

But Owlswings gods and goddesses do not exist.

How would you - or anyone else - know that?

Owlswing doesn't believe they do otherwise he would be stating it. In any case You have taken what I have said out of context. You must be getting desperate.

My position on other gods is this.

I believe there is one God of whom Jesus is the incarnation.
I believe this God is the unity widely sought by people everywhere.
I believe other monotheist faiths to be an expression of the search for this unity.
I believe any faith based on the experience of the numen to be an expression of the search for that unity.
I am ignorant of pagan beliefs and what they mean by the word god or goddess because they are reluctant to provide information on the grounds that it would constitute somehow proselysation.
I believe that the Hindi pantheon is easier to understand because Hindu scholars have on the whole been non secretive and more explicit.
I do not disbelieve the existence of gods as entities of other religions or the religious experiences within as often touted by BLUEHILLSIDE and HIS FOLLOWERS (because that fits in with Hillside's argument or he 's not reading what I am saying.)

[floo]

. . . I bought a new witch's broomstick yesterday and personalised it with a glitter it looks really nice!

Hmm. Question - is it all plastic? If "yes" - it is NOT a witch's broomstick - it is what a toy manufacturer thinks that a witch's broomstick looks like.

If it is not ythe the handle cannot be made of bamboo cane. It must be made of a solid length of wood, a branch or even a broomstick. The bristles should be made of springy twigs.

The broom has a couple of uses.

The first is the one that gave rise to the fallacy that witches rode on a broomstick. What actually happened was that, as part of a ritual to encourage the growth of crops, a witch would sit astride her broomstick and leap into the air - the level the broomstick reached indicating, in a form of sympathetic magic, to the crop how high it was required to grow.

Fallacy two comes into play when it was used in a fertility ritual.

Witches were perfectly aware that it took two to make a baby, male and female. In fertility rituals the broom was "ridden" with the bristles forward. The reason for this was (is, the ritual can still be performed if requested - and it is) the requirement for both sexes; the witch representing the female and the broomstick the male. How? Simple! Any real witches broomstick handle has the end that is buried within the twigs of the broom carved into the shape of the male penis. Thus in a fertility ritual the witch was able to bring both sexes to the ritual.

I would have you know my broomstick is a REAL one, not a plastic toy, which would not support my weight when flying!

[Owlswing]

. . . I bought a new witch's broomstick yesterday and personalised it with a glitter it looks really nice!

Hmm. Question - is it all plastic? If "yes" - it is NOT a witch's broomstick - it is what a toy manufacturer thinks that a witch's broomstick looks like.

If it is not ythe the handle cannot be made of bamboo cane. It must be made of a solid length of wood, a branch or even a broomstick. The bristles should be made of springy twigs.

The broom has a couple of uses.

The first is the one that gave rise to the fallacy that witches rode on a broomstick. What actually happened was that, as part of a ritual to encourage the growth of crops, a witch would sit astride her broomstick and leap into the air - the level the broomstick reached indicating, in a form of sympathetic magic, to the crop how high it was required to grow.

Fallacy two comes into play when it was used in a fertility ritual.

Witches were perfectly aware that it took two to make a baby, male and female. In fertility rituals the broom was "ridden" with the bristles forward. The reason for this was (is, the ritual can still be performed if requested - and it is) the requirement for both sexes; the witch representing the female and the broomstick the male. How? Simple! Any real witches broomstick handle has the end that is buried within the twigs of the broom carved into the shape of the male penis. Thus in a fertility ritual the witch was able to bring both sexes to the ritual.

I would have you know my broomstick is a REAL one, not a plastic toy, which would not support my weight when flying!

. . . and the carving?

[floo]

. . . I bought a new witch's broomstick yesterday and personalised it with a glitter it looks really nice!

Hmm. Question - is it all plastic? If "yes" - it is NOT a witch's broomstick - it is what a toy manufacturer thinks that a witch's broomstick looks like.

If it is not ythe the handle cannot be made of bamboo cane. It must be made of a solid length of wood, a branch or even a broomstick. The bristles should be made of springy twigs.

The broom has a couple of uses.

The first is the one that gave rise to the fallacy that witches rode on a broomstick. What actually happened was that, as part of a ritual to encourage the growth of crops, a witch would sit astride her broomstick and leap into the air - the level the broomstick reached indicating, in a form of sympathetic magic, to the crop how high it was required to grow.

Fallacy two comes into play when it was used in a fertility ritual.

Witches were perfectly aware that it took two to make a baby, male and female. In fertility rituals the broom was "ridden" with the bristles forward. The reason for this was (is, the ritual can still be performed if requested - and it is) the requirement for both sexes; the witch representing the female and the broomstick the male. How? Simple! Any real witches broomstick handle has the end that is buried within the twigs of the broom carved into the shape of the male penis. Thus in a fertility ritual the witch was able to bring both sexes to the ritual.

I would have you know my broomstick is a REAL one, not a plastic toy, which would not support my weight when flying!

. . . and the carving?

Carving?

Anyway we better get back on topic pdq, or we will incur the wrath of the MODs!