||Well this thread didn't really start with S R really but with some anonymous Wiccan and although she had the ability to be condescending at the same time she talked about the moon and life cycles, she really didn't have anything to add to the argument. The entire argument itself feels muddy to me because it's hard to understand exactly what the people are getting at but my take on it is that nathan feels (and he expresses that this is an opinion using phrases such as "I think") that Wicca does not offer the same benefits as modern Christianity in terms of self-actualization, universal understanding, or wisdom. He is asking not only what Wicca is but what it stands for, something I would be interested to know as well. Modern Wicca as far as I can tell is much more a feel good fashion craze than any actual set of beliefs.
Somewhere along the lines the anonymous Wiccan leaves the picture and along comes S R. Now although I agree with others here that the failure of S R and others to provide nathan with any relevant source is detrimental to the argument, I would have to say where it really falls apart is over the definition of dualism. nathan specifically states that Christianity is theistically monistic. S R proceeds to argue using the definition of dualism he feels best fits his argument which is no less than taking nathan's words out of context even though nathan already provided the specific definition that was relevant to the discussion. I was surprised to see that T Reginald Gibbons, not nathan, was the one to point this out.
So in all, I don't think nathan's points were ever even addressed. Wasn't that the basis for the whole thread? How is it possible to say nathan lost?