I was hoping to find out whether I am a pagan, a heathen or an heretic but at this point I like to think I am all of the above, and then some. 
Do you have any evidence to support this statement? Druidesses and powerful female figures (like Queen Maeve) are certainly present in Celtic culture, and Celtic women did have more rights than Roman women.
It is, of course, incredibly foolish to imply that patriarchy started with Christianity.
My error, I meant to bold “all male druids” to ask for evidence, but of course, it was already bolded. Oy.
No, no, Poly-it isn’t HH I’m talking about-look in the Racist is here to defend himself thread.
Thanks, Guin… I think. After perusing that thread for about ten minutes, I now have a severe headache.
My sincere apologies to Happyheathen – although, in peace, I would still like to know what exactly you intended to mean by the criticism of her and me I referred to.
There are more than a few bizarre outcroppings of Christianity that consider that anybody who does not believe according as they do (which they construct to include the Founding Fathers, therefore making this “a Christian nation” – as they define Christianity – is therefore doomed to Hell. This would of course include all Catholics, who worship Mary as a second God, believe in superstition (which they don’t), and fifteen other things that are demonstrably untrue. However, the mindset is one of invincible ignorance.
I never opened that thread until now – on reflection, it was probably God guiding me towards self-preservation! 
Looks like HH is trying to set himself up as a pseudo-teacher for the masses again.
Easy answer: If your beliefs are not identical to mine, you are:
- an infidel
- a heretic
- Stay out of this Opel
- an unbeliever
- a heathen (as in “convert the heathen Chinee.”)
In any case you are beneath contempt and you are going to be dead soon and for a long time unless you straighten up and fly right pretty damned quick. I may not be the Way, but the Way I follow is.
For the sarcasm impaired, the foregoing is an example of that rhetorical form.
Poly -
My criticism of your post re. Mr. John was that it seemed to contradict the (as I understand it) fundamental teaching of Christianity - “Love thy Brother”. It seemed petty and mean-spirited. Considering your patient explanation of your faith, and devotion to it, I was saddened by it.
OTOH, I suppose you get to take the occasional cheap shot, too.
Guin’s was about the sixth of hers that evening in which she had used vulgar terminology. I thought it worth mentioning.
SPOOFE -
G-d forbid you should learn something
And I explained why vulgarity doesn’t necessarily mean one is damned.
It’s all in the context.
Well, since the lesson for the day is in artificial distinctions only you have drawn between words, I think it’s safe to wager that it’s not a terribly important thing to learn from his perspective.
And why has no one provided a link?
Grrr… I hate when people do that.
Actually, I loathe it. I use loathe and hate to mean different things. I think I’m going to start a Pit thread to educate the rest of you on the difference between them.
Some of us already know the difference between ‘hate’ and ‘loathe’ - but PLEASE elucidate for the benefit of those of us who do not.
According to www.m-w.com, they are synonyms, but indicates that hate implies an emotional aversion, while loathe implies an utter disgust. In the context I was using them, they seem perfectly interchangeable, although loathe seems stronger due to showing an effort to use a less common word.
Really, though, I was mocking you for being condescending in purporting to educate us in distinctions only you have drawn between two words.