Wicca in general [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

One Bad Pig

November 22nd 2003, 02:41 PM

Today @ 12:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308641#post308641)
BohemianXQueen:

Are there any Wiccans on this site?

I've seen some, yes.

So far, on all of the topics I've commented on concering Wicca or Paganism, people seem to have it out for Wiccans. They don't seem to even recognize Wicca as a religion. Or, if they do, they seem to think Wiccans are idiots, cult members, or Devil Worshippers. It seems that all these people that call Wiccans "morons" and "idiots" are supposed Christians.

I'd say that anyone who thinks Wicca is wrong would seem to have it out for Wiccans. I don't know much about Wicca, but it seems to be a rather broad term that is used by many diverse groups. I think that some who call themselves Wiccans are idiots or cult members or Devil worshippers, but to paint the entire group with these apellations would be unfair. OTOH, I've never claimed that Christians are perfect, either. I don't think that non-Christians on this site will tend to condemn Wiccans specifically, as Wicca is really a fringe issue here.

How nice, Christians that judge others and disrespect them.
Christianity is centered around Jesus, am I wrong about that? Jesus respected all people, he even befriended a prostitute. He didn't go around calling people morons and idiots, and he didn't judge someone based on stereotypes he heard.

Judging others is wrong, and so is disrespect. However, there's nothing wrong with criticism. Jesus could be quite acerbic when addressing the Pharisees. People often make the mistake of 'one-dimensionalizing' Jesus--'Christians' included. They pick and choose what they like about Him, and ignore the rest.

I've also been told by some of these "Christians" that they know for a fact that all Wiccans are against the Christian Church. I am not against any church or any religion.

Just because they're Christians doesn't make them right 100% of the time. However, you certainly disagree with the Christian church; otherwise, you'd be a part of it, no?

I mean, I respect everyone no matter their race, religion, gender, sexual preference, ect. and I'm Eclectic Wiccan. But I do not respect people who persecute other people just because they don't understand them.

I agree with you here. Just don't confuse persecution with criticism.

I do not understand why these people who say they follow Jesus can lash out at religions they don't seem to understand and tell people they are going to hell and that they are evil. It's sad, really.

We believe that all who do not follow Jesus will end up in hell. Yes, it sounds harsh. Sorry, I can't soften it for you.

"It's not what you have faith in, but the fact that you have faith."

I'll have to flat-out disagree with you here. Faith in the wrong thing is useless.

.

seer

November 22nd 2003, 02:47 PM

"It's not what you have faith in, but the fact that you have faith."

That is quite silly. What is faith if it does not have an object? What would you have faith in?

BohemianXQueen

November 22nd 2003, 03:29 PM

Thank you all for saying all the things that "Christians" keep saying to me on this site.

And by the way, there were Wiccans around before Jesus and while Jesus was alive.

And YOU provide ME with evidence that Christianity is true and real. I did not choose Wiccan because I 'liked it', I chose it because in my life time I evaluated all religions and my personal beliefs and they fit with Eclectic Wicca.

You're all seriously being closed minded, and that's not cool.

BohemianXQueen

November 22nd 2003, 03:33 PM

Today @ 06:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308700#post308700)
seer:

"It's not what you have faith in, but the fact that you have faith."

That is quite silly. What is faith if it does not have an object? What would you have faith in?

Faith is not in a specific object. Faith is the concept of believing in something and having that something give you strength and wisdom. Whether is be in God, or the Earth, your mind, or a person, or a idol.

Jin-Roh

November 22nd 2003, 03:35 PM

BohemianXQueen, with all due respect, expect to have your beliefs challenged here. Any religion is open for debate, including Christianity. LIke it was said ealier, there is a diffrence between critism/debate and persecution.
:smile:

Also Jesus was very firm with certain individuals. If people were dogmatically unwilling to accept the claims he made about himself, he didn't always use nice words.

BohemianXQueen

November 22nd 2003, 03:37 PM

"And I personally believe any religious system that points away from Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice for our sins has it's roots in the darker forces of this universe."

OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT POINT AWAY FROM ANYTHING.
You truly do not understand Wicca. Can you not look outside of your Christian box to see the good in us? Can you not respect us for your differences? If you cannot, you are not a Christian and you disrespect the name of Jesus Christ.

BohemianXQueen

November 22nd 2003, 03:39 PM

Today @ 07:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308755#post308755)
Jin-Roh:

BohemianXQueen, with all due respect, expect to have your beliefs challenged here. Any religion is open for debate, including Christianity. LIke it was said ealier, there is a diffrence between critism/debate and persecution.
:smile:

Also Jesus was very firm with certain individuals. If people were dogmatically unwilling to accept the claims he made about himself, he didn't always use nice words.

There is indeed a difference between critism/debate and persecution. I don't mind if my religion is challanged. But I do mind when people tell me I worship the Devil and basically call me an anti-Christ.

Jin-Roh

November 22nd 2003, 03:57 PM

BohemianXQueen:

Faith is not in a specific object. Faith is the concept of believing in something and having that something give you strength and wisdom. Whether is be in God, or the Earth, your mind, or a person, or a idol.

I could see why you believe the eclectic approach. The problem with this kind of faith though is that it assumes that becuase you believe in something that makes that something true. This can't be the case. I really wish that McClintock had won the governership for California, but that does not make it so.

If it is just something to give you strength, that might be okay except if that thing is not true, you will be eventually betrayed by that figment. I still am going to have to deal with Arnold being Governer.

Christians do not define faith this way. You might consider checking out J.P. Holding's article (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8661) If you're intrested. When we believe in something, we want to know that it is objectively true (which is a redundant phrase anyway) and we want to get in touch God and know for sure that we can be reconciled with in this world and the next. Warm-fuzzies don't cut it.

BohemianXQueen:

Thank you all for saying all the things that "Christians" keep saying to me on this site.

Look, we don't tell you how Wiccas should act, please don't presume to lecture us about our own religion.

And by the way, there were Wiccans around before Jesus and while Jesus was alive.

Moot point.
If you guage things by time you will lose sight of the one who created time.

And YOU provide ME with evidence that Christianity is true and real. I did not choose Wiccan because I 'liked it', I chose it because in my life time I evaluated all religions and my personal beliefs and they fit with Eclectic Wicca.

Technically, the burden of proof is in your lap since you're in the role of the accuser in this thread. You believe that Christianity is wrong to disagree with Wicca? You're willing to assert that Wicca withstands critical judgement? Show us how.

You're all seriously being closed minded, and that's not cool.

:no:
Because we disagree with you? I could just as easily say that you're "close-minded" because you don't believe the way we believe.

The purpose of this board, more specifically this forum, is discuss religions and worldviews. As I said before, don't be afraid to have your beliefs challenged here. I'm certianly not afraid when the skeptics (and I should add that I respect many of them), mormons, etc etc challenge Christianity.

(Off topic, I like your avatar)

Gideon Brown

November 22nd 2003, 05:45 PM

Thank you all for saying all the things that "Christians" keep saying to me on this site.

I'd like to ask you why you put "Christian" in quotation marks? What behaviour have you seen that causes you to doubt that these people are actually Christians?

And by the way, there were Wiccans around before Jesus and while Jesus was alive.

Debatable. See the other thread that's currently going on about that.

And YOU provide ME with evidence that Christianity is true and real.

Start with this:
http://www.tektonics.org/nowayjose.html

I did not choose Wiccan because I 'liked it', I chose it because in my life time I evaluated all religions and my personal beliefs and they fit with Eclectic Wicca.

Then you DID choose it because you liked it. The thing you liked about it was that it fit with your pre-existing beliefs - you liked the beliefs associated with 'eclectic wicca', so you chose it. Did it have anything to do with historical evidence that wicca is 'true'?

You're all seriously being closed minded, and that's not cool.

I have an open mind to any evidence you can present that the wiccan belief is the 'correct' one. Can you give me any?

spl_cadet

November 22nd 2003, 06:34 PM

BohemianXQueen:

"And I personally believe any religious system that points away from Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice for our sins has it's roots in the darker forces of this universe."

OUR SYSTEM DOES NOT POINT AWAY FROM ANYTHING.

By the very fact that it does not point to Christian belief it points away from it.

You truly do not understand Wicca. Can you not look outside of your Christian box to see the good in us? Can you not respect us for your differences? If you cannot, you are not a Christian and you disrespect the name of Jesus Christ.

And you have no clue what it means to be Christian.

BohemianXQueen:

There is indeed a difference between critism/debate and persecution. I don't mind if my religion is challanged. But I do mind when people tell me I worship the Devil and basically call me an anti-Christ.

Get used to it. Try being Catholic. It gets much worse sometimes when it comes to us.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 22nd 2003, 08:38 PM

Today @ 11:56 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308647#post308647)
seer:

And I personally believe any religious system that points away from Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice for our sins has it's roots in the darker forces of this universe.

Wicca points neither toward nor away from Christ. Wicca makes no policy at all with regard to Christ. Wiccans are free to believe in Christ, or not believe, as they choose. There are Christian sects of Wicca (or Wiccan sects of Christianity, however you want to look at it) that encourage the belief in Christ and the divine nature he is believed by some to have possessed. Christopagans, they are called. And there are also Jewitches.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 22nd 2003, 08:51 PM

Today @ 01:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308741#post308741)
BohemianXQueen:

And by the way, there were Wiccans around before Jesus and while Jesus was alive.
That's not exactly true. The word "wicca" has a number of meanings, among them "to see, to know, to bend" and "wise man" (the feminine form wicce means "wise woman." But that is the lowercase noun, which is a lot different from the capitalized Wiccan, referring to an adherent to a very specific and very modern religion. While modern Wiccans do have a few trace beliefs that can be dated back to paleolithic cultures, the particular mish-mash of beliefs that we know as Wicca is very recent, only dating back to the 1970s when the Council of American Witches coined and defined the terms "Wicca" and "Wiccan." It doesn't even trace back to Gardner, really, because he basically only started one particular tradition, Garderianism. There are some traditions that have made a good faith faith effort to recapture and revitalize some of those old paleopagan beliefs, through varied means, such as Buckland's personal study of tribal Scots, through interpretation of the Book of Kells, through interpretation of the Poetic Eddas, and through interpretation of some of the works of Murray, not to mention the influence of Native American spirituality. However, take care that you don't get sucked in by Gardner's notorious historical revisionism. Gardner didn't study any of those sources, with the possible exception of Murray's work, and relied most heavily on what he was told by Aleister Crowley and allegedly told by Dorothy Clutterbuck (who probably existed, but her credentials as an expert on anything to do with paganism are much in question). Possibly his worst claim, and my personal favorite, is that 9 million witches were killed during the Burning Times. Heck, 9 million people weren't even killed in the Burning Times, and that includes the Crusading soldiers! Liberal estimates say that perhaps as many as 500,000 people were murdered for the charge of heresy during the entire 300+ years of the Inquisition and Crusades. Witchcraft was only one of several heretical charges, and of the half million executed for heresy, only a small handful, probably no more than a few hundred, were killed for the charge of witchcraft. There have probably been as many people killed in India for witchcraft over the past two decades as were killed for witchcraft throughout the entirety of the Burning Times. Gardner was a joke, in other words.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 22nd 2003, 09:02 PM

Today @ 12:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308669#post308669)
TuckEverlasting:

Want to start being taken seriously? Start making claims that are evidence-based.

Now that's a really funny thing for any religionist, especially a Christian, to say! There are a significant number of beliefs in Christianity which have absolutely zero evidenciary backing. Adam & Eve, woman from rib of man, YEC, Creation in 6 days, Red Sea miracle, existence of Abraham, existence of Noah, total destruction of the Flood, Jesus as Godhead, story of Sodom & Gomorrah, story of Jericho, emmaculate conception, and the list goes on.

Gideon Brown

November 22nd 2003, 09:42 PM

Now that's a really funny thing for any religionist, especially a Christian, to say!

Is it? Why? Do you think that religious faith shouldn't be based on evidence?

I would take issue with several of the things that you listed - for example, Jericho: http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_04_01.html#conc

More importantly, though:

There are a significant number of beliefs in Christianity which have absolutely zero evidenciary backing.

However, there is abundant evidence for many, many Christian tenets; I'm sure I don't need to belabour this point if you have been on TWeb for a while.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 22nd 2003, 11:32 PM

Today @ 07:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=309144#post309144)
TuckEverlasting:

However, there is abundant evidence for many, many Christian tenets; I'm sure I don't need to belabour this point if you have been on TWeb for a while.
Welcome to the club. The same can be said of every religion you can name. What are two things practically all religions have in common? They all have a lot of stuff that is supported by empirical evidence, and on the other side of the coin, they all have a lot of stuff that you just have to "take their word for it."

hereoisreal

November 23rd 2003, 12:11 AM

The wiccas that I know worship the sun.

In Ez. God showed Ez. some pretty bad things. Then God
showed him the worst and I quote:

Eze 8:16 And he brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the LORD, between the porch and the altar, [were] about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

Eze 8:17 Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen [this], O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose.

Eze 8:18 Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, [yet] will I not hear them.

Gideon Brown

November 23rd 2003, 12:26 AM

The same can be said of every religion you can name... They all have a lot of stuff that is supported by empirical evidence

Even 'eclectic wicca'?

Trout

November 23rd 2003, 12:31 AM

Eireann:

Now that's a really funny thing for any religionist, especially a Christian, to say! There are a significant number of beliefs in Christianity which have absolutely zero evidenciary backing. Adam & Eve, woman from rib of man, YEC, Creation in 6 days, Red Sea miracle, existence of Abraham, existence of Noah, total destruction of the Flood, Jesus as Godhead, story of Sodom & Gomorrah, story of Jericho, emmaculate conception, and the list goes on.

I notice that Wiccans in general don't like to divulge any of their beliefs. But they certainly enjoy trying to find fault with the bible.

Eireann, Isn't one of the tenets of your faith, "If it harm none, Do as you will" What if by your constant criticism of Christianity you are harming Christians?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 23rd 2003, 01:03 AM

Today @ 10:26 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=309304#post309304)
TuckEverlasting:

Even 'eclectic wicca'?
Yes.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 23rd 2003, 01:08 AM

Today @ 10:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=309308#post309308)
troutk13:

Eireann, Isn't one of the tenets of your faith, "If it harm none, Do as you will" What if by your constant criticism of Christianity you are harming Christians?
It's not a criticism of Christianity. Or rather, it's not a criticism of the core beliefs. It's a criticism of the tendency among Christians to claim the bible has been proven inerrant when no such proof has actually been offered. And if something hasn't been proven, then it does no harm to say that it hasn't been proven. It is more harmful, in my opinion, to cling to a wrongful idea that proof has been established when it hasn't. That leads to disillusionment when the person actually discovers that the "proof" they were so often told about is really thin air.

By the way, which Wiccans have you found to be unwilling to divulge details about their faith? It's been my experience that most Wiccans are quite willing to talk publically about what they believe.

BohemianXQueen

November 23rd 2003, 01:29 AM

"And by the way, there were Wiccans around before Jesus and while Jesus was alive."

Ok, that was kind of a bad choice of words on my part. I meant that what most Wiccans today believe is very closely related too many pre-Christian religions. Just so I clear that up.

Today @ 12:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=309104#post309104)
Eireann:

Wicca points neither toward nor away from Christ. Wicca makes no policy at all with regard to Christ. Wiccans are free to believe in Christ, or not believe, as they choose.

That's what I've been trying to tell the people that claim Wiccans are against Christians all along *sigh* :shifty:

stillsmallvoice

November 23rd 2003, 08:35 AM

Hi all!

The Bible, in its original language (i.e. Hebrew) does refer to witches, necromancers, mediums, familiar spirits, etc. But, today's pagans hardly engage in the foul & loathsome rites (burning children to Molech, temple prostitution, etc.) of the ancient Canaanites, Moabites, etc. Also, in the Jewish view, the Torah's many pronouncements against witches, necromancers, etc. do not apply to non-Jews.

One of our Sages said that we must be very, very careful in rooting out sin and in touting virtue. We should root out sin in ourselves before looking to root it out in others & tout others' virtues before we tout our own.

While I don't know much about Wicca, I've met more than a few Wiccans on various interfaith boards & without any doubt, I have found them, as a group, to be the most tolerant, patient and unarrogant people I've met on these sites. No Wiccan has ever witnessed at me. No Wiccan has ever told me that I'm necessarily going to hell because I'm Jewish, i.e. not Wiccan. No Wiccan has ever patronized me or treated me as anything less than an equal. As a[n orthodox] Jew, I acknowledge that a Wiccan's beliefs have as much meaning for him/her as my Jewish beliefs have for me. And some people dare to call them evil merely because their beliefs are different? As my people say, that's real chutzpah!

Be well!

ssv :hi:

BohemianXQueen

November 23rd 2003, 11:14 AM

Thank you very much, stillsmallvoice. It's nice to have a non-Wiccan that understand the nature of most Wiccans (granted, they aren't all like that. But people are people, so you can't expect them all to be the way you described.)

Today @ 12:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=310513#post310513)
stillsmallvoice:
And some people dare to call them evil merely because their beliefs are different? As my people say, that's real chutzpah!

This is a great point. Period.

Kudos to you, I say.

Gideon Brown

November 23rd 2003, 08:42 PM

Even 'eclectic wicca'?

Yes.

May we have some of this evidence, then?

It is more harmful, in my opinion, to cling to a wrongful idea that proof has been established when it hasn't.

I agree, and this was my original point with respect to wicca: that wiccans, in general, follow a belief system that is based on feelings, rather than evidence. Do you disagree? As I said, I'm willing to consider evidence for the validity of the wiccan belief system; if you think there is some, let's hear it.

By the way, which Wiccans have you found to be unwilling to divulge details about their faith? It's been my experience that most Wiccans are quite willing to talk publically about what they believe.

I think they are too, but are they willing to present the evidence for what they believe?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 23rd 2003, 09:11 PM

Today @ 06:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=311073#post311073)
TuckEverlasting:

I agree, and this was my original point with respect to wicca: that wiccans, in general, follow a belief system that is based on feelings, rather than evidence. Do you disagree?
Yes, I disagree. As with any religion there are elements of Wiccan beliefs that are based on feelings, and there are elements based upon evidence and observation. There is no evidence to support the canonized liturgy of Wicca, because there is no canonized liturgy. There is, however, plenty of evidence to support the sensibility of Wiccan interpretation.

I think they are too, but are they willing to present the evidence for what they believe?
Since Wicca is not a liturgical, doctrinal religion, there are very few things that can be universally said "Wiccans believe." The Rule of Three, for instance, is not a dogmatic belief, it is a common sense rule of living. Nobody believes that things will literally come back exactly threefold (at least nobody who didn't gain their entire insight from Waldenbooks). Wiccans believe in duality of the divine because that is how life occurs all around us -- male/female, yin/yang, balance of opposites. Most animals reproduce sexually by interaction between male and female. Asexual animals have parts that are identifiable as both male and female. Plants have male and female parts. Nearly every form of complex lifeform possesses male and female parts and interactions. As Wiccans believe that Creation is a reflection of the Creator (even the Christian notion that God created us in his image reflects a similar idea), then it is a perfectly sensible and logical step to personify God as both male and female.

Now, aside from those, what core tenets of Wicca do you find nonsensical and unevidenced? Before you start talking about magick, bear in mind that magickal practice is NOT a tenet of Wicca (many witches and Wiccans alike do not practice any sort of magick), so questioning belief in magick would not serve your purpose.

Gideon Brown

November 23rd 2003, 10:04 PM

There is no evidence to support the canonized liturgy of Wicca, because there is no canonized liturgy...

I understand your point, and since wicca, in general, makes very few truth claims, I would, in fact, not hold it against you that the 'truth' of wicca can't be 'proven'. All I would hold (in this context) against the wiccan belief system is that there is no very good reason to subscribe to it, viz.:

Wiccans believe in duality of the divine because that is how life occurs all around us... as Wiccans believe that Creation is a reflection of the Creator... then it is a perfectly sensible and logical step to personify God as both male and female.

That is not empirical evidence, it is a philosophical argument based on inductive logic. Empirical evidence for the existence of a god and goddess would be evidence that such a god or goddess had actually acted in history. Indeed, what empirical evidence do wiccans have that there even is a creator(s)?

Now, aside from those, what core tenets of Wicca do you find... unevidenced?

How about the rule of three? 'Common sense' is not empirical evidence, it is also a philosophical argument, if anything.

BohemianXQueen

November 23rd 2003, 10:28 PM

It seems to me no matter how much eveidence to support Wicca you hear, you will always find a way to contridict it.

Trout

November 23rd 2003, 10:54 PM

BohemianXQueen:

It seems to me no matter how much eveidence to support Wicca you hear, you will always find a way to contridict it.

Hopefully that might help you to rethink your position on Wicca.

If the evidence in support of Wicca is contradictory, maybe that's because it lacks truth?

BohemianXQueen

November 23rd 2003, 11:04 PM

The evidence isn't contridictiary.

Gideon Brown

November 23rd 2003, 11:36 PM

The evidence isn't contridictiary.

BohemianXQueen, what is the evidence?

BohemianXQueen

November 23rd 2003, 11:58 PM

You're talking in circles. First you mention some evidence being contridictiary as if you knew what evidence you were talking about, and when I said the evidence is not contridictiary, you asked me what the evidence is. How could you begin to say something like "perhaps the evidence is contridictiary" if you have no clue what evidence you're talking about???

At least when I spoke of the evidence not being contridictiary, I knew that I was speaking of all the evidence that points me to Eclectic Wicca.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 24th 2003, 12:31 AM

Today @ 08:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=311159#post311159)
TuckEverlasting:

I understand your point, and since wicca, in general, makes very few truth claims, I would, in fact, not hold it against you that the 'truth' of wicca can't be 'proven'. All I would hold (in this context) against the wiccan belief system is that there is no very good reason to subscribe to it, viz.:
Whether or not there is a "good" reason is relative to the person. What I may find a good reason, you might consider completely irrelevant, just as I may just as easily reject what argument you may make as a "good" reason to subscribe to Christianity. Most of the time when someone says something is a "good" reason, what that means is that it sounds good to them, or that it fits well within the framework of belief in which they were raised. However, to those for whom your particular framework is not intrinsic, your good reasons might seem like just a lot of hogwash and wasted breath, just as our reasoning might seem to you. Why is that? Because in the attempt to understand another person's beliefs, we tend to ask the wrong question. The question shouldn't be, "What do you believe?" It should be, "How do you come to believe it?" Many people out there come to believe in something only because it is traditional to do so. "That's what I was always taught" is probably the weakest rationale for believing something.

That is not empirical evidence, it is a philosophical argument based on inductive logic. Empirical evidence for the existence of a god and goddess would be evidence that such a god or goddess had actually acted in history. Indeed, what empirical evidence do wiccans have that there even is a creator(s)?
What empirical evidence do Christians have that there is a Creator? You have a book that says so. Is that empirical? Well, I suppose, in the weakest sense of the word, it is. There are countless books out there which recount other culture's interpretations of life and the divine, just as the Bible recounts the Judaic interpretation. In that sense, Bullfinch is as empirical as the Bible. Aside from a bunch of books that testify (with questionable accuracy) to the existence of a Creator, all of which are cultural attempts to explain the Creation, what empirical evidence is there for a creator? We have oodles of empirical evidence of a physical universe existing, but notions that this physical universe came about as the result of intelligent design are extrapolations, pure and simple, regardless of the multitude of myths (including the biblical myths) that make claim of inarguable knowledge of a creator.

How about the rule of three? 'Common sense' is not empirical evidence, it is also a philosophical argument, if anything.
The "rule of three" isn't a truth claim. It's not claimed as a literal occurence but is framed as a common sense teaching. Not a truth claim = no need for empiricism. Lack of empirical evidence does not render a belief nonsensical, since empirical evidence is only relevant to truth claims or to claims about the physical or observable world. Naturally, you approach this discussion colored by your own religious upbringing in a faith which makes a lot of truth claims, so you've probably come to believe that religions must make truth claims in order to make sense. That isn't true. The purpose of religion isn't to answer scientific and historical questions -- science and history do that well enough on their own. Religion is meant to provide a framework for relating on a social and spiritual level to others and to the world around us (including the divine, for those who believe in divinity). When it comes to empirical proof of historical claims, perhaps what the truly spiritual person should ask is, "Who cares?"

Durthorin

November 24th 2003, 10:54 AM

11-22-2003 @ 12:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308641#post308641)
BohemianXQueen:

I do not understand why these people who say they follow Jesus can lash out at religions they don't seem to understand and tell people they are going to hell and that they are evil. It's sad, really.

"It's not what you have faith in, but the fact that you have faith."

As a practicing Pagan/Wiccan for 19 years, Ex-Souther Baptist Style Christian I'm going to give you some bad news. ANY fundimentalist Christian believes we serve the Devil/Darkness and we are going to Hell.. he also believes the same thing about a Buddist, Moslem and in some case even other Christians. Thats part of the basic foundations of his Faith. Your not going to change that without attacking his or her faith and doing that is by its nature causing more harm than good.

Durthorin

November 24th 2003, 10:56 AM

11-22-2003 @ 01:24 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=308669#post308669)
TuckEverlasting:

Want to start being taken seriously? Start making claims that are evidence-based.

As a religious faith it works in my life. It comforts me duringt he hard times and guides me to be a better human being. Thats about as evidence based as it gets.

Trout

November 24th 2003, 12:18 PM

Durthorin:

As a religious faith it works in my life. It comforts me duringt he hard times and guides me to be a better human being. Thats about as evidence based as it gets.

Actually Durthorin, when the principles of Wicca are applied to real life situations they offer no help.

Trout

November 24th 2003, 12:20 PM

Durthorin:

As a practicing Pagan/Wiccan for 19 years, Ex-Souther Baptist Style Christian I'm going to give you some bad news. ANY fundimentalist Christian believes we serve the Devil/Darkness and we are going to Hell.. he also believes the same thing about a Buddist, Moslem and in some case even other Christians. Thats part of the basic foundations of his Faith. Your not going to change that without attacking his or her faith and doing that is by its nature causing more harm than good.

And by making that accusation against Christians you may in fact be causing harm, thus violating "if it harm none. . ."

Durthorin

November 24th 2003, 12:22 PM

Today @ 11:18 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=312061#post312061)
troutk13:

Actually Durthorin, when the principles of Wicca are applied to real life situations they offer no help.

They work for me. You apparently require rules that lay out exactly what your allowed to do and not.. Therefore Wicca as a Faith would not work for you. Which brings me to a basic Wiccan belief that you find the path suited to you and what you need in this life. You need to be a Christian.

Danu Bless, Dur

Bill the Cat

November 24th 2003, 12:22 PM

Trouk, back to back posts to the same user are not allowed. Please combine them in the future. Thanks

Durthorin

November 24th 2003, 12:24 PM

Today @ 11:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=312065#post312065)
troutk13:

And by making that accusation against Christians you may in fact be causing harm, thus violating "if it harm none. . ."

Wasn't an accusation, it was a statement of fact. What in there was incorrect?

Danu Bless, Dur

Trout

November 24th 2003, 05:15 PM

Durthorin:

They work for me. You apparently require rules that lay out exactly what your allowed to do and not..

Danu Bless, Dur

Ouch, :rock:

Durthorin:

Wasn't an accusation, it was a statement of fact. What in there was incorrect?

Danu Bless, Dur

Ouch again, :rock:

Hmmm. . . "If it harm none. . ." lets see here. . . if I do the math right. . .according to the principle of threes. . . you got at least six coming. Maybe you shouldn't leave the house.

Durthorin:
Which brings me to a basic Wiccan belief that you find the path suited to you and what you need in this life. You need to be a Christian.

I don't know if you realize that the statement you just made proved Wicca to be false, because if Wicca was true then it would be what people needed in this life, thus rendering everything else false.

Dur, the reason I'm a Christian is not a whatever works reason, the reason I'm a Christian is because truth is important and also knowable.

If truth and reality aren't important when choosing a worldview, I guess Wicca makes sense, because it certainly doesn't seem to reflect either of those qualities.

Durthorin

November 24th 2003, 05:29 PM

Today @ 04:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=312344#post312344)
troutk13:
I don't know if you realize that the statement you just made proved Wicca to be false, because if Wicca was true then it would be what people needed in this life, thus rendering everything else false.

Your assuming its a true/false yes/no 1/0 test.

You start from the assumption that what your doing to be true must mean all other paths are false. If your doing a math problem its perfectly suitable logic.. but going from point A to point B, or accomplishing almost any complex task is an example of *multiple* paths to the same objective. Personally, I have always wondered as a Christian how can you look at a world that is filled with as many infinite paths and assume that the God you worship only deals in binary logic.

Dur, the reason I'm a Christian is not a whatever works reason, the reason I'm a Christian is because truth is important and also knowable.

You keep saying that, but as an Ex-Christian it was not true for me and it did not work for me.

Also as to Harming you by telling you a truth, well wouldn't it be a greater harm to my spirit and you if I lied to you or let you think your view of my Faith was correct?

Trout

November 24th 2003, 07:35 PM

Durthorin:

Your assuming its a true/false yes/no 1/0 test.

You start from the assumption that what your doing to be true must mean all other paths are false. If your doing a math problem its perfectly suitable logic.. but going from point A to point B, or accomplishing almost any complex task is an example of *multiple* paths to the same objective.

Let me get this straight,

When I talk about religious truth it's either/or (Either Wicca or Christianity or vice versa)

When you talk about religious truth it's both/and (Both Wicca and Christianity and anything else)

So I'm either/or you are both/and.

So then truth must be either your way or my way, and either way I think you must use the either/or method to decide.

Durthorin:
You keep saying that, but as an Ex-Christian it was not true for me and it did not work for me.

Either Christianity is true or it's false, and that is not subject to you or I. What we believe about something has no bearing as to whether it's true or false.

Durthorin:
Also as to Harming you by telling you a truth, well wouldn't it be a greater harm to my spirit and you if I lied to you or let you think your view of my Faith was correct?

Shouldn't I be the one to decide if I'm hurt or not?

Durthorin

November 24th 2003, 07:56 PM

Today @ 06:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=312681#post312681)
troutk13:

Let me get this straight,

When I talk about religious truth it's either/or (Either Wicca or Christianity or vice versa)

When you talk about religious truth it's both/and (Both Wicca and Christianity and anything else)

So I'm either/or you are both/and.

So then truth must be either your way or my way, and either way I think you must use the either/or method to decide.

You must think that since thats how you have decided to view the world. But deciding to walk over broken glass to get to where you want to go doesn't mean its the only way, just the way you have decided to take. I can tell you there is another way, but the steps you take and the path you walk is up to you. No one else.

Either Christianity is true or it's false, and that is not subject to you or I. What we believe about something has no bearing as to whether it's true or false.

Once more you force it into a binary choice.. it must be true or false.. Why? Consider this.. when you are 5 your father says don't eat the cookie. You obey because he is older and wiser and he has authoity over you. When your 20 he says "Dinner is in an hour" An you decide if you need that cookie or not. When your 30 he doesn't say a word. Because you know enough to make up your own mind. In your mind getting that Cookie is a "yes or no"/"true or false" decision. You shouldn't get the cookie is "Always true or false" Always true at 5, 20 or 30.. But this simple example shows its not always true and its not always the right answer.. For you, Christianity must always be true or it has no validity. If its not always true then its morals, its teachings all the rest are worthless to you..

Shouldn't I be the one to decide if I'm hurt or not?

I have decided to answer you honestly because lieing harms my spirit, I have decided to respond to your questions because I "assume" you ask them with an honest heart and a willingnes to hear the answer. So when I answer my intent is to give you what I know freely and without malice, to answer to the best of my ability and with all honesty. We are judged by intent. It is not therefore my intent to harm you..but to act with the best spirit I can. Should I cause you harm I will seek to apologise for that harm and I will not offer you personal insult nor injury. As I am honest with you, I expect you are honest with me.. and I accept that honesty.. If nothing else, Wicca is about personal responsability. If one asks a question, one accepts the responsability for the answer. If one accepts a task, then one accepts the cost of completing it. trust me, at times Christianity seems like an easy choice to me.. Wicca demands my attention, my involvment, it demands me to examine what I do both for its reprecussions and its intent. Being a Christian to me was far easier all it required was my obediance.

Danu Bless, Dur

Trout

November 24th 2003, 08:27 PM

Durthorin:
But deciding to walk over broken glass to get to where you want to go doesn't mean its the only way,

Right it's either the glass or my feet.

Durthorin:
Once more you force it into a binary choice.. it must be true or false.. Why? Consider this.. when you are 5 your father says don't eat the cookie. You obey because he is older and wiser and he has authoity over you. When your 20 he says "Dinner is in an hour" An you decide if you need that cookie or not. When your 30 he doesn't say a word. Because you know enough to make up your own mind. In your mind getting that Cookie is a "yes or no"/"true or false" decision. You shouldn't get the cookie is "Always true or false" Always true at 5, 20 or 30.. But this simple example shows its not always true and its not always the right answer.. For you, Christianity must always be true or it has no validity. If its not always true then its morals, its teachings all the rest are worthless to you..

It's either the cookie or my dinner whether I'm 5, 20 or 30.

Durthorin:
I have decided to answer you honestly because lieing harms my spirit, I have decided to respond to your questions because I "assume" you ask them with an honest heart and a willingnes to hear the answer. So when I answer my intent is to give you what I know freely and without malice, to answer to the best of my ability and with all honesty. We are judged by intent. It is not therefore my intent to harm you..but to act with the best spirit I can. Should I cause you harm I will seek to apologise for that harm and I will not offer you personal insult nor injury. As I am honest with you, I expect you are honest with me.. and I accept that honesty.. If nothing else, Wicca is about personal responsability. If one asks a question, one accepts the responsability for the answer. If one accepts a task, then one accepts the cost of completing it. trust me, at times Christianity seems like an easy choice to me.. Wicca demands my attention, my involvment, it demands me to examine what I do both for its reprecussions and its intent. Being a Christian to me was far easier all it required was my obediance.

Danu Bless, Dur

Thanks Dur.

There are things that are mutually exclusive. Truth by definition excludes.

If Wicca is true, Christianity is false.

If Christianity is true, Wicca is false.

And if Wicca is false,why choose it as your worldview?

Again, I didn't choose Christianity because it works, I am a Christian because it's true.

Durthorin

November 24th 2003, 08:43 PM

Today @ 07:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=312968#post312968)
troutk13:

Right it's either the glass or my feet.

If the goal is getting to the other side, then its walk around to the left, walk around to the right, jump over.. pole vault, throw dirt over the glass.. There is always more than two choices.

It's either the cookie or my dinner whether I'm 5, 20 or 30.

But the choice of the cookie is not always bad at 20 or 30 is it? At 5 its No cookie.. at 20 and 30 that changes. Does it not?

There are things that are mutually exclusive. Truth by definition excludes.

If Wicca is true, Christianity is false.

If Christianity is true, Wicca is false.

And if Wicca is false,why choose it as your worldview?

Again, I didn't choose Christianity because it works, I am a Christian because it's true.

An again, if this is the worldview you choose then I accept that that is what is right for you. You need to believe your path is an objective truth then thats what helps you live a better life then its the right course for you.

Consider this, if Wicca is true, then by Wicca's concept Christianity having aided you to live a better life is "true" Wiccan's see no problem with you achieving your salvation and going to a Christian heaven as we pass on to our Summerland. An the truth, the real objective truth is that neither of us will be able to say our faith is true till then.. till then you accept the Bible on Faith, you follow your path on faith and you place your belief in your salvation based on your faith. An Truth and Faith are not the same thing Trout. I choose Wicca in the end, because it worked.. it made me better than I was. An if Christianity did that same thing for you, then its right for you.

stillsmallvoice

November 25th 2003, 08:00 AM

Hi all!

It has been fascinating following the give-and-take between Durthorin (do you still work out with broadswords?) and Troutk13.

Dur's most recent post:

Consider this, if Wicca is true, then by Wicca's concept Christianity having aided you to live a better life is "true" Wiccan's see no problem with you achieving your salvation and going to a Christian heaven as we pass on to our Summerland. An the truth, the real objective truth is that neither of us will be able to say our faith is true till then.. till then you accept the Bible on Faith, you follow your path on faith and you place your belief in your salvation based on your faith.

jibes very nicely with what I said back in my previous post:

I've met more than a few Wiccans on various interfaith boards & without any doubt, I have found them, as a group, to be the most tolerant, patient and unarrogant people I've met on these sites. No Wiccan has ever witnessed at me. No Wiccan has ever told me that I'm necessarily going to hell because I'm Jewish, i.e. not Wiccan. No Wiccan has ever patronized me or treated me as anything less than an equal. As a[n orthodox] Jew, I acknowledge that a Wiccan's beliefs have as much meaning for him/her as my Jewish beliefs have for me. And some people dare to call them evil merely because their beliefs are different? As my people say, that's real chutzpah!.

I'm sure that Dur would have no problem substituting "Judaism" and "Jewish" for "Christianity" and "Christian" in the foregoing. It is this attitude which draws me to Wiccans as personal friends if not to Wicca as a faith.

Truth and Faith are not the same thing Trout.

Faith is not mathematics in that it is not given to rational proofs.

I choose Wicca in the end, because it worked.. it made me better than I was. An if Christianity did that same thing for you, then its right for you.

If Wicca & Christianity made you two, Dur & Trout, better people, than all power to you both!

I am secure enough in my (orthodox) Jewish faith that a) I am not bothered in the slightest if other people think it false & b) I do not need to persuade others to embrace it since I neither crave nor need the external validation to be gained from having others embrace it.

Be well!

ssv :hi:

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 10:01 AM

Today @ 07:00 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=314967#post314967)
stillsmallvoice:

Hi all!

It has been fascinating following the give-and-take between Durthorin (do you still work out with broadswords?) and Troutk13.

Yes! <chuckles> How is the Holy Land treating you old freind? Tho if anything I need to spend more time with sword and staff and less in front of a PC as my middle keeps telling me.

I am secure enough in my (orthodox) Jewish faith that a) I am not bothered in the slightest if other people think it false & b) I do not need to persuade others to embrace it since I neither crave nor need the external validation to be gained from having others embrace it.

Which is the point I think of any faith who'se purpose is to be a personal path not win converts.

themuzicman

November 25th 2003, 10:27 AM

The difference between paganism and dualism is that dualism receives instructions from God and obeys them. Paganism tries to figure out god for itself and what it thinks it should do.

Michael

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 11:01 AM

Today @ 09:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315100#post315100)
themuzicman:

The difference between paganism and dualism is that dualism receives instructions from God and obeys them. Paganism tries to figure out god for itself and what it thinks it should do.

Michael

Actually we receive our guidence from the Divine in the same way Christians do.. ie in response to our prayers/meditations etc. Like Christians sometimes we obey that guidence, sometimes we think we have a better way.

What we do NOT have is a unified book ie the Bible/Koran etc.. We believe that the Divine talks to the individual not to the corporate.

themuzicman

November 25th 2003, 11:27 AM

And, thus, your prayers are based upon what you've assumed is the nature of whatever you pray to. You've still defined that deity according to what you think, rather than the deity telling you about Himself and how He is to be worshipped.

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 11:41 AM

Today @ 10:27 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315154#post315154)
themuzicman:

And, thus, your prayers are based upon what you've assumed is the nature of whatever you pray to. You've still defined that deity according to what you think, rather than the deity telling you about Himself and how He is to be worshipped.

Which pretty much describes any religious faith. but it also overlooks one simple concept.. the deity speaks. What you believe is that the diety wrote a book to tell you about himself and how he is to be worshiped. To a pagan the Gods wrote that upon your spirit and upon the world you walk in.

themuzicman

November 25th 2003, 11:50 AM

However, a book is relatively objective in its communication. God and His requirements are fairly clear.

Interpreting nature is completely subjective. You can make up whatever meaning you wish.

Michael

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 11:58 AM

Today @ 10:50 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315185#post315185)
themuzicman:

However, a book is relatively objective in its communication. God and His requirements are fairly clear.

Interpreting nature is completely subjective. You can make up whatever meaning you wish.

Michael

Objective? How many different versions of that book and Christian interpretations of that book are there? How many times using lines from that book have Christians justified killing other Christians? I'm sorry but history seems to show your "book" to be as subjective as interpreting nature. You have only to look here at the disagreements Christians hold over their own theology.

Also your assuming the book was written by God and not just the collected stories of a group men who received them how?

themuzicman

November 25th 2003, 12:12 PM

Today @ 10:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315199#post315199)
Durthorin:
Objective? How many different versions of that book and Christian interpretations of that book are there? How many times using lines from that book have Christians justified killing other Christians? I'm sorry but history seems to show your "book" to be as subjective as interpreting nature. You have only to look here at the disagreements Christians hold over their own theology.

Note first that I said "relatively." Obviously different people are going to have differing opinions based upon the times they live in.

Also, various groups become more pagan when they deny the infallibility and inerrancy of their book.

Finally, there are also people who misuse, misinterpret, and abuse these books for their own ends, usually power over other people.

However, having a text from God is definately more objective than making up your own views from what you see in nature.

Also your assuming the book was written by God and not just the collected stories of a group men who received them how?

To some extent, yes we do assume that. The Christian Bible specifically has some interesting aspects which suggest a single source in spite of having been written over 1500+years, namely internal consistency.

However, it is the assumption of religions with bibles that God is the author. Otherwise, you're back into paganism.

Michael

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 12:51 PM

Today @ 11:12 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315231#post315231)
themuzicman:

Note first that I said "relatively." Obviously different people are going to have differing opinions based upon the times they live in.

You've basically said its a subjective opinion based on when they read the book. Who was the current authority, etc.

However, it is the assumption of religions with bibles that God is the author. Otherwise, you're back into paganism.

But its our assumption you wrote your own book.. so we start assuming your guidance is the same as ours.

themuzicman

November 25th 2003, 12:58 PM

Today @ 11:51 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315322#post315322)
Durthorin:
You've basically said its a subjective opinion based on when they read the book. Who was the current authority, etc.

No, what I said was that people don't always treat the book properly.

But its our assumption you wrote your own book.. so we start assuming your guidance is the same as ours.

Exactly. You use subjective. We use objective.

Michael

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 01:29 PM

Today @ 11:58 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315336#post315336)
themuzicman:

No, what I said was that people don't always treat the book properly.

According to you. According to them they do.. you point at scripture, they point.. seems pretty much a matter of subjective opinions to me.

Exactly. You use subjective. We use objective.

I really don't see that

themuzicman

November 25th 2003, 01:30 PM

Today @ 12:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315438#post315438)
Durthorin:
According to you. According to them they do.. you point at scripture, they point.. seems pretty much a matter of subjective opinions to me.

I really don't see that

Both are just your assumptions, however. Assumptions based upon your completely subjective view.

Michael

Trout

November 25th 2003, 01:31 PM

Durthorin:

If the goal is getting to the other side, then its walk around to the left, walk around to the right, jump over.. pole vault, throw dirt over the glass.. There is always more than two choices.

Again, either the glass or my feet.

Durthorin:
But the choice of the cookie is not always bad at 20 or 30 is it? At 5 its No cookie.. at 20 and 30 that changes. Does it not?

So how many more years until you discover that Wicca is false and offers no help in actual life situations.

Durthorin:
An again, if this is the worldview you choose then I accept that that is what is right for you. You need to believe your path is an objective truth then thats what helps you live a better life then its the right course for you.

And again, if Christianity is true, then nothing about Wicca will help you live a better life.

Durthorin:
Consider this, if Wicca is true, then by Wicca's concept Christianity having aided you to live a better life is "true" Wiccan's see no problem with you achieving your salvation and going to a Christian heaven as we pass on to our Summerland. An the truth, the real objective truth is that neither of us will be able to say our faith is true till then.. till then you accept the Bible on Faith, you follow your path on faith and you place your belief in your salvation based on your faith. An Truth and Faith are not the same thing Trout. I choose Wicca in the end, because it worked.. it made me better than I was. An if Christianity did that same thing for you, then its right for you.

Consider this; if Christianity is true, God has provided one way in which we can live a meaningful life. If Christianity is true, to reject the perfect sacrifice that God has provided, is the ultimate in arrogance and pride. If Christianity is true and someone rejects it to follow Wicca, the result is an afterlife that will not be pleasant by any definition.

And Dur, how about starting with one verifiable objective reason to believe that Wicca is indeed true.

Wesley's son

November 25th 2003, 04:58 PM

Questions for the Wiccan,

In your worldview, is the divine a person(s) like a god(dess) or the collective energy made by all living things. Are there one or many. If there are many, do they know about and interact with each other?

Thanks

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 05:01 PM

Today @ 12:30 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315440#post315440)
themuzicman:

Both are just your assumptions, however. Assumptions based upon your completely subjective view.

Michael

An this differs from your subjective views how?

themuzicman

November 25th 2003, 05:03 PM

Today @ 04:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315933#post315933)
Durthorin:

An this differs from your subjective views how?

We have a text that we consider authoratative to which we must hold (unless you're not into inerrancy and infallibility, but I already said that those folks head back to paganism.)

With a common authoratative text, we at least assume some objective truth that is external to man's opinions.

Michael

Bob Jenkins

November 25th 2003, 05:06 PM

"And again, if Christianity is true, then nothing about Wicca will help you live a better life"

And again, if Christianity is true,

Sorry Bob, you know the rules about posting in comparative religions

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 05:06 PM

Today @ 12:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315443#post315443)
troutk13:

[quote]
So how many more years until you discover that Wicca is false and offers no help in actual life situations.

Well I was a Christian for 8 years, I have been Pagan for 19 now, it has seen me thru the deaths of family, thru my own injuries that doctors told me would leave me a cripple and thru the recovery process that gave me back the use of my limbs. So in the acid test of life situtions, its worked thru each hardship, each trial.

And again, if Christianity is true, then nothing about Wicca will help you live a better life.

So living a better life as a Wiccan after being a Christian would mean what to you?

Consider this; if Christianity is true, God has provided one way in which we can live a meaningful life. If Christianity is true, to reject the perfect sacrifice that God has provided, is the ultimate in arrogance and pride. If Christianity is true and someone rejects it to follow Wicca, the result is an afterlife that will not be pleasant by any definition.

Having died three times on an operating table according to Doctors.. I'll remain Wiccan and leave my fate to the Godddess.

And Dur, how about starting with one verifiable objective reason to believe that Wicca is indeed true.

It works for me.

Pilgrim

November 25th 2003, 05:09 PM

that's a non verafiable subjective reason though because it's based on your own opinion and nothing else and, really, you could be lying about it.

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 05:12 PM

Today @ 03:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315927#post315927)
Wesley's son:

Questions for the Wiccan,

In your worldview, is the divine a person(s) like a god(dess) or the collective energy made by all living things. Are there one or many. If there are many, do they know about and interact with each other?

Thanks

The Divine is you, me the world, the Gods. All of it. The two aspects of that are the God and Goddess. and aspects of those primal Male/Female energies are reflected in the Gods and Goddess of history.

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 05:29 PM

Today @ 04:09 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315953#post315953)
Pilgrim:

that's a non verafiable subjective reason though because it's based on your own opinion and nothing else and, really, you could be lying about it.

But why would I? To convince you to convert? My Faith frowns on doing that in point of fact its considered bad form. Was my life worse one should by observation be able to tell if I have a better life.

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 05:31 PM

Today @ 04:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315937#post315937)
themuzicman:

We have a text that we consider authoratative to which we must hold (unless you're not into inerrancy and infallibility, but I already said that those folks head back to paganism.)

With a common authoratative text, we at least assume some objective truth that is external to man's opinions.

Michael

From my stand point you make a subjective decision to treat an external force as your control. To do this requires that you accept on faih that it is inerrant and infalliable. As you said, you assume its an objective truth.

Pilgrim

November 25th 2003, 05:36 PM

I don't know why would you lie? I can't speculate as to that but niether can you nor I verify it as truth. It is subjective because it is not other than your own whim.

MM is talking about something objective because it comes from something other than himself therefore it is an object of truth, not a subject.

Wesley's son

November 25th 2003, 05:37 PM

Today @ 04:12 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=315963#post315963)
Durthorin:

The Divine is you, me the world, the Gods. All of it. The two aspects of that are the God and Goddess. and aspects of those primal Male/Female energies are reflected in the Gods and Goddess of history.

In the Wiccan worldview are there gods now? I mean if I were granted godhood could I carry on a conversation with one, or are they symbolic representations of various aspects of the universe at large? Maybe I should ask: polytheism or pantheism?

Thanks again

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 05:50 PM

Today @ 04:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=316028#post316028)
Pilgrim:

I don't know why would you lie? I can't speculate as to that but niether can you nor I verify it as truth. It is subjective because it is not other than your own whim.

MM is talking about something objective because it comes from something other than himself therefore it is an object of truth, not a subject.

Objective
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff>

For the Bible by Definition to be objective truth it would have to be conceded as true based "sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers " It has historically failed that test. As to my life as I stated before, if an external observer states that I live a better life as Wiccan than as Christian then that is an objective truth by definition.

Subjective
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL -- compare OBJECTIVE 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states

So is Christianity subjective since its truths can not be shown to exist independant of the mind of those that worship?

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 05:52 PM

Today @ 04:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=316031#post316031)
Wesley's son:

In the Wiccan worldview are there gods now? I mean if I were granted godhood could I carry on a conversation with one, or are they symbolic representations of various aspects of the universe at large? Maybe I should ask: polytheism or pantheism?

Thanks again

Yes. Yes. Yes and Both.

The key point is the Wiccan Worldview would accept all those positions.

Trout

November 25th 2003, 06:38 PM

Durthorin:
So is Christianity subjective since its truths can not be shown to exist independant of the mind of those that worship?

But they can Dur.
There are many things about Christianity that can be varified.

You still haven't given one objective reason to believe that Wicca is indeed true.

And you haven't demonstrated how the principles of Wicca have applied to your real life situations.

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 07:09 PM

Today @ 05:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=316143#post316143)
troutk13:

But they can Dur.
There are many things about Christianity that can be varified.

You still haven't given one objective reason to believe that Wicca is indeed true.

And you haven't demonstrated how the principles of Wicca have applied to your real life situations.

I'm afraid I never found any objectivly varified thing about Christainity that I would consider more than a matter of someones personal Faith. The Bible has certain historic facts within the book itself but no more than any work of Alexander Dumas. Its primary points remain a matter of Faith.

Lets see 19 years of living as a Wiccan/Pagan.. Well, in that time I have never struck my wife. If it harm none.. in some cases, in other's I consider her if she believes it or not as an aspect of the
Goddess and thus at my worst moments worthy of my love and respect. As a matter of the things I do each morning is a prayer to the Gods, "By the Air above me, by the Water around me by the Earth below me.. Remind me that I am kin to all that flies, all that swims, all that grows or walks upon the earth and that I should remember to be kind to my kin." Those beliefs have helped me try to live in harmony with the world around me. When I was injured I was told that I would never have the use of my left arm again nor be able to walk unassisted.. walking using my arm were a matter of prayer to Brighid and magik healing worked by freinds. In 30 days I had full use of my arm and was running two miles each morning. My walk as a pagan is my life. It begins each day when I get up, it is how I treat people and the world around me as I move thru that day.. it is the love and respect I show my wife, my children and the tolerance I have for others. It is not something as simple as what do you believe, but what do you live, what do you do. Pagan faiths are often called paths have you noticed, its because for them to be real you have to walk them. if you want to know how I apply my faith to a sitution, give me a sitution and I'll be happy to explain what I would cosnider proper based on my faith and its precepts.

Danu Bless, Dur

Trout

November 25th 2003, 07:37 PM

Durthorin:

I'm afraid I never found any objectivly varified thing about Christainity that I would consider more than a matter of someones personal Faith. The Bible has certain historic facts within the book itself but no more than any work of Alexander Dumas. Its primary points remain a matter of Faith.

Lets see 19 years of living as a Wiccan/Pagan.. Well, in that time I have never struck my wife. If it harm none.. in some cases, in other's I consider her if she believes it or not as an aspect of the
Goddess and thus at my worst moments worthy of my love and respect. As a matter of the things I do each morning is a prayer to the Gods, "By the Air above me, by the Water around me by the Earth below me.. Remind me that I am kin to all that flies, all that swims, all that grows or walks upon the earth and that I should remember to be kind to my kin." Those beliefs have helped me try to live in harmony with the world around me. When I was injured I was told that I would never have the use of my left arm again nor be able to walk unassisted.. walking using my arm were a matter of prayer to Brighid and magik healing worked by freinds. In 30 days I had full use of my arm and was running two miles each morning. My walk as a pagan is my life. It begins each day when I get up, it is how I treat people and the world around me as I move thru that day.. it is the love and respect I show my wife, my children and the tolerance I have for others. It is not something as simple as what do you believe, but what do you live, what do you do. Pagan faiths are often called paths have you noticed, its because for them to be real you have to walk them. if you want to know how I apply my faith to a sitution, give me a sitution and I'll be happy to explain what I would cosnider proper based on my faith and its precepts.

Danu Bless, Dur

Again, you haven't demonstrated any objective truths linking Wicca to reality, are we to think that it has no basis in objective truth and is completely subjective?

And while I'm thinking of "all that flies"; are there any of your "kin" that have been harmed on your windshield?

And how can you be kind to your "kin", then kill it and eat it?

Durthorin

November 25th 2003, 07:51 PM

Today @ 06:37 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=316252#post316252)
troutk13:

Again, you haven't demonstrated any objective truths linking Wicca to reality, are we to think that it has no basis in objective truth and is completely subjective?

And while I'm thinking of "all that flies"; are there any of your "kin" that have been harmed on your windshield?

And how can you be kind to your "kin", then kill it and eat it?

I thank the spirit of what I eat for its life gives me life and remember that one day my body will feed other creatures. Being kind to my kin doesn't remove me from the cycle of life upon the world, but it reminds me that as part of that cycle I should not waste, destroy wantonly or kill for nothing more than my own greed. What I accept from this world I take fully, use completly and with reverence.

As for flies on my windsheild.. well they remind me to walk when I can now don't they? ;)

I don't have to prove my faith to you trout, all I have to do is live it. If you can't see it in my life.. then no doubt it doesn't exist. Like I said, its in the walk not in the talk that you see evidence of religion working in those who believe its lives. I have seen it for Christians, I have seen it for Pagans.. as for objective evidence. all that can show you is that a religion "exists" not that its true. An objective proof of Wiccas existence is really uneeded now isn't it?

Trout

November 26th 2003, 12:13 AM

Durthorin:
I thank the spirit of what I eat for its life gives me life and remember that one day my body will feed other creatures. Being kind to my kin doesn't remove me from the cycle of life upon the world, but it reminds me that as part of that cycle I should not waste, destroy wantonly or kill for nothing more than my own greed. What I accept from this world I take fully, use completly and with reverence.

So it's OK to harm if you're hungry?

Durthorin:
I don't have to prove my faith to you trout, all I have to do is live it. If you can't see it in my life.. then no doubt it doesn't exist. Like I said, its in the walk not in the talk that you see evidence of religion working in those who believe its lives. I have seen it for Christians, I have seen it for Pagans.. as for objective evidence. all that can show you is that a religion "exists" not that its true. An objective proof of Wiccas existence is really uneeded now isn't it?

Dur, I'm not asking you to prove your faith to me, I'm asking for one objective varifiable reason to think that Wicca is true.

You said this,

Durthorin:
Consider this, if Wicca is true, then by Wicca's concept Christianity having aided you to live a better life is "true" Wiccan's see no problem with you achieving your salvation and going to a Christian heaven as we pass on to our Summerland.

You also said this,

Durthorin:
An the truth, the real objective truth is that neither of us will be able to say our faith is true

Since you can't know objectively what's true, you therefore can't say that Christianity is false. But if Christianity is true the Wiccan is in grave danger, but as you have said, for the Wiccan following Christianity will lead to the same Summerland/Heaven. But for the Christian,only one path leads to heaven.

Therefore, since you can't say Christianity is false, there is no good reason for you not to forsake Wicca and follow Christ.

bar Jonah

November 26th 2003, 12:21 AM

Trout, you're now using Pascal's wager. While it is an accurate reflection of the "odds" in the dilemma of God/no-God, it is not evidence of any kind, and therefore makes for a fallacious argument.

Trout

November 26th 2003, 12:27 AM

RightIdea:

Trout, you're now using Pascal's wager. While it is an accurate reflection of the "odds" in the dilemma of God/no-God, it is not evidence of any kind, and therefore makes for a fallacious argument.

Maybe I haven't understood Dur's position, he said:

1. that if Wicca is true, then the Christian will end up in the same Summerland/Heaven as the Wiccan.

But if Christianity is true the Wiccan will be in Hell.

So what reason would there be for any Wiccan who believes 1 to remain a Wiccan?

I'm not presenting it as evidence.
But it seems the smart choice, no?

bar Jonah

November 26th 2003, 02:15 AM

It's not the smart choice if it's not true.

Read my siggy.

stillsmallvoice

November 26th 2003, 08:03 AM

Hi all!

Troutk13, you posted:

There are many things about Christianity that can be varified.

Try me!

But if Christianity is true the Wiccan will be in Hell.

What about the Jew?

Dur asked:

How is the Holy Land treating you old freind?

Very good, thank you! Yohanan (will be 7 in January) is in first grade & Naor (just turned 3) is in pre-nursery school. How're the girls?

Be well!

ssv :hi:

Elle

November 26th 2003, 09:31 AM

(Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out how to navigate this website, please be patient.)

A statement was made to the effect that if a Christian dies, he'll end up in the Summerland if Wicca is correct. And if a Wiccan dies and Christianity is correct, he'll end up in hell. So, as a Wiccan, it would be advisable to "hedge my bets" and throw my lot in with Christianity.

The problem I see with this is....faith. If you don't really believe, then no amount of lip service will get you into heaven. So, as a Wiccan- hedging my bet- I still don't believe, so are therefore not actually a Christian.

I'd be willing to lay money, that many folks actually do think that they are hedging their bets by checking the little box on the right that says Christian. Just in case.

With my own personal history, I graduated from a Religious school, and whilst I did a lot of soul searching and exploring occult religions, I was always afraid of denying Christ's deity-just in case I was wrong. It took many years before I ws able to say that I just didn't believe it.

Regards,
Elle

Trout

November 26th 2003, 10:33 AM

RightIdea:

It's not the smart choice if it's not true.

Read my siggy.

I agree.

But it is the smarter choice of the two, given the info Dur has offered.
Remember, Dur has taken knowable truth out of the equation.
Welcome aboard Elle, your point is also well taken.
It looks like you are navigating the site just fine.

Pilgrim

November 26th 2003, 10:38 AM

/ot I miss the Holy Land. I have said time and again that if I was to leave the US it would be to go to Israel. So beautiful. (Although the desert around Petra is just about the most beautiful site I have ever seen. It's just that it would be a little rough to live out there in the wilderness all the time.)

Durthorin

November 26th 2003, 11:11 AM

Yesterday @ 11:27 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317275#post317275)
troutk13:

Maybe I haven't understood Dur's position, he said:

1. that if Wicca is true, then the Christian will end up in the same Summerland/Heaven as the Wiccan.

But if Christianity is true the Wiccan will be in Hell.

So what reason would there be for any Wiccan who believes 1 to remain a Wiccan?

I'm not presenting it as evidence.
But it seems the smart choice, no?

The easy answer is we don't follow our faith because of what happens after we die but for what it does in our lives. Also if your playing Pascal's Wager then shouldn't you be a Catholic?

An as Elle said, its also a mtter of Faith, remember I was a Christian for 8 years before finding a Pagan path.. for me to pretend to believe in Christ would be just that.. me pretending.

Durthorin

November 26th 2003, 11:12 AM

Today @ 07:03 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317593#post317593)
stillsmallvoice:

Very good, thank you! Yohanan (will be 7 in January) is in first grade & Naor (just turned 3) is in pre-nursery school. How're the girls?

Be well!

ssv :hi:

Erin starts college next year.. I'm feeling OLD. <chuckle>

Trout

November 26th 2003, 02:29 PM

Durthorin:

The easy answer is we don't follow our faith because of what happens after we die but for what it does in our lives. Also if your playing Pascal's Wager then shouldn't you be a Catholic?

An as Elle said, its also a mtter of Faith, remember I was a Christian for 8 years before finding a Pagan path.. for me to pretend to believe in Christ would be just that.. me pretending.

Dur, I'm a Christian because truth is knowable.

You have expressed that truth cannot be known.

I have argued that Christianity is a better choice than Wicca, if in fact you doubt that truth can be objectively found.

Durthorin

November 26th 2003, 03:00 PM

Today @ 01:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317907#post317907)
troutk13:

Dur, I'm a Christian because truth is knowable.

You have expressed that truth cannot be known.

I have argued that Christianity is a better choice than Wicca, if in fact you doubt that truth can be objectively found.

If Islam says that if you worship Christ your a infidel and will burn in Hell, then does that make Islam a better choice than Christianity or and equal choice since both threaten you with eternal torture if you don't follow them? Add in the other various exclusive sects and faiths and it looks like you get one chip on a roulette wheel with the odds 1000 to 1 against. Logically your better off not letting anyone tell you about any one of those faiths since most offer a form of grace to those that have *never* heard the Word.

Your basic argument is that Christianity is better because it threatens you so it is a better choice because it creates fear in you? This is hardly an argument for the grace of God and more for why you pay protection money to the mob. I have stated that Wicca as a philosphy and a faith works in my life, Christianity did not. Now you state this as subjective, my statement is that the end result in my life is objectivly observable.
As far as Pascals wager, since I will be at risk from everyone of those 999 other faiths if I choose Christianity I might as well choose the faith that best serves me now.

Pilgrim

November 26th 2003, 03:17 PM

Dur,

I also believe what I do not because of what might happen to me at the end of life. I believe in God, I give worship to God soley because God deserves it, not because I may be rewarded or punished in the end.

Pilgrim

Durthorin

November 26th 2003, 03:20 PM

Today @ 02:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=317962#post317962)
Pilgrim:

Dur,

I also believe what I do not because of what might happen to me at the end of life. I believe in God, I give worship to God soley because God deserves it, not because I may be rewarded or punished in the end.

Pilgrim

Which seems honorable conduct and proper to me. You walk your path in faith.

Dur

Trout

November 26th 2003, 03:58 PM

Durthorin:

If Islam says that if you worship Christ your a infidel and will burn in Hell, then does that make Islam a better choice than Christianity or and equal choice since both threaten you with eternal torture if you don't follow them? Add in the other various exclusive sects and faiths and it looks like you get one chip on a roulette wheel with the odds 1000 to 1 against. Logically your better off not letting anyone tell you about any one of those faiths since most offer a form of grace to those that have *never* heard the Word.

I quite agree, since you have expressed that truth cannot be known, I think that Islam would be a better choice for you than Wicca.

Durthorin:
Your basic argument is that Christianity is better because it threatens you so it is a better choice because it creates fear in you? This is hardly an argument for the grace of God and more for why you pay protection money to the mob. I have stated that Wicca as a philosphy and a faith works in my life, Christianity did not. Now you state this as subjective, my statement is that the end result in my life is objectivly observable.
As far as Pascals wager, since I will be at risk from everyone of those 999 other faiths if I choose Christianity I might as well choose the faith that best serves me now.

Again, I'm a Christian because truth is knowable.

You have said that truth cannot be known, therefore I think there are more reasonable choices than Wicca.

Leroy

November 26th 2003, 05:05 PM

Durthorin

Durthorin; Your basic argument is that Christianity is better because it threatens you so it is a better choice because it creates fear in you? :huh:
As I’ve observed, this is not Trout’s basic argument, I see you retreating to this assumed ridiculous argument as you have no other substantial way of dealing with his actual argument.

Durthorin; This is hardly an argument for the grace of God and more for why you pay protection money to the mob.
Trout’s argument is not about the grace of God. But your suggestion that it is, then arguing this point makes it look like your just throwing smoke grenades to make a hasty exit.

Durthorin; I have stated that Wicca as a philosphy and a faith works in my life, Christianity did not.
Still, no evidence! Basing your argument that Wicca works in your life, as evidence of its truth is an Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. :doh:

Durthorin;Now you state this as subjective, my statement is that the end result in my life is objectivly observable.
As far as Pascals wager, since I will be at risk from everyone of those 999 other faiths if I choose Christianity I might as well choose the faith that best serves me now.
There is an infinite amount of wrong choices.

Leroy

Pilgrim

November 26th 2003, 05:13 PM

What I observe in Wicca and most practice of other simular 20th century psuedo religions in the US is that people follow them because they feel a need to be spiritual but they don't want the accountability or responsablity that true faith would require of them. Basically, it's a way to feel kind of good about yourself with out really having to do anything about it. You can feel all philosophical and smart without ever really having to show it.

The thing with genuine, mature Christianity is that ultimately it does require accountability and responsability, that's not something the average US citizen cares for.

Durthorin

November 26th 2003, 06:10 PM

Today @ 02:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318003#post318003)
troutk13:

I quite agree, since you have expressed that truth cannot be known, I think that Islam would be a better choice for you than Wicca.

Again, I'm a Christian because truth is knowable.

You have said that truth cannot be known, therefore I think there are more reasonable choices than Wicca.

If the truth can not be known then I have to base my decision on other factors. In your key point since your religion promises me hell if I don't join and my own does not then its in my best interest to switch to yours.

Now, the problem arises in as much as I think your faith is suitable for you, I find it unsuitable for me.. no threat of eternal hell being enough to make me violate what I hold to be my own moral code which my own religion supports and Christainity does not. Once more my Faith is more about "this" world than the next. It is the philosphy I live my life by.

Durthorin

November 26th 2003, 06:24 PM

Today @ 04:05 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318085#post318085)
Leroy:

Still, no evidence! Basing your argument that Wicca works in your life, as evidence of its truth is an Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. :doh:

I have stated that it works for me. I have also stated that that for me that is a truth which you and others view as subjective. But I have stated that external observation of my life would validate.

Interesting fallacy. Don't you love the first example of this?

Examples of Appeal to Consequences of a Belief
"God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!"

There is an infinite amount of wrong choices.

Of which Christianity may be one if your logic is applied to your faith as well. True?

Trout

November 26th 2003, 06:38 PM

Durthorin:

If the truth can not be known then I have to base my decision on other factors.

One qualifier before we continue; is it true that truth cannot be known? (The objective truthfullness of Wicca.)

And if you think that the truth cannot be known, how did you come to that conclusion?

Durthorin

November 26th 2003, 06:42 PM

Today @ 04:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318103#post318103)
Pilgrim:

What I observe in Wicca and most practice of other simular 20th century psuedo religions in the US is that people follow them because they feel a need to be spiritual but they don't want the accountability or responsablity that true faith would require of them. Basically, it's a way to feel kind of good about yourself with out really having to do anything about it. You can feel all philosophical and smart without ever really having to show it.

The thing with genuine, mature Christianity is that ultimately it does require accountability and responsability, that's not something the average US citizen cares for.

How Odd, I find the excact opposite. I have humorously attended a Southern Baptist Church for over 20 some odd years now and I have found far more people there that are once a week Christians than the Pagans I know. Most Pagans I know are deeply commited to their faith, study it and are very informed and involved in their community. Perhaps because most Covens, Groves and Circles are to small to hide in by their nature has always been my assumption. In a small group of people you will be asked to do something or to quote a priestess I know.. "Circles don't have back pews.".

In most churches I have been involved in which in truth is about three I have noted that the work gets done by a core of commited believers whose names constantly crop up. Often they burn out or suffer for that commitment while the majority of the Church shows up on Sunday, drops a couple fo dollars in the collection plate and doesn't mention Christ for the rest of their week much less become activly involved in it.

On the flip side, myself and about 15 others spent a week end in the mountains arranging for a pagan police officer to stand a Vigil of Arms and to within ritual empower that officer with our support as their community. We accept responsabiltiy for helping the officer and acknowledge as community that we are accountable.

That is not to say their are not Pagans who treat their Faith lightly or simply as a justification to not be a Christian. I have on a couple of occasiosn told a new Pagan they needed to go BACK to a Church and talk to a pastor. The reality is that all faiths have some degree of people that are not as commited or involved in living their faith. But personally I have found that number smaller among Pagans than Christians.. if for no other reason there are just a heck of a lot more of you than us and very few of us are social Pagans as opposed to social Christians. Ie Social Christian is someone who identifies as a Christian, doesn't own a Bible.. may have had a conversion as a child and shows up at Church for weddings, funerals and holidays like Easter, Christmas.. etc. One Christian I know argues that Social Christians are not Christians but the Lost that show up at Church. But they are a large number of those that are surveyed as "Christian"

Durthorin

November 26th 2003, 06:49 PM

Today @ 05:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318253#post318253)
troutk13:

One qualifier before we continue; is it true that truth cannot be known? (The objective truthfullness of Wicca.)

And if you think that the truth cannot be known, how did you come to that conclusion?

Objective truth about any religions validity can not be known.

Let me quote something for you:

"Sure, there are objective ways to describe religion: by numbers of adherents, by their rituals and holy books and what not, or more usefully by 'creed, ' 'code' and 'cultus.' But objective evidence can only be used to determine whether a spiritual movement is a religion; after that, I submit there is no objective way to prove whether a religion is *valid.*

http://au.geocities.com/taspagans/littlewitchandchristian.htm

if your interested int he complete piece it comes from.

Trout

November 26th 2003, 06:59 PM

Durthorin:

Objective truth about any religions validity can not be known.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Durthorin

November 26th 2003, 07:08 PM

Today @ 05:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318283#post318283)
troutk13:

How did you come to that conclusion?

The definition of objective.

Main Entry: 1ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, äb-
Function: adjective
Date: 1620
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff>

3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

Main Entry: 1sub·jec·tive
Pronunciation: (")s&b-'jek-tiv
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject : as a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness b : being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : NOMINATIVE
2 : of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL -- compare OBJECTIVE 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> -- compare OBJECTIVE 1c
5 : lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY

The definition of subjective

themuzicman

November 26th 2003, 07:13 PM

One thing to consider is that the purpose of religion isn't really how we spend this life, although it does impact that, but how we spend eternity. I would be wary of any religion that didn't have some definate plans for my eternity.

Michael

Trout

November 26th 2003, 07:40 PM

Durthorin:

The definition of objective.

Main Entry: 1ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, äb-
Function: adjective
Date: 1620
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff>

3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

Main Entry: 1sub·jec·tive
Pronunciation: (")s&b-'jek-tiv
Function: adjective
Date: 15th century
1 : of, relating to, or constituting a subject : as a obsolete : of, relating to, or characteristic of one that is a subject especially in lack of freedom of action or in submissiveness b : being or relating to a grammatical subject; especially : NOMINATIVE
2 : of or relating to the essential being of that which has substance, qualities, attributes, or relations
3 a : characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : PHENOMENAL -- compare OBJECTIVE 1b b : relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1) : peculiar to a particular individual : PERSONAL <subjective judgments> (2) : modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b : arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by external stimuli <subjective sensations> c : arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> -- compare OBJECTIVE 1c
5 : lacking in reality or substance : ILLUSORY

The definition of subjective

Dur, I am familiar with the definitions of those words.

You made this objective statement,

Durthorin:
Objective truth about any religions validity can not be known.

How do you know your statement is true.?

Durthorin

November 26th 2003, 09:31 PM

Today @ 06:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318296#post318296)
themuzicman:

One thing to consider is that the purpose of religion isn't really how we spend this life, although it does impact that, but how we spend eternity. I would be wary of any religion that didn't have some definate plans for my eternity.

Michael

Then we have a difference of opinion. The purpose of any religious Faith is how it effects how you live with the people and world around you. Christianity as a faith uses a carrot and stick method for this.. Be Good and you go to Heavan and are richly rewarded.. be Bad and you spend eternity in Hell being tortured forever.. Christianity then goes on to spell out things not to do referencing back to the ire of God on those that fail to live by these tenants. The Bible is by its nature a manual on how to "live" as a Christian is it not?

Durthorin

November 26th 2003, 09:52 PM

Today @ 06:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318327#post318327)
troutk13:

[quote]
Dur, I am familiar with the definitions of those words.

Then apply the definition.

You made this objective statement,

Actually its a subjective statement.

How do you know your statement is true.?

While you can objectivly find data or observable information that is objective about a religion, its validity will always be based on subjective judgement of its adherants.

For example:
What is the objective truth/evidence that proves the validity of your faith? Please note for it to be objective it must be external observable by non-Christians and agreed on by all external observers. It must also be free of distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

ie b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality>

a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations <objective art>

Perceive the problem?

bar Jonah

November 26th 2003, 10:00 PM

Durthorin:
Objective truth about any religions validity can not be known.
By saying that, you are claiming to know an objective truth about the validity of religions. Which begs the question....

How do you know this claim is true? :huh:

Leroy

November 26th 2003, 10:16 PM

Durthorin,

I see a whole lot of bobbing-n-weaving, shuck & jive, slight-of-hand, but still no evidence! :nc: The only defense of your theology that you have presented is your offensive attach on Christianity, :rock: and your feelings. You get people running down rabbit holes and set up diversions, :shifty: eluding the fact that you have yet to back up your statement as to the validly of Wiccan with evidence! :flaming: Surely you have some, come on quit holding back and give it to us!

Unless, your conceding this point? :ahem:

Leroy

bar Jonah

November 26th 2003, 10:20 PM

If you don't have any real foundation for your beliefs, just say so. Such a confession isn't the end of the world. :nsm:

Trout

November 27th 2003, 01:04 AM

Durthorin:
While you can objectivly find data or observable information that is objective about a religion, its validity will always be based on subjective judgement of its adherants.

For example:
What is the objective truth/evidence that proves the validity of your faith? Please note for it to be objective it must be external observable by non-Christians and agreed on by all external observers. It must also be free of distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.

I hate to burst your bubble Dur, but Christianity has objective verifiable facts, and Wicca aparently has none. But this thread seeks to find info about Wicca.

Durthorin:
Perceive the problem?

I think everyone on this thread perceives the problem,and it seems to be yours.

Come on Dur, answer the questions.

bar Jonah

November 27th 2003, 03:52 AM

At the very least, Christianity has a mountain of alleged evidence to investigate.

As a former Wiccan myself, I can attest that the same cannot be said for that blind-faith-based belief system.

Elle

November 27th 2003, 08:39 AM

Durthorin
“ Durthorin; Your basic argument is that Christianity is better because it threatens you so it is a better choice because it creates fear in you? ”

:huh:
As I’ve observed, this is not Trout’s basic argument, I see you retreating to this assumed ridiculous argument as you have no other substantial way of dealing with his actual argument.

Actually Augustine pretty much said that the Christian Church used fear tactics and the military to enforce their belief system and more importantly to surpress other views. From my early background in the church (Baptist), I will say the fear card is played reeeeaaaal early on.

Trout13- You stated that you were a Christian because the truth was knowable. I assume that you meant that Christ lived and died on the cross for your sins. Can I ask how you know this for truth?

What I observe in Wicca and most practice of other simular 20th century psuedo religions in the US is that people follow them because they feel a need to be spiritual but they don't want the accountability or responsablity that true faith would require of them. Basically, it's a way to feel kind of good about yourself with out really having to do anything about it. You can feel all philosophical and smart without ever really having to show it.

The thing with genuine, mature Christianity is that ultimately it does require accountability and responsability, that's not something the average US citizen cares for.

Pilgrim

November 27th 2003, 11:19 AM

Hmm, most Wiccans study and are informed about their faith you say? then how come most of them are under the mistaken impression that wicca is anything other than a 20th century invention?

Elle

November 27th 2003, 11:26 AM

There was a remark made to the effect that Christian churches use fear as a motivator for some converts. I agree completely. I know that Augustine once made a comment to the effect of military force being indespensible to the Christian conversion. Pardon me? Whatever happened to the free will part? In my own life, I do know that the church I attended played the "fear of eternal damnation" card very early on. (Baptist, who else?) This was in the childrens bible study.

Trout 13- You made a comment that you're a Christian because the truth is knowable. Can you break this down further for me? I truly am not trying to be cheeky, and I really would like to know.

Regards,
Elle

Leroy

November 27th 2003, 02:22 PM

Hi Elle,:hi:
Welcome, to the Theologweb!

You made this comment;

Elle,Trout 13- You made a comment that you're a Christian because the truth is knowable. Can you break this down further for me? I truly am not trying to be cheeky, and I really would like to know.
and although this is a good question and someone even Trout would be very interested in discussing this in depth with you, a defense of Christian beliefs is not the point of this particular thread. Wicca beliefs and evidences of Wicca beliefs are. If you wanted to post this question in a new thread in say Apoloqetics 301 (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=15) or read some of the current threads I think you would get plenty of answers.

Evidence of Wicca claims have yet to be posted and we are all waiting for these claims to be substantiated.

Leroy

bar Jonah

November 27th 2003, 02:28 PM

Exactly, Leroy. Good job staying on topic, despite some people's attempts to divert attention away from the question at hand -- Wicca.

bar Jonah

November 27th 2003, 02:28 PM

(Oopsy)

Pilgrim

November 27th 2003, 10:13 PM

this idea of the fear tactic bugs me. That method and understanding is actually a very small part of Christianity as a whole. Reformed, Protestant theology teaches that we worship God because God is God, regardless of punishment or reward.

I think people are all to quick to take personal anecdote and turn it into a universal principle which is not the best way to approach things.

Ryokan

November 28th 2003, 02:10 AM

Yesterday @ 09:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319228#post319228)
Pilgrim:

this idea of the fear tactic bugs me. That method and understanding is actually a very small part of Christianity as a whole. Reformed, Protestant theology teaches that we worship God because God is God, regardless of punishment or reward.

I think people are all to quick to take personal anecdote and turn it into a universal principle which is not the best way to approach things.

See, I think that Protestant theology, and Protestantism as it is taught, can be very different things. And that it varies Church to Church and denomination to denomination. Methodists and Lutherans are much less likely than Baptist or Pentacostals to play the fear card, which at least in my experience is the primary teaching tool in youth ministry.

Elle

November 28th 2003, 06:16 AM

Elle

November 28th 2003, 06:33 AM

I do apologise for the double entry- the first one disappeared into cyber-space and I tried to reconstruct it. oops.

and although this is a good question and someone even Trout would be very interested in discussing this in depth with you, a defense of Christian beliefs is not the point of this particular thread. Wicca beliefs and evidences of Wicca beliefs are. If you wanted to post this question in a new thread in say Apoloqetics 301 or read some of the current threads I think you would get plenty of answers.

Sorry. My fault, I thought since he made that statement on this thread, that he could back it up.

Evidence of Wicca claims have yet to be posted and we are all waiting for these claims to be substantiated.

My spells work, my worship of deity works. As Christians are so fond of pointing out faith is....well faith. Truth as I perceive it, is something that has to be experianced, not proven. That, as they say, is in the pudding. I think Christianity has some very good points, but I simply don't have faith in it, therefore, it is not true for me.

Hmm, most Wiccans study and are informed about their faith you say? then how come most of them are under the mistaken impression that wicca is anything other than a 20th century invention?

I will freely admit, that there are newbie wiccans that espouse any number of ridiculous ideas. The same goes on in most religions. There is a fine distinction between wiccan, witch and pagan. Gerald Gardner created the wicca that we know today. Paganism as a whole, is much older. However, we have to piece together what we know of it, mainly from the historic writings of our detractors. We know the damage that was done to pagan temples by the christians from historians.

See, I think that Protestant theology, and Protestantism as it is taught, can be very different things. And that it varies Church to Church and denomination to denomination. Methodists and Lutherans are much less likely than Baptist or Pentacostals to play the fear card, which at least in my experience is the primary teaching tool in youth ministry.

I can understand what you're saying. However, I can only tell about my own experience, which was Baptist.

Can I prove to you that Wicca exists? Of course it does. Look at the numbers of people that claim to follow it. Even it it wasn't "real", it would be now, simply because the followers make it so.

The bible points out the powers of witchcraft, - they point to it as evil, but they DO acknowledge it. If you believe as Christians that the bible is inerrent- there you go. Proof.

Cheers,
Elle

Pilgrim

November 28th 2003, 09:46 AM

The bible does not point toward "Wicca", it points to what has been translated as "witch-craft" and other occult things like it. Wicca as you know it is nothing more than a 20th century invention.

Bob Jenkins

November 28th 2003, 10:08 AM

Pilgrim,
"The bible does not point toward "Wicca", it points to what has been translated as "witch-craft" and other occult things like it. Wicca as you know it is nothing more than a 20th century invention."

I haven't heard of any mention of Protestentism in the Bible. Should we disparage the use of that title today? Was there even a story of a corrupted temple that was abandoned?

tsk tsk Bob. This area is for Theist response only. Sorry. If you'd like, you can PM Pilgrim and discuss this further.

Leroy

November 28th 2003, 04:17 PM

Elle

I hope you had a fun Thanksgiving!

Leroy,
Evidence of Wicca claims have yet to be posted and we are all waiting for these claims to be substantiated.
Elle,
My spells work, my worship of deity works. As Christians are so fond of pointing out faith is....well faith. Truth as I perceive it, is something that has to be experianced, not proven. That, as they say, is in the pudding. I think Christianity has some very good points, but I simply don't have faith in it, therefore, it is not true for me. :shocked:
As I said in an earlier post
Basing your argument that Wicca works in your life, as evidence of its truth is an Appeal to Consequences of a Belief. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false.

Elle,Truth as I perceive it, is something that has to be experianced, not proven. That, as they say, is in the pudding.
:huh: If I understand this statement, your saying that for you to perceive and agree to a truth you must experience (or prove it) for yourself first, as in; I have 1 apple, someone gives me 1 apple, therefore I now have 2 apples so I would agree that 1+1=2 is truth. I would whole-heartedly agree with you. This truth is the same for me as for you.
The question has been posed, is your faith in Wicca based on truth or not, and if its based on truths, what are they, what evidences can you present as proof of these truths.

Elle, Can I prove to you that Wicca exists? Of course it does. Look at the numbers of people that claim to follow it. Even it it wasn't "real", it would be now, simply because the followers make it so.
The fact that Wicca exists has never been in question. The validity claims made by the followers of Wicca as to its logical accuracy based on truth is.
All I’ve seen so far is Wiccans stating that Christianity is false so therefore Wicca must be true, or Christians just have blind faith, therefore Wicca most be true, or Wicca is true for me, and that’s proof, or Wicca works for me but it doesn’t work for you.
Why do I get the feeling that your trying to sell me a bag of donuts, but before I look into the bag you say, in my world donuts look a lot like dog turds. :noid:

Leroy

Trout

November 28th 2003, 04:29 PM

Leroy:

donuts look a lot like dog turds. :noid:

Leroy

:lmbo:

Durthorin

November 28th 2003, 10:39 PM

Sorry I have been out and about and unable to dive back into this. Let me ask a simple question..

Will you define what you consider objective evidence of the validity of Wicca or any Pagan faith for that matter?

I have shown you the text book definitions of these words and based on them, your original request is basically a logically paradox. So if we're not using the Miriam Webster version of the word objective then please clarify what the word means exactly to you and I'll see what I can do within those boundries. Be aware tho I will hold you to the same standard.

Danu Bless, Dur

Trout

November 29th 2003, 12:35 AM

Durthorin:
Objective truth about any religions validity can not be known.

How did you come to that conclusion?

Dur, how do you know that the statement you made is true?

Durthorin

November 29th 2003, 01:20 AM

Yesterday @ 11:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320009#post320009)
troutk13:

How did you come to that conclusion?

Dur, how do you know that the statement you made is true?

Using the Miram-Webster definition of Objective. If you have another definition that does allow such validity to be defined and tested, I'm open to hearing it.

Danu Bless, Dur

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 01:23 AM

11-26-2003 @ 03:13 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318103#post318103)
Pilgrim:

What I observe in Wicca and most practice of other simular 20th century psuedo religions in the US is that people follow them because they feel a need to be spiritual but they don't want the accountability or responsablity that true faith would require of them.
Actually, quite the opposite. In fact, many Wiccans come to Wicca precisely because they are fed up with the non-accountability that "saved by grace" notions offer. Wicca doesn't offer any promise that no matter how bad you screw up, even if you don't make up for it, God will still forgive you and let you into heaven. Wiccans, by nature, tend to be far more accountable than Christians. It's been my experience that most Christians will make a mistake, and some will even make a nominal effort to correct their mistake, but in the end they will say, "Oh well, I tried, but at least I don't have to worry about it because God will forgive me." Whereas the Wiccan will say, "I'd better fix this, because there isn't anyone who is going to fix it for me."

Undomiel

November 29th 2003, 01:35 AM

Today @ 05:23 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320026#post320026)
Eireann:

Actually, quite the opposite. In fact, many Wiccans come to Wicca precisely because they are fed up with the non-accountability that "saved by grace" notions offer. Wicca doesn't offer any promise that no matter how bad you screw up, even if you don't make up for it, God will still forgive you and let you into heaven. Wiccans, by nature, tend to be far more accountable than Christians. It's been my experience that most Christians will make a mistake, and some will even make a nominal effort to correct their mistake, but in the end they will say, "Oh well, I tried, but at least I don't have to worry about it because God will forgive me." Whereas the Wiccan will say, "I'd better fix this, because there isn't anyone who is going to fix it for me."

Oh wow, that's not at all how I was taught, or anyone I know either. We were taught that even if all you did was tell a little white lie when you were 18, or killed a bug, or got angry with someone, or said something not so nice to someone, or gossiped, or got on your thang and judged someone unfairly, etc, that if you asked for forgiveness, you were not only admitting you had made the mistake, that it was a mistake in the first place, but you were taking personal responsibility by firstly admitting to it, and secondly, making a conscious decision to work on that area of your life, and attempting not to do it again. Now if you consider all the tiny little ways in which we can be less than kind, for example, it will become apparent to most of us that that's a very long road to tow, loaded with personal responsibility.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 01:37 AM

Yesterday @ 12:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=318988#post318988)
Leroy:

Evidence of Wicca claims have yet to be posted and we are all waiting for these claims to be substantiated.
We're still waiting for some of you to post some actually Wiccan "truth claims" that you want substantiated. Truth claims are the only thing that would be relevent to this discussion; Wicca makes very, very few of these, because 99.9% of what it teaches is purely philosophical.

I assume that most of these "claims" you talk about refer to magick. But recall, magick is not an integral and necessary part of the Wiccan belief system. Magick is a common practice among Wiccans, but not a necessary one. It isn't a tenet of the religion, in other words. One need not practice magick to be a Wiccan. One need not be a Wiccan to practice magick, for that matter.

So, that said, if you want to present us with claims that you feel need to be substantiated as "truth claims," then please try to keep them pertinent to the religious tenets of Wicca, as opposed to merely presenting claims made by people who just happen to be Wiccan. For instance, I'm a Wiccan (sort of), and I claim that music can cure illness (okay, I don't really claim that, but let's assume I do for the sake of argument). Does that mean that it's a Wiccan claim? No, it is merely a claim made by someone who happens to be a Wiccan, but because it may be a sentiment common to a lot of Wiccans, people tend to make the mistake of assuming the two are directly connected.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 01:41 AM

Today @ 11:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320029#post320029)
Undomiel:

Oh wow, that's not at all how I was taught, or anyone I know either. We were taught that even if all you did was tell a little white lie when you were 18, or killed a bug, or got angry with someone, or said something not so nice to someone, or gossiped, or got on your thang and judged someone unfairly, etc, that if you asked for forgiveness, you were not only admitting you had made the mistake, that it was a mistake in the first place, but you were taking personal responsibility by firstly admitting to it, and secondly, making a conscious decision to work on that area of your life, and attempting not to do it again. Now if you consider all the tiny little ways in which we can be less than kind, for example, it will become apparent to most of us that that's a very long road to tow, loaded with personal responsibility.
I would say you just described the Wiccan Rede, and the responsibilities that come with it, except you left a few things out. The Wiccan not only is encouraged and taught to do all the above, but also to seek to actually amend the wrong that was done, not merely to prevent it from happening again. Certainly, that is not always possible or practical, but when it is, we are encouraged to make the effort to do so. For anyone to claim that Wiccans hold themselves unaccountable is just a really sad show of ignorance of the beliefs of Wicca.

Undomiel

November 29th 2003, 01:48 AM

Today @ 05:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320031#post320031)
Eireann:

We're still waiting for some of you to post some actually Wiccan "truth claims" that you want substantiated. Truth claims are the only thing that would be relevent to this discussion; Wicca makes very, very few of these, because 99.9% of what it teaches is purely philosophical.

I assume that most of these "claims" you talk about refer to magick. But recall, magick is not an integral and necessary part of the Wiccan belief system. Magick is a common practice among Wiccans, but not a necessary one. It isn't a tenet of the religion, in other words. One need not practice magick to be a Wiccan. One need not be a Wiccan to practice magick, for that matter.

So, that said, if you want to present us with claims that you feel need to be substantiated as "truth claims," then please try to keep them pertinent to the religious tenets of Wicca, as opposed to merely presenting claims made by people who just happen to be Wiccan. For instance, I'm a Wiccan (sort of), and I claim that music can cure illness (okay, I don't really claim that, but let's assume I do for the sake of argument). Does that mean that it's a Wiccan claim? No, it is merely a claim made by someone who happens to be a Wiccan, but because it may be a sentiment common to a lot of Wiccans, people tend to make the mistake of assuming the two are directly connected.

I think what's happening here is, christians, jews, islamics, and any other faith that has written text with historical significance and truth claims, are feeling the crunch of public criticism lead by the primarily philosophical beliefs such as Wicca and Buddhism. What's to criticize or find fault with or try to prove about Confucious' sayings, for example? There's no risk. It's just a heapin' helpin' of common sense and that's all it is, and it never claimed to be anything else. Big difference.

So, what they are trying to establish is, if you are in a religion that claims to be truthful, where be these truths? They want explanations, words to examine, miracles, magick, etc. While it may be philosophical, it isn't entirely philsophical and has teachings surely, related to magick. What is their boast? Their claim? Do they teach that magick is real and give examples where it has worked? That would be a truth claim. Methodology for magick, also a truth claim.

Trout

November 29th 2003, 01:54 AM

Dur,

When you make a statement such as; objective truth cannot be known, you are making an objective statement.

Your statement is self defeating.:metro:

Kind of like if you were to make the statement; I can't type a word of english. In order to make that statement you would have to be able to type english.

So please tell me how you can make that statement.

Undomiel

November 29th 2003, 01:57 AM

Today @ 05:41 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320032#post320032)
Eireann:

I would say you just described the Wiccan Rede, and the responsibilities that come with it, except you left a few things out. The Wiccan not only is encouraged and taught to do all the above, but also to seek to actually amend the wrong that was done, not merely to prevent it from happening again. Certainly, that is not always possible or practical, but when it is, we are encouraged to make the effort to do so. For anyone to claim that Wiccans hold themselves unaccountable is just a really sad show of ignorance of the beliefs of Wicca.

Explain "amend the wrong", if you'd be so kind? I've met people who I upset in my past over trivial stuff, where no amount of amending would've sufficed. Some people are very petty and they hold grudges that last and last and last, deep breath, and last. Sometimes they imagine harm where there is none and their revenge is without limits, even when there was no harm done. This is where the amending issue is a problem, because you are placing the burden of amending on the shoulders of the accused, who stands accused by another faulty human being.

We teach that we amend with the Lord and we don't amend with someone else unless we are pressed by God to do so. If we don't amend and He's impressed it on our minds to do so, then we are in error and disobedience. I prefer that system to the man-made version where just anybody can sentence you to punishment at a whim. If it's on your conscience to make amends, then do so.

I'd also like to mention that the guilt and fear card are even more in evidence with the system you describe for Wicca because at any time anyone could be in danger, for any reason. People are just too jaded, fickle and self-serving to make those kind of decisions, which is yet another reason why magick is dangerous.

Trout

November 29th 2003, 02:04 AM

Eireann,

Do you claim the Wiccan Rede to be true?

And if so, can you post it for us?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 02:08 AM

Today @ 11:48 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320033#post320033)
Undomiel:

I think what's happening here is, christians, jews, islamics, and any other faith that has written text with historical significance and truth claims, are feeling the crunch of public criticism lead by the primarily philosophical beliefs such as Wicca and Buddhism. What's to criticize or find fault with or try to prove about Confucious' sayings, for example? There's no risk. It's just a heapin' helpin' of common sense and that's all it is, and it never claimed to be anything else.
For the most part, that's what Wicca is, too, a big ole heapin' helpin' of how to treat your fellow man and fellow life. Some people call it a religion, but when you get right down to it, it's not really. A lot of Wiccans bristle at the term "religion," because it doesn't bear many of the earmarks of religion -- very little in the way of dogma or doctrine, no canonized liturgy, etc. It's a philosophy.

So, what they are trying to establish is, if you are in a religion that claims to be truthful, where be these truths?
You're searching for objective claims of truth of Wiccans? Good luck.

They want explanations, words to examine, miracles, magick, etc.
Just because they want it doesn't mean that Wicca is suddenly going to change its nature just to appease them.

While it may be philosophical, it isn't entirely philsophical and has teachings surely, related to magick.
Not really. It depends, I suppose, on what you mean by "magick." If you mean "prayer in ritual format," as Wicca tends to profess magick to be, then that's one thing. If you mean "high magick" (the "supernatural" stuff), then you're barking up the wrong tree, because that isn't Wicca, although a lot of newbies think that it is, as well as a lot of people who claim to be former Wiccans (who generally demonstrate that the deepest they ever got was the wannabe phase, by making the claim that "high magick" is Wicca). If you want objective claims about that kind of stuff, you need to talk to Ceremonial Magicians, thaumaturgists, etc., not Wiccans.

What is their boast? Their claim?
I haven't a clue. But apparently some people are of the opinion that all Wiccans make the same boasts and claims, and I'm very interested in knowing what that is!

Do they teach that magick is real and give examples where it has worked?
Some "Wiccans" do. Some Christians teach mathematics, but that doesn't make mathematics a tenet of Christianity.

Methodology for magick, also a truth claim.
What methodology are you saying is being claimed? What mechanics, and what definitions do you think are being claimed as tenets of Wicca?

Undomiel

November 29th 2003, 02:22 AM

Eireann,

You're a very nice person, but why do you treat me like an idiot? Why not just answer the question? The last sentence was very cut and dry: What is the methodology for practicing wicca? Are there books to read? Materials to study? Examples to follow? Spell books? Guides? There has to be some definitive materials for it, or it's not even a belief system, much less a religion or philosophy. Where's the stuff?!

I have some friends that are wiccan. I attended an online conference with them in which British Wiccans debated American Wiccans over how stupid american and canadian wiccans are. (I'm not kidding.) That was a very odd experience. I learned a great deal, however, about wiccans. I learned they don't have a "high priest" or "leader", that each wiccan follows their own conscience, BUT, they also have access to materials on the practice of magick, and exercise that magick following certain standards. So where are these standards for the practice of magick? Does it work?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 02:57 AM

Today @ 12:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320044#post320044)
troutk13:

Eireann,

Do you claim the Wiccan Rede to be true?
True? The Wiccan Rede isn't something that can be measured as true or false. It's a common sense guideline for how to treat other people and other living things. It doesn't make any "is or isn't" claims, therefore whether or not it is true is unmeasurable.

And if so, can you post it for us?
"Eight words the Wiccan Rede fulfill: An it harm none, do as ye will"

"Will," in this sense, refers to choice or intent, not a synonym for "do whatever you're going to do." The most important word is "ye." In many of the more modern translations, this has been changed to "If it harms none, do what you will." This is incorrect, because the word "ye" does not translate into the singular word "you." "Ye" does not have a singular meaning, but is always and only plural. In short, it means that before you perform an action that you believe could potentially bear upon someone else, you should place your will in accord with another higher will, one that has the greater wisdom and insight to know whether or not the action you desire is the best. God, in other words. Every action has consequences, for good or ill. We aren't asked to hand over the entire responsibility to the higher will, but instead to place our will in accord. We have the choice to either act as we believe is best with the guidance of that higher will, to act against our better judgment, or to not act at all (inaction also has consequences, for good or ill) and let God handle it all the way. In any case, we had better be prepared to accept whatever consequences come our way.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 03:25 AM

Today @ 12:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320050#post320050)
Undomiel:

Eireann,

You're a very nice person, but why do you treat me like an idiot? Why not just answer the question? The last sentence was very cut and dry: What is the methodology for practicing wicca?
That isn't the question you asked. You asked about the methodology for practicing magick. You asked that after I had explained that magick is not a tenet of the Wiccan "religion." Therefore I had no reason to assume that you meant it as a synonym for Wicca. And what people mean when they say "magick" is a very subjective thing. So, no, I wasn't treating you like an idiot. I'm trying to make it quite clear that although some Wiccans practice magick, there are also plenty who do not, and the practice of magick is not an essential element of Wicca, any moreso than going to church on Sunday is an essential element of Christianity.

Are there books to read?
There are numerous books written by Wiccans, many of them published by Llewellyn. And if you read enough of them, you will discover how individualistic it really is.

Materials to study?
Not in any canonical sense. Some groups put out courses on Wicca, but they are only pertinent within their particular group, while others of different traditions may place no validity at all in them.

Spell books?
There are spell books all over the place. You can find them on the shelves of your local Waldenbooks, at Borders, at Barnes & Noble. Heck, even the bookstore at UMSL has occasionally carried spellbooks. New Age stores will sometimes carry them, too. Serious practitioners of Wicca tend to stay away from them, though, because we don't believe in them. To Wiccans, magick is just a fancy form of prayer, for the most part. As such, it is very private and personal. Magick, as I'm assuming you would probably define it, is not generally a part of Wiccan practice. Prayer and communion with deity is. And serious Wiccans don't believe in chanting someone else's words in prayer when your own words will serve much better.

There has to be some definitive materials for it, or it's not even a belief system, much less a religion or philosophy.
According to whom? I realize that many of you are so ingrained with the idea that religion and philosophy must be committed by pen and canon in order to be worthy of consideration that you can't really grasp the idea that not everyone needs that. But that is merely one of the drawbacks of canonical religion. After all, religion wasn't born with the invention of writing. Religion was around before the first written language was ever developed.

Where's the stuff?!
We don't need stuff!

I have some friends that are wiccan. I attended an online conference with them in which British Wiccans debated American Wiccans over how stupid american and canadian wiccans are. (I'm not kidding.)
That's not terribly surprising. There are a couple things to consider. First, many people are raised with the idea that their way must be the only way, so even followers of relativistic religions like Wicca, especially newbies, find it very difficult to shed that particular prejudice. Second, it's been my experience that Brits of just about any flavor will often seize upon any opportunity to "point out" how stupid Americans are.

I learned a great deal, however, about wiccans. I learned they don't have a "high priest" or "leader",
Individual groups or covens have high priests, high priestesses, and so on, but there is no central hierarchy within the religion itself, at least none which supercedes the local unit.

BUT, they also have access to materials on the practice of magick,
Anybody that can get to a bookstore can have access to materials on the practice of magick. Wicca doesn't stress magick as a necessary practice, it merely assents that it is as legitimate a pursuit as any other. Younger Wiccans, particularly newbies, tend to be fascinated by it, by the fact that Wiccans respect magick rather than condemn it. Older, more serious Wiccans place considerably less emphasis on it than the younger ones.

and exercise that magick following certain standards. So where are these standards for the practice of magick?
The Wiccan Rede is generally the accepted standard for any action on the part of Wiccans. While not all that many Wiccans believe in the literal rule of three, and so on, most, if not all, at least recognize the wisdom of the Rede, even if they don't view it as law.

Does it work?
I assume by "it" you mean magick? I would say yes, it probably does. It's impossible to say with absolute certainty, though, whether or not Wiccan magick really works. That's because Wiccan magick, as I've said, is basically just a fancy ritualized form of prayer. All we have is correlations between things sought and those things coming to happen. Any number of reasons could be behind why those things happen, so the prayer/magick/spellcasting (whatever you want to call it) may have nothing to do with it. But when correlations rise high enough, it starts to look like there is a legitimate connection. And what I've seen and experienced in my nearly 2 1/2 decades of involvement with Wicca, witchcraft and paganism has a pretty high correlation, enough that I am fairly confident that it works. However, I rarely feel the need or desire to resort to anything more than prayer (haven't for quite a few years, in fact).

Undomiel

November 29th 2003, 05:34 AM

So, taking all this into consideration, why do you feel my religion is not acceptable but yours is? The defensive perspective is frequently employed when it comes to wicca. But what happens when the tables are turned?

Why is my God lesser than yours is, in your eyes?
Why are my prayers less worthy?
The books I read of less quality?
The faith i practice, the concepts I follow, why are they subpar to your own?
The miracles I've witnessed of no report?
The forgiveness I seek of no consequence?
The repentance I manage to fulfill of no value?
The amends I make of no meaning?
Why am I held accountable for the actions of blood thirsty kings 1500 years ago?
Why am I taken to task by normally rational men, for the actions of drunken popes, pedophiles and womanizers?
Why am I accused of not caring about the starving, the sick, the environment?
Just how many crimes do you plan on laying at the feet of people who consider themselves christians? Is this like some magical thing - become a christian and POW, you're guilty of every crime every person ever did in the name of christianity? And do you foresee it ever ending?
Don't you find it peculiar, that the simple action of asking God to forgive you of your sins, attending church and reading your bible could lead to such intense public outcries?
What is wrong with this world?
Are there no drunken wiccans?
Are they not subject to the same frailities the rest of humanity is?
Have they never committed grievious crimes in the name of Mercury, Apollo, and so on?
Aren't we just one big race (homosapian) full of faults, rather than singling out one religion for such a heavy burden?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 01:50 PM

Today @ 03:34 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320109#post320109)
Undomiel:

So, taking all this into consideration, why do you feel my religion is not acceptable but yours is?
I never said your religion is unacceptable, nor do I recall anyone else saying that. It doesn't work for me, but that's not the same as saying it's unacceptable.

Why is my God lesser than yours is, in your eyes?
Who said he was? I didn't, and I don't recall anyone else saying that. Wiccans tend to believe that your God and our God are the same one. It is Christians who tend to believe they are different entities, thus your question is more applicable to Christians than to Wiccans.

Why are my prayers less worthy?
Who said they were?

The books I read of less quality?
Who said they were. The only beef Wiccans have with Christian literature is the Bible, and the beef isn't with the book itself but with the insistence of Christians that it is inerrant and infallible, when no such thing has been adequately demonstrated. Christians have a tendency to use the Bible as a weapon against anyone who isn't Christian, and they try to back that up with the inerrancy claim, so it should come as no surprise that non-Christians attack the inerrancy claim in order to render it impotent as a weapon.

The faith i practice, the concepts I follow, why are they subpar to your own?
Who said they were?

The miracles I've witnessed of no report?
What miracles have you witnessed, and why do you consider them miracles?

The forgiveness I seek of no consequence?
There's nothing wrong with seeking God's forgiveness. My criticism is that a lot of Christians will leave it at that and not try to make amends or seek forgiveness from those they actually wronged.

The repentance I manage to fulfill of no value?
Who said is was?

The amends I make of no meaning?
See above. Amends to God are all fine and dandy, but you also need to make amends to those who were actually wronged.

Why am I held accountable for the actions of blood thirsty kings 1500 years ago?
Probably because the attitudes that prevailed in those times still prevails today. There are quite a few Wiccans out there who have personally experienced physical assault and other forms of severe persecution because of their beliefs. You're not being held accountable for the actions of your religion 1500 years ago, you're held accountable for the actions of your religion today.

Why am I taken to task by normally rational men, for the actions of drunken popes, pedophiles and womanizers?
Probably because it's turnabout. Christians have this tendency to set out isolated examples of a religion as representative of the entire religion. Take Islam, for instance. You all take the actions of a few fanatical extremists who make up less than 1% of the Islamic religion worldwide, and actually teach people that these people represent the majority of Islam. Is it any wonder that people would turn your own tactics back on you?

Why am I accused of not caring about the starving, the sick, the environment?
Who said you don't?

Just how many crimes do you plan on laying at the feet of people who consider themselves christians?
Just those crimes they actually commit, that they openly advocate, or that they insist Christians are not guilty of. If you want Wiccans to collectively stop holding you accountable for the sins of your fellow Christians, then you need to convince the Christians to collectively stop doing the same thing to other religions.

Is this like some magical thing - become a christian and POW, you're guilty of every crime every person ever did in the name of christianity?
If you openly advocate those crimes, or insist on using that lame argument "those aren't really Christians," then you may as well be guilty of the crime yourself.

And do you foresee it ever ending?
When Christians wake up and realize that they aren't the only good and decent people in this world, then it might stop. I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Don't you find it peculiar, that the simple action of asking God to forgive you of your sins, attending church and reading your bible could lead to such intense public outcries?
Those things don't lead to such public outcries. Attempts to exxonerate your religion of any wrongdoing, when your religion is used to excuse a wide variety of wrongdoing, that is what leads to intense public outcries.

What is wrong with this world?
Are there no drunken wiccans? Are they not subject to the same frailities the rest of humanity is?

Sure there are. Nobody has said there aren't.

Have they never committed grievious crimes in the name of Mercury, Apollo, and so on?
There are Wiccans who have committed grievous crimes. I don't know how prevalently they have committed such crimes in the name of their religion, although I'm sure it happens. But when it comes to committing grievous crimes in the name of religion, I think it will be a long time before anyone else manages to catch up with Christianity and Islam, in that regard.

Aren't we just one big race (homosapian) full of faults, rather than singling out one religion for such a heavy burden?
Well, if Christians would stop trying to set themselves out as the only religion innocent of that burden, you might find things changing.

Pilgrim

November 29th 2003, 01:57 PM

Eireann,

I hear what you are saying and appreciate the view you and some of the folks you know take in terms of responsability for your self.

However, I still see it as easy believism. You can think what ever you want, believe or not believe what ever you want, respond to that belief or dis-belief however you want to and no one can ever call you on it and if they do you can respond with the right at hand catch phrase "hey, it works for me sorry if it doesn't work for you." and be on your way no questions asked not accountablity called for.

Does the rede sound nice to me? Yes. Is it workable in a practical way? That's not as easy to see as some would believe becouse there is almost no action you can take in life that does not have an impact on another in a certain way and it is not as cut and try as some like to think as to if those actions are always positve or not. And in the end, what is to keep the Wiccan from saying, "sorry, you thought it was harming you, but really, it's for the good." Since there is no system of accountability for actions or beliefs this is a dangerous path to walk.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 03:20 PM

Today @ 11:57 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320279#post320279)
Pilgrim:

Eireann,

However, I still see it as easy believism. You can think what ever you want, believe or not believe what ever you want, respond to that belief or dis-belief however you want to and no one can ever call you on it and if they do you can respond with the right at hand catch phrase "hey, it works for me sorry if it doesn't work for you." and be on your way no questions asked not accountablity called for.
Well, it comes down again to the ageless argument of absolutism vs. relativism. Until someone can prove that absolutism is the correct paradigm, then this comes across less like a reasoned critique, and more like an expression of consternation over the difficulty of understanding unfamiliar concepts.

Does the rede sound nice to me? Yes. Is it workable in a practical way? That's not as easy to see as some would believe becouse there is almost no action you can take in life that does not have an impact on another in a certain way and it is not as cut and try as some like to think as to if those actions are always positve or not.
Good points. Of course, as I've said, the Rede is a guideline for right behavior, not a law dictated by God. Wiccans don't believe that the God/dess came down and quoted the Rede to us as divine law. We're expected to think about our actions and the consequences that could arise from those actions, but we're not required to succeed perfectly without falter. We're not even necessarily expected to always act in our better judgment, but we are expected to accept whatever consequences will arise ... and consequences will arise, sometimes good consequences, sometimes bad ones, but we are responsible to accept them as the end product of our own actions.

And in the end, what is to keep the Wiccan from saying, "sorry, you thought it was harming you, but really, it's for the good."
Ah, there's the question, one which has plagued every religion since the beginning of time -- interpretation. What keeps the Christian from employing hate and bigotry tactics but justifying it as "tough love?" Nothing, in many cases. People are always looking for excuses to justify their own sins and errors, and they will usually find such excuses, whether they're legit or not. Wiccans are no exception, nor are Christians.

Since there is no system of accountability for actions or beliefs this is a dangerous path to walk.
There is a system of accountability. What is generically called the rule of three, a popular catch phrase but one which is not meant to be taken as a literal three-fold return, embraces the idea that all actions have consequences and that we must accept the consequences of whatever actions we take. That idea is central to Wicca. That is pretty much the very definition of accountability, and it is deeply ingrained in the belief system of Wicca. A lot of Wiccans ignore it, but that is true of every religion.

Undomiel

November 29th 2003, 05:51 PM

My criticism is that a lot of Christians will leave it at that and not try to make amends or seek forgiveness from those they actually wronged.

Just this one passage alone points to your inability to forgive christians in specific and in general, for the crimes of other christians committed over the centuries and today. Following this logic, I could say, "Well, alot of Wiccans never make amends or seek forgiveness either." This is a human condition, Eireann, not a religion-related condition. Becoming a wiccan shouldn't make you responsible for the actions of other wiccans in the past or the present. You are an individual. My actions shouldn't reflect on the whole of TWeb, or the internet, or the USA or Florida, or the family I married in to or the family I was born from, or the other people who call themselves christians. I'm an individual.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 06:36 PM

Today @ 03:51 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320371#post320371)
Undomiel:

Just this one passage alone points to your inability to forgive christians in specific and in general, for the crimes of other christians committed over the centuries and today. Following this logic, I could say, "Well, alot of Wiccans never make amends or seek forgiveness either." This is a human condition, Eireann, not a religion-related condition. Becoming a wiccan shouldn't make you responsible for the actions of other wiccans in the past or the present. You are an individual. My actions shouldn't reflect on the whole of TWeb, or the internet, or the USA or Florida, or the family I married in to or the family I was born from, or the other people who call themselves christians. I'm an individual.
My entire point, you forget, was to counter an assertion that Christianity, as a system, encourages personal accountability while Wicca, as a system, encourages non-accountability. The examples I gave serve the purpose of leveling a playing field that one of your own had tried to make uneven. Both systems provide for a measure of personal accountibility, although it is my opinion that Wicca provides for a greater degree of it than Christianity, since we don't buy into the whole "saved by grace" escape clause. But that's just my opinion.

And, by the way, I'm not talking about Christians as a group seeking the forgiveness of entire groups they've wronged in their history. I'm talking about, say, walking up to Billy and making fun of him because he's mulatto, later "finding God" and asking God to forgive you but doing nothing to make Billy feel any better about it.

Trout

November 29th 2003, 07:20 PM

Eireann:
Well, it comes down again to the ageless argument of absolutism vs. relativism. Until someone can prove that absolutism is the correct paradigm, then this comes across less like a reasoned critique, and more like an expression of consternation over the difficulty of understanding unfamiliar concepts.

Eireann, what ageless argument are you talking about?

If I were to ask you; what is your favorite color? Lets say that you responded with, "red". That truth is in fact relative to you, and subject to change depending on mood, location, the Spanish Inquisition, pedophile priests etc.
That would be a relative truth.

Lets say that I asked you the question; Is the earth flat? And you responded,"well it's flat for me." And you went on, "I have always believed the earth to be flat and that works for me just fine. And besides that, alot of Christians try to tell me that the earth is round but they like to employ hateful bigoted tactics that have pushed me away "

In this case, how you feel has no bearing on whether or not the earth is round or flat, the configuration of the earth is what it is, apart from how sincerely you might believe one way or another. And would't be subject to change by mood swings, anger, bitterness toward Christianity etc.
This would be objective truth.

I'll assume that you believe Wicca is true, but if indeed Wicca is true, it will fall into the second category, the objective category. The principles of Wicca, whatever they are, should be observable in the universe, apart from how anyone feels about them. This of course assuming that Wicca isn't simply a an invention of man.

So, Eireann, where might some objective proof lie?

Undomiel

November 29th 2003, 07:32 PM

Today @ 10:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320424#post320424)
Eireann:

My entire point, you forget, was to counter an assertion that Christianity, as a system, encourages personal accountability while Wicca, as a system, encourages non-accountability. The examples I gave serve the purpose of leveling a playing field that one of your own had tried to make uneven. Both systems provide for a measure of personal accountibility, although it is my opinion that Wicca provides for a greater degree of it than Christianity, since we don't buy into the whole "saved by grace" escape clause. But that's just my opinion.

And, by the way, I'm not talking about Christians as a group seeking the forgiveness of entire groups they've wronged in their history. I'm talking about, say, walking up to Billy and making fun of him because he's mulatto, later "finding God" and asking God to forgive you but doing nothing to make Billy feel any better about it.

The bible does encourage personal responsibility though. What about the countless parables of Jesus, such as the one about not letting the sun set on your anger, or not seeking forgiveness for a wrong you've done and having that person call you before the magistrate for sentencing. In this case, the magistrate was two-fold - he served as an example of an earthly judge in a court of law - and he served as the heavenly judge, God.

Let me give an example, however, of how hard it would be to resolve any wrongs you've done in your life. Let's say, for example, the little brunette girl down the street who had a crush on you thought you were making fun of her one day, but in reality you weren't. She is devistated because she was majorly crushing on you. She goes on in to the rest of her life thinking you were making fun of her and as a result has a small self-esteem problem. This leads to bigger problems, which in turn lead to bigger problems and when it finally gets to the point where she has to address it, she thinks back to where it all began and whammo, you are implicated. Who, other than you and God Almighty knows what you really meant and what really happened? Yet, under the system you're proposing, she could feasibly demand amends from you, even though you didn't do anything to her. This kinda stuff is more prevalent than you might imagine.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 07:33 PM

Today @ 05:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320457#post320457)
troutk13:

I'll assume that you believe Wicca is true,
You would assume incorrectly. I don't believe any religion is true. I don't believe any religion is false, either. I believe truth is not given selectively to certain people and certain faiths. I believe that truth is simply there, that it is infused throughout creation, and that religions are basically an exercise in trying to discern that truth. Some religions try to stack themselves a bit higher in the game by making claims that their interpretation was given directly by God (but fail miserably to convince), others make no such claims at all. But all of them are in the same boat and doing the same thing -- trying to interpret what they see and experience.

but if indeed Wicca is true, it will fall into the second category, the objective category.
And if Wicca made the claim to be an objective truth, your point would have merit. But Wicca doesn't make that claim, which is why I'm so confused over why you all keep asking for objective proofs from people that don't make objective truth claims.

The principles of Wicca, whatever they are, should be observable in the universe, apart from how anyone feels about them. This of course assuming that Wicca isn't simply a an invention of man.
Wicca is an invention of man. So is Christianity. So is Islam. So is Buddhism. So is Hinduism. So is Judaism. Do you see a pattern emerging here? Nevertheless, what little Wicca does claim as objective is evident in nature -- duality, balance of opposite forces, consequence of action, etc.

So, Eireann, where might some objective proof lie?
Again, you're wasting your time asking for objective proofs of something that does not claim to be objective truth. It's philosophy. Philosophy is rarely objective.

Trout

November 29th 2003, 07:55 PM

Eireann:

what little Wicca does claim as objective is evident in nature -- duality, balance of opposite forces, consequence of action, etc.

Now were getting somewhere, what does Wicca claim about these things?

And how do the claims made by Wicca correspond with reality, apart from how you feel about them?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 08:00 PM

Today @ 05:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320473#post320473)
troutk13:

Now were getting somewhere, what does Wicca claim about these things?

And how do the claims made by Wicca correspond with reality, apart from how you feel about them?
Wicca claims that these things exist all throughout nature. That is scientifically and empirically observable. Wiccans adopt a dual view of deity, but they don't make any claim that there are two distinctly opposite deities, one male and one female. It is simply an interpretation and a personification we choose to apply, using the observable duality of nature as a rationale, not as a proof.

Trout

November 29th 2003, 08:02 PM

Eireann:
Wicca is an invention of man. So is Christianity. So is Islam. So is Buddhism. So is Hinduism. So is Judaism.

Please explain how you make these objective claims regarding the origins of these religions.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 08:09 PM

Today @ 06:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320475#post320475)
troutk13:

Please explain how you make these objective claims regarding the origins of these religions.

Well, Moses was a man. So was Jesus. So were the apostles. Muhammed was a man, as was Siddhartha. And Abraham. And so on. Jesus may have been more than a man, just as Siddhartha may have been. But the proofs of those claims are pretty subjective, lacking in empirical support. We can objectively conclude, however, that they were men. They were not kangaroos, or great apes, or little green men from the stars. We have history and a wealth of evidence that these men authored and spawned various religions. Some of them claim to have been inspired to those pursuits by higher powers, but we have only their word for that. We can objectively show that men created these religions, whereas only subject evidence exists that they had any higher help, and rather flimsy evidence at that.

Trout

November 29th 2003, 08:29 PM

Eireann:

Well, Moses was a man. So was Jesus. So were the apostles. Muhammed was a man, as was Siddhartha. And Abraham. And so on. Jesus may have been more than a man, just as Siddhartha may have been. But the proofs of those claims are pretty subjective, lacking in empirical support. We can objectively conclude, however, that they were men. They were not kangaroos, or great apes, or little green men from the stars. We have history and a wealth of evidence that these men authored and spawned various religions. Some of them claim to have been inspired to those pursuits by higher powers, but we have only their word for that. We can objectively show that men created these religions, whereas only subject evidence exists that they had any higher help, and rather flimsy evidence at that.

Eireann, do you in fact know that Christianity wasn't inspired by God?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 09:15 PM

Today @ 06:29 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320503#post320503)
troutk13:

Eireann, do you in fact know that Christianity wasn't inspired by God?
No, I don't. But the claim that it is inspired by God cannot be empirically demonstrated, whereas the claim that it was created by men can be. There is empirical proof of the one, and mere assertion of the other.

Trout

November 29th 2003, 11:15 PM

Eireann,

When you posit the term "duality" what exactly do you mean by that?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 29th 2003, 11:48 PM

Today @ 09:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=320625#post320625)
troutk13:

Eireann,

When you posit the term "duality" what exactly do you mean by that?
Basically the balance of opposites, and the participation of opposites that leads to creation of new life. All through nature we see a recurring theme, even in asexual animals -- the need of both male and female to reproduce and create life. Even asexual creatures have been found to have both male and female parts. They aren't devoid of sex, they are possessed of both. And in animals and even plants, the equal participation of both the male and the female is necessary for life to come about.

Now, considering that, also consider the idea among pagans that all of life, in fact all of creation, reflects the Creator, similar to the Christian teaching that man is created in God's image (we just apply a broader interpretation of "man" and "image"). If we observe this sort of duality and balance in practically every living aspect of nature, and we consider that Nature to be a living reflection of the Creator, is it not a logical step to choose to personify God in a similar fashion? Since we don't really know what God looks like, what form S/He has, whether or not S/He is male, female, both, or neither, every religion's "image" of God (male, female, animal, guy with long white beard, etc.) is essentially just a manmade archetype made so that we can relate to God in human terms.

Trout

November 30th 2003, 01:37 PM

Eireann:

Basically the balance of opposites,

Does Wicca extend this balance of opposites to the concepts of good and evil?

BTW, I'm terrified of that flaming cake right next to my ear.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

November 30th 2003, 01:53 PM

Today @ 11:37 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321033#post321033)
troutk13:

Does Wicca extend this balance of opposites to the concepts of good and evil?
Good question, and a hard one to answer. While we apply the balance concept to Positive and Negative, Wiccans don't usually believe in "good" and "evil," at least not in the same sense as Christians. To us, good and evil aren't inherent in the nature of things (i.e. there is nothing that is good or evil by its nature), but are rather catagories of thought and intent. Actions are not inherently good or inherently evil, but intentions will color any given action one way or another. Take rape, for instance -- there are basically two acts in rape, physical assault and sex. Sex is not an inherently good or evil act, it is a natural act. Assault is not inherently good or evil, as assault can be a positive thing (in cases like self-defense) or a negative thing. What the rapist intends to convey with the acts -- making the victim feel helpless, dehumanizing, despiriting the victim, personal empowerment at the expense of another -- that is what makes rape evil.

BTW, I'm terrified of that flaming cake right next to my ear.
LOL. Happy birthday!

Leroy

November 30th 2003, 07:25 PM

Hi Eireann, I hope you had a fun Holiday!

I’ve noticed that you have made some claims during your postings and I would like some clarification on them if possible, you’ve referred to Wicca and the term we, there most be some reason you say “we” there must be some common denominator for a group of people to want to be classified as Wiccan, and you using the word “we” assuming that Wiccan’s do agree on some things, to want to be categorized as a group of people with something in common, other then just the name ”Wicca”.

Eireann,
While there are some who literally believe in multiple gods, I think most of us are what I call polytheistic monotheists -- one God with many facets and characteristics.
What book or books do you get this from, or is it personal revelation sent down to each Wiccan:whistle:

Eireann,Wicca makes no policy at all with regard to Christ.
This statement, if true makes a claim for all Wicca, and a claim from some kind of guiding authority, and the statement assumes Wicca does make other policies, who makes them and where are they written down, or are these personal individual revelations given to followers of Wiccan from these authorities.

Eireann, While modern Wiccans do have a few trace beliefs that can be dated back to paleolithic cultures, the particular mish-mash of beliefs that we know as Wicca is very recent, only dating back to the 1970s when the Council of American Witches coined and defined the terms "Wicca" and "Wiccan."
Did the COAW canonize some of the writings and/or beliefs of Wiccan at this time, “coined and defined terms” sure sounds like it. Did they produce any documentation? :noid:

Eireann, It doesn't even trace back to Gardner, really, because he basically only started one particular tradition, Garderianism. There are some traditions that have made a good faith faith effort to recapture and revitalize some of those old paleopagan beliefs, through varied means, such as Buckland's personal study of tribal Scots, through interpretation of the Book of Kells, through interpretation of the Poetic Eddas, and through interpretation of some of the works of Murray, not to mention the influence of Native American spirituality. However, take care that you don't get sucked in by Gardner's notorious historical revisionism. Gardner didn't study any of those sources, with the possible exception of Murray's work, and relied most heavily on what he was told by Aleister Crowley and allegedly told by Dorothy Clutterbuck (who probably existed, but her credentials as an expert on anything to do with paganism are much in question).
As you stated to be careful not to “get sucked in by Gardner's notorious historical revisionism” and your previous statements as to there being no provable truth, aren’t you unsoundly judging Gardner and his claims. I assume under your statements that there is no doctrine that Wicca holds to be exclusively true other then personal feelings, and what works for you, Gardner and Garderianism claims would be just as valid as yours and telling people to not be sucked in by them sounds inconsistent, and contradictory to your other statements. :shocked:

Eireann,Welcome to the club. The same can be said of every religion you can name. What are two things practically all religions have in common? They all have a lot of stuff that is supported by empirical evidence, and on the other side of the coin, they all have a lot of stuff that you just have to "take their word for it."
You claim that all religions have this is common, “a lot of stuff that is supported by empirical evidence”
Where is yours?:huh:

Eireann, As with any religion there are elements of Wiccan beliefs that are based on feelings, and there are elements based upon evidence and observation. There is no evidence to support the canonized liturgy of Wicca, because there is no canonized liturgy. There is, however, plenty of evidence to support the sensibility of Wiccan interpretation.
What are the elements of Wiccan beliefs that are based on evidence?:huh:

Leroy

P.S. Happy birthday Trout :cheers:

Trout

November 30th 2003, 09:44 PM

Eireann,

Since this duality is reflective of diety are the concepts of good evil also reflective of diety?

Leroy

November 30th 2003, 09:54 PM

Durthorin,

You seem to be a person given to much rational thought, but a few of your statements seem to make little reasonable sense, I see sincerity in the words you type, and a true vigor for your beliefs, but could that vigor have long ago covered over the irrationality of this belief system, glossed over the points that it might break down on and instead of running down these points to there illogical conclusion choose to stop and hang on to a “feelings based” conclusion.

You made a comment about (Brighid),

Durthorin,She is still around, but as a Pagan I see the Goddess has three aspects.. birth, life and death. maid, mother & crone.. Brighid is life and aspect of the maiden.. and worship of her leads a person in certain spirtual directions.

Durthorin, Danu is the Mother
The aspects that you describe, did this come to you as written word or told to you by another Wiccan, or as a spiritual personal revelation, and as such, how do you know that its true? You obviously place value on the knowledge of these aspects, or you would not have mentioned it. How do you measure spiritual truth, is there a book of continuity that you can look at and discover faults?

Durthorin,I will have kept the codes I live by and my intent will be what is judged.
Historically there are examples of many individuals that under what they would consider is only the best of intentions, have committed horrendous acts of violence against other people, these people that kept the codes that they live by and there intent, although well intentioned as it may be, would actually be wrong, could only be judged by there intent and not even stopped from doing there code required acts of well intention. You have set up a world that has no system for checks and balances, no way of discerning your right from wrong with another persons right and wrong, using your statement;
Durthorin,One can love a dog, but when it has rabies you kill it.. maybe rabies is a higher enlightenment for the dog, a way for him to become human, or even a god. Essentually you have set up a system that all have god-like qualities, all judge with their own set of personal beliefs what is the proper thing to do, and who should be killed for what.

Durthorin,we belive the Gods don't interfere with what you decide to do, that is your responsability.
Is the statement for all man, or just Wiccan’s?
at what point do the gods decide not to interfere with what wiccan’s or all creation decides to do, interference in the strictest of terms would mean, not even make there self’s known.

Durthorin,If the Gods or karma want someone to meet negative consequences of their actions they will end up at the place they need to be.
This statement makes some kind of claim that the gods have interfered in presenting this thought into your head as to consequences of your actions if they don’t agree with the god’s intended responses.

Durthorin,If we do something wrong we are obligated to make it right or do the best we can to try. Is it conceivable to you that there are some things that could be done that could never come close to being made right, or even doing the best you could, the offended party would be under some kind of obligation to consider that as partial payment because that’s the best that could be done.

The evidence (none) that I have seen so far for a logical belief in wiccan, leaves me in wonderment as to why a rational person would believe it, and to choose wiccan over biblical Christianity, in your words “An it harm none, do as ye will” harms you.

If you’re your basing your faith in wicca on nothing but the consequences of your belief (its worked for me for 19years) That sort of "reasoning" is simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) and the premises do not constitute evidence for that conclusion, this is no more then wishful thinking, and that’s okay with me if you can stand strongly on that “zero foundation”, but is that okay with you?

Leroy

Tobias Reiper

December 1st 2003, 01:04 AM

I didn't have time to read through all eleven pages, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something already addressed, but I feel I must throw in my two cents.

I believe that the primary reason that Wicca is not taken seriously is because of the doctrine of relative truth.

I have debated Wiccans before, and whenever my beliefs come up they would say "That's your truth. My truth is different." How can that be, though?

How can law and order be upheld if truth is different for each person? More to the point, how can "harmony" be encouraged when people make their own truths?

It is my truth that relative truth is invalid. How can a practitioner of Wicca remain true to their beliefs that all views are valid if the view of another directly opposes theirs?

And back to law and order. If law is generally based on truth, then how can law exist if truth is different for each person?

It is my truth that all wealth should be distributed evenly. Tomorrow I'm going into a bank to get my share, by force if necessary.

It's my truth that if a girl were not meant to have sex until 17 (older in some states, younger in others) they would not be physically capable of reproducing as young as twelve. So why can't I sleep with a fourteen year old without having the police on me?

If Wiccans want their beliefs to be taken seriously they will have to get rid of this "whatever one believes is true" garbage and commit to a set of common truths. Otherwise Wicca is nothing more than one of those "no strings good feelin's" and potentially harmful philosophies.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 1st 2003, 01:41 AM

Today @ 05:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321243#post321243)
Leroy:

Hi Eireann, I hope you had a fun Holiday!

I’ve noticed that you have made some claims during your postings and I would like some clarification on them if possible, you’ve referred to Wicca and the term we, there most be some reason you say “we” there must be some common denominator for a group of people to want to be classified as Wiccan, and you using the word “we” assuming that Wiccan’s do agree on some things, to want to be categorized as a group of people with something in common, other then just the name ”Wicca”.
Nobody has said there aren't any common denominators that unite those who call themselves Wiccan under that name. We've merely stated that Wicca has very few official tenets, very little in the way of doctrine or dogma.

What book or books do you get this from, or is it personal revelation sent down to each Wiccan:whistle:
In a way, both. There is no canonized text, and most books you will find generally just recount the basics of the religion and provide commentary on the author's interpretation and experience. Wicca is often said to be "a religion without converts," which I've found to often be true. That's the case for me, anyway, and quite a few others I've met. I didn't come to Wicca after reading a book, or talking to anyone. I developed my own beliefs about nature and divinity through logic and my own experiences. I eventually adopted the name Wiccan when I found that what I had come to believe on my own had been given a name. But the core of what I believe was developed long before I ever knew such a religion existed. That core is basically this: if creation reflects the Creator, then it makes logical sense to personify the Creator in a dual form (male/female) since that theme is recurrent in nature; every action carries a consequence; it is not only more spiritually fulfilling but also more socio-logical to do good and treat people with kindness and respect. And those are basically the core beliefs of Wicca.

This statement, if true makes a claim for all Wicca, and a claim from some kind of guiding authority, and the statement assumes Wicca does make other policies
For the benefit of those following this conversation, this post refers to my comment that Wicca makes no policy with regard to Jesus. And no, it doesn't assume that Wicca does make other policies. It assumes, in fact, that Wicca generally does not make policies. Like I said before, what I listed above are essentially the core beliefs (policies, if you wish) of Wicca. Different traditions may add their own particular flavor, but those are the few things that you will find practically all Wiccans in agreement about. If it is canonized doctrine you seek, it would be those three things I listed earlier (since canonization is basically a fancy word for consensus agreement, anyway). For a broader taste of what specific traditions may say, you would need to just visit a new age bookstore and start flipping through the hundreds of different books on the subject. I've read several dozen of them myself, as well as having met and spoken with (even personally acquainted with a few) several of the most recognized leaders within Wicca, including a few of those who sat on the original COAW. Naturally, because of the persecution we often suffer at the hands of Christians, the subject of Christianity often comes up. Through those conversations, and perusal of many of the texts (none of which are universally accepted as THE official book of Wiccan doctrines, of course), I have never come across a Wiccan or a Wiccan book that attempts to dictate just how Wiccans are "supposed to" believe about Christ.

Did the COAW canonize some of the writings and/or beliefs of Wiccan at this time, “coined and defined terms” sure sounds like it. Did they produce any documentation? :noid:
The COAW basically arose out of the first American followers of Wicca, after Buckland -- one of Gardner's proteges -- first brought it to the United States. It was comprised of Buckland, a few other members of Gardner's original group, the Frosts (American witches who operated independently of the Gardner paradigm), Isaac Bonewitz (of Arn Draiocht Fein, the American druidic reform movement), and a few others. Basically, they felt a need to create unity and solidarity between similar neopagan paths, so they sat down and compared notes, found what beliefs all of them had in common, and "canonized" those core elements into a unified movement which basically represented a unification between Gardnerians, druids and Ozark witches. They weren't really intending at the time to start a "religion" as much as they were simply intending to unify a movement, and they tossed around names for the movement. They liked the word "wicce" but it found some detractors because it was female-specific, as the word "wicca" was male-specific, so they elected to combine the two and call the movement "Wiccae." However, a magazine publisher inadvertently mispelled the word and left off the final "e," so the name Wicca came about by accident. This story, by the way, I was told personally by Gavin Frost.

As you stated to be careful not to “get sucked in by Gardner's notorious historical revisionism” and your previous statements as to there being no provable truth, aren’t you unsoundly judging Gardner and his claims. I assume under your statements that there is no doctrine that Wicca holds to be exclusively true other then personal feelings, and what works for you, Gardner and Garderianism claims would be just as valid as yours and telling people to not be sucked in by them sounds inconsistent, and contradictory to your other statements. :shocked:
It's not the spiritual element of Gardner's teachings that modern Wiccans take issue with. It is the lies he told, the false claims he made about his own credentials (he claimed the New Forest coven, the authentic witch coven he "discovered" granted him permission to use their Book of Shadows for material to use in his first published book, but it turned out they never did any such thing, and his actual source for his material was Aleister Crowley), with his historical revisionism (he claims 9,000,000 witches were killed during the Inquisition, yet there were probably no more than a few hundred actually killed for the charge of witchcraft), and for his attempt to charter his first Gardnerian group with the Order of the Golden Dawn (his group expressly forbade him to charter them with a Ceremonial magick organization, as the beliefs of Ceremonial Magick are contrary to what they believed -- it would have been like a local Baptist minister trying to charter his congregation under the local Arch-Diocese). In short, Gardner made a lot of claims about himself and about history that are easily proven untrue.

You claim that all religions have this is common, “a lot of stuff that is supported by empirical evidence”
Where is yours?:huh: What are the elements of Wiccan beliefs that are based on evidence?:huh:
That question has been asked and answered several times throughout this thread. No offense, but I don't care to keep answering it over and over again.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 1st 2003, 01:45 AM

Today @ 07:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321352#post321352)
troutk13:

Eireann,

Since this duality is reflective of diety are the concepts of good evil also reflective of diety?
In my opinion, and the opinion of many Wiccans, "good" and "evil" are merely human traits. Like I said, they are catagories of intent. Nothing and no one is inherently of the nature of good and evil. Good and evil are consequences of freewill. In that sense, since freewill is reflective of deity, then yet, good and evil would also be reflective of deity. Wiccans don't generally believe that God is perfect, all good, etc. Good and evil are representations of the ability to choose and to change your mind, which God is almost certainly capable of doing.

Undomiel

December 1st 2003, 01:55 AM

yet there were probably no more than a few hundred actually killed for the charge of witchcraft

And goodly portion of those were probably not witches at all, but people who wouldn't swear allegiance to the catholic church or who had a different perspective on christianity.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 1st 2003, 02:05 AM

Today @ 11:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321499#post321499)
dwmitch:

I believe that the primary reason that Wicca is not taken seriously is because of the doctrine of relative truth.
Not taken seriously by whom? It is often referred to as "the fastest growing religion in the world" for a reason. Religions that nobody takes seriously don't tend to be nearly as prolific as Wicca has proven itself to be.

I have debated Wiccans before, and whenever my beliefs come up they would say "That's your truth. My truth is different." How can that be, though?
They probably mispeak. Truth is truth. Truth is objective. However, when someone says "this is truth," what they mean is "this is my interpretation, my belief of what truth is." So therefore, when someone says, "That is your truth. My truth is different," what they mean is, "That is your interpretation of truth, my interpretation is different."

How can law and order be upheld if truth is different for each person? More to the point, how can "harmony" be encouraged when people make their own truths?
People don't make their own truths, no matter how much they may argue that they do. They merely make their own interpretations. Broad interpretations of Truth often become religions. Christianity is one interpretation. Wicca is another. Buddhism is another, and so on. Those interpretations become more specific, local and narrow as they filter down through sects, denominations, congregations, all the way down to the individual. But they are still merely interpretations.

It is my truth that relative truth is invalid.
While I agree that truth is not relative, that isn't your "truth." It is your "belief." Belief and Truth are two different things.

How can a practitioner of Wicca remain true to their beliefs that all views are valid if the view of another directly opposes theirs?
That's not what we mean by "valid." Wiccans tend to be relativists, so they recognize that beliefs are questionable and are not proven truth absolutes. By valid, we mean that other viewpoints, even those directly in opposition, have an equal chance of being correct, provided of course that they aren't directly refuted by empirical evidence.

And back to law and order. If law is generally based on truth, then how can law exist if truth is different for each person?
Law isn't based on truth. It is based on social consensus, what is known sociologically as Social Contract.

It is my truth that all wealth should be distributed evenly. Tomorrow I'm going into a bank to get my share, by force if necessary.
I trust I don't need to keep reiterating that it isn't your "truth," it's your belief (although this one was obviously offered tongue-in-cheek). From here forward I'll simply assume you understand that distinction. But if your belief runs contrary to the Social Contract, and to the detriment of society, you can expect to get the "smackdown" from the social order, no matter how much you may insist you are right.

It's my truth that if a girl were not meant to have sex until 17 (older in some states, younger in others) they would not be physically capable of reproducing as young as twelve. So why can't I sleep with a fourteen year old without having the police on me?
Interestingly, that is one of the subjects I remember studying in Sociology during my university days. As I recall, the age of consent was established more as a consequence of changing social trends that occurred during and because of the industrial revolution than because of biological arguments.

If Wiccans want their beliefs to be taken seriously they will have to get rid of this "whatever one believes is true" garbage and commit to a set of common truths. Otherwise Wicca is nothing more than one of those "no strings good feelin's" and potentially harmful philosophies.
Unfortunately, the world has already proven you wrong. The world does take Wicca quite seriously. It wouldn't be growing as prolifically as it has over the past few decades if people didn't "take it seriously." For now I'll assume that when you say it "can't be taken seriously," that you really just mean that you don't personally understand it.

Undomiel

December 1st 2003, 02:22 AM

"the fastest growing religion in the world"

For the record, this title belongs to Islam, who, when they conquer a nation like Afghanistan, enforce Sharia Law on all and sundry, including the following of the religion itself.
Here's a quote from CNN:

The second-largest religion in the world after Christianity, Islam is also the fastest-growing religion. In the United States, for example, nearly 80 percent of the more than 1,200 mosques have been built in the past 12 years.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9704/14/egypt.islam/

I'm scared. Their religion is totally bereft of any concern for women. It's the most anti-women belief system on the planet, and is today, one of the fastest growing religions in the world. It scares the schnikes out of me. Here's an example of what happened when fundamental Islam takes over a country from the mouths of the women who were effected by it:

http://rawa.fancymarketing.net/women.html

(Addendum: And that is not the only example. During the Gulf War, my husband was stationed in the United Arab Emirates, a nation south east of Saudi Arabia. He said the US female military members had to wear a burqa or veil before they could go outside the US military base. There were no dress requirements for the US men, however. These people aren't kidding.)

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 1st 2003, 02:52 AM

Today @ 12:22 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321542#post321542)
Undomiel:

For the record, this title belongs to Islam
Oops, you're right. It was during the 80s that Wicca was called the fastest growing religion in the world. It is now being called the "fastest growing religion in America." Of course, it's not an official title, nor is it an official title for Islam. But the fact that it is used as prevalently as it is demonstrates that the religion is quite prolific and many people do take it seriously, both adherents and opponents. Sorry about that.

Durthorin

December 1st 2003, 07:19 AM

Today @ 08:54 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321362#post321362)
Leroy:

Durthorin,

You seem to be a person given to much rational thought, but a few of your statements seem to make little reasonable sense, I see sincerity in the words you type, and a true vigor for your beliefs, but could that vigor have long ago covered over the irrationality of this belief system, glossed over the points that it might break down on and instead of running down these points to there illogical conclusion choose to stop and hang on to a “feelings based” conclusion.

You made a comment about (Brighid),

The aspects that you describe, did this come to you as written word or told to you by another Wiccan, or as a spiritual personal revelation, and as such, how do you know that its true? You obviously place value on the knowledge of these aspects, or you would not have mentioned it. How do you measure spiritual truth, is there a book of continuity that you can look at and discover faults?

I'm Celtic Wiccan, Brighid, Danu and the Morrigan are the Goddesses of the Celts. Brighid is also known from when she was adopted by the Catholic Church as Saint Brighid.. The legends of the Goddesses have been passed down based on oral traditions and were writen down later on.

Historically there are examples of many individuals that under what they would consider is only the best of intentions, have committed horrendous acts of violence against other people, these people that kept the codes that they live by and there intent, although well intentioned as it may be, would actually be wrong, could only be judged by there intent and not even stopped from doing there code required acts of well intention.

IE.. Like the Crusaders, the Inquisition and the protestants who murdered Catholics? All codes and be twisted and misused Leroy, even the Bible. Having worked in law for many years I have come to the conclusion that the more complex the system is the more it breeds professionals to tell you what it means & those that twist it for their own ends. If one tries to keep it simple it seems to work much better, in my personal opinion. If my intent is to do the minimum level of harm I can, knowing that what I do will be returned to me in kind.. I'm going to take an approach that it going to function to be mitigate "horrendous" acts. It requires some serious twisting to say justify the Killing Fields of Cambodia or a Crusade under Wiccan thought as -not- causing harm. We can always find moral constructs where the problem will be harder.. But in the end the Problem Solution is never about what good or bad other people have done, its about making the best decision you can guided by a belief that you should cause the minimum amount of harm to others.

A freind once told me that you can write 200,000 pages of traffic laws and if the people don't read them, obey them or respect them it will not matter. On the other hand, convince them to "Drive Saftly" and if they truly believe it, act on it and respect it..

You have set up a world that has no system for checks and balances, no way of discerning your right from wrong with another persons right and wrong, using your statement; maybe rabies is a higher enlightenment for the dog, a way for him to become human, or even a god. Essentually you have set up a system that all have god-like qualities, all judge with their own set of personal beliefs what is the proper thing to do, and who should be killed for what.

Yes. Pretty much correct, then require that they consider the least harm knowing what they do reflects back upon them. The dog is the victim of a disease, one that causes it to attack and die in agony.. also those it bites will have a risk of death. Thats not enlightenment, Leroy, common sense. The greater harm in letting an infected animal run loose is that it will infect other animals and people. Capturing the animal would cause the least harm in a sense, but if you are unable to cure the animal then what your doing it allowing it a slow death. So you release its spirit, quickly cleanly and mercifully. It requires you to think about what your doing, to extend yourself and consider the ramifications of your actions or inaction.

What your also overlook is that the Rede and the Law of Three are not the only things that make up the codes and ethical boundries of Wiccan thought. Those are goverend by things as diverse as the Welsh triads, Brehon Law, the Ordaines these vary by Tradition (The Wiccan version of a Denomination)

Trocár - Mercy
FIrión - Justice
Chosmuil - Impartiality
Chuibsech - Conscience
Fosath - Firmness
Eslabar - Generosity
Garte - Hospitality
Fiálainech - Honor
Sessach - Stability
Lessach - Beneficense
Étir - Capability
Inric - Honesty
Suthnge - Eloquence
Foruste - Steadiness
Fírbrethach - Truth in Judging

Is the statement for all man, or just Wiccan’s?
at what point do the gods decide not to interfere with what wiccan’s or all creation decides to do, interference in the strictest of terms would mean, not even make there self’s known.

I tend to think the Gods interfere in men's affairs about on the par with what time they have, the prayers they are given and the lesson we're supposed be learning. Remember most Wiccans tend to not see the God's as all knowing and all seeing .. but more online with a very capable elder sibling. The relationship is therefore far different from that which is common with Christians.

Is it conceivable to you that there are some things that could be done that could never come close to being made right, or even doing the best you could, the offended party would be under some kind of obligation to consider that as partial payment because that’s the best that could be done.

Not in one life.

The evidence (none) that I have seen so far for a logical belief in wiccan, leaves me in wonderment as to why a rational person would believe it, and to choose wiccan over biblical Christianity, in your words “An it harm none, do as ye will” harms you.

Actually, I have found Wicca a very common sense faith and a great guide for day to day living. I don't have to have a book to tell me, "Thou Shall not touch the Fire." I know that the fire and a host of other things are things not to be touched because it harms me. Over an eight year time period as a Born Again Christian.. I looked deeply at my then faith, I found contradictions and moral problems with Christianity as a faith that I could not ignore. In the end, I left Christianity because staying in it would have caused me more spirtual and mental harm than leaving. This is not to say others can not find a deep sense of spirtual fufillment in Christianity, My Wife was born and raised Southern Baptist My daughter is leaning more towards libral Christian theology along the lines of the Episcopalians. Your belief that I'm harming myself is based on your Faith in the Bible.. The problem you have is simple.. IF I thought the Bible was true, I'd be a Christian.. as it is I think of it on par with any other piece of historical fiction and myth. Interesting but not authoritive.

If you’re your basing your faith in wicca on nothing but the consequences of your belief (its worked for me for 19years) That sort of "reasoning" is simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) and the premises do not constitute evidence for that conclusion, this is no more then wishful thinking, and that’s okay with me if you can stand strongly on that “zero foundation”, but is that okay with you?

All religions have a "zero foundation" Leroy.. Your not going to know Salvation is real, the judgement etc until after your dead. So you must by the nature of the religion accept upon your faith that the Bible is a true and accurate account. So your in Pascal's wager.. your a Christian because logically its a good bet? I once had an Atheist demand to know what I would do different, if he could prove that the Gods (all of them didn't exist), I smiled and told him not one thing.. Wicca like most pagan faiths at its core is about how you live in this world, with these people and this land.. its a philosphy and a worldview. For example..

Many Christians (not all) tend to think of this world as a waystation before Heavan where the streets will be paved with gold.. etc etc.. as Such this world is dross.. of no concern to be treated like a cheap apartment they know they are moving out of.. On the flip side Pagans tend to think that they MUST act in harmony with their world.. depending on their theology they will end up back here and any messes they leave they will eventually have to clean up.

Elle

December 1st 2003, 09:02 AM

Hello all. Funnily enough, someone had to tell me it was Thanksgiving (I moved to the UK a few years ago. I tend to forget.). My convoluted, quasi English/ American household held a brief council and then decided to order out. We ordered Indian- in keeping, of course.

I believe the Council of American Witches did put out a document to centralise the tenents of Wicca. Unfortunately, they disbanded shortly thereafter. Most witches, and I speak out of my own merry band of cohorts, didn't particulary admire the Council, simply because they didn't want to see the same thing happening to Wicca that happened to Christianity. Chrisitanity's failings, I believe, are not the teachings of Jesus, but the convoluted interpretations that they have been given over time.

Cheers,
Elle

Trout

December 1st 2003, 03:02 PM

Elle:

Hello all. Funnily enough, someone had to tell me it was Thanksgiving (I moved to the UK a few years ago. I tend to forget.). My convoluted, quasi English/ American household held a brief council and then decided to order out. We ordered Indian- in keeping, of course.

I believe the Council of American Witches did put out a document to centralise the tenents of Wicca. Unfortunately, they disbanded shortly thereafter. Most witches, and I speak out of my own merry band of cohorts, didn't particulary admire the Council, simply because they didn't want to see the same thing happening to Wicca that happened to Christianity. Chrisitanity's failings, I believe, are not the teachings of Jesus, but the convoluted interpretations that they have been given over time.

Cheers,
Elle

So your remedy is to have no teachings or interpretations?

Leroy

December 1st 2003, 08:16 PM

Eireann,
Okay, I understand, few policies, no universally accepted doctrine, one core accepted belief that the (creation reflects the Creator, then it makes logical sense to personify the Creator in a dual form (male/female) since that theme is recurrent in nature; every action carries a consequence;) disagreement with Gardner’s attempt to unify a movement, because of his credentials, and his materials from an unreliable source (Aleister Crowley).
The basic universally agreed upon “creed of Wicca”.
I failed until know to see the gargantuan latitude offered by the Wiccan belief. :shocked:
Just as a side note, when you look in the mirror and the mirror reflects your image, does it make logical sense for you to believe that mirror is a dual form (male/female) or its just silicon sand melted into glass with silver paint on the back, and its just reflecting your image.

Leroy

Trout

December 1st 2003, 08:56 PM

Leroy:

Eireann,
Okay, I understand, few policies, no universally accepted doctrine, one core accepted belief that the (creation reflects the Creator, then it makes logical sense to personify the Creator in a dual form (male/female) since that theme is recurrent in nature; every action carries a consequence;) disagreement with Gardner’s attempt to unify a movement, because of his credentials, and his materials from an unreliable source (Aleister Crowley).
The basic universally agreed upon “creed of Wicca”.
I failed until know to see the gargantuan latitude offered by the Wiccan belief. :shocked:

Leroy

The shocking thing for me Leroy, is the claim by Wiccans that Wicca actually provides help in real life situations, when in fact it actually provides no help or guidelines in dealing with reality.

The Wiccan rede may as well say, Do anything you want, and justify your actions any way you see fit.

Leroy

December 1st 2003, 09:58 PM

Durthorin,

I’ve truncated your response, its not my intention to misrepresent you at all, some of your points did not require answering, so if my action has misrepresented your intended meaning I apologize and please correct me. :smile:

Durthorin’I'm Celtic Wiccan, Brighid, Danu and the Morrigan are the Goddesses of the Celts. Brighid is also known from when she was adopted by the Catholic Church as Saint Brighid.. The legends of the Goddesses have been passed down based on oral traditions and were writen down later on.
So you believe Brighid was elevated to a goddess because of these oral traditions that were later written down, I can see why you categorize the Bible with The Three Musketeers, your works are so much more well grounded. (just ribbing ya!) :poke:

Durthorin, IE.. Like the Crusaders, the Inquisition and the protestants who murdered Catholics? All codes and be twisted and misused Leroy, even the Bible. Having worked in law for many years I have come to the conclusion that the more complex the system is the more it breeds professionals to tell you what it means & those that twist it for their own ends. If one tries to keep it simple it seems to work much better, in my personal opinion. If my intent is to do the minimum level of harm I can, knowing that what I do will be returned to me in kind.. I'm going to take an approach that it going to function to be mitigate "horrendous" acts. It requires some serious twisting to say justify the Killing Fields of Cambodia or a Crusade under Wiccan thought as -not- causing harm. We can always find moral constructs where the problem will be harder.. But in the end the Problem Solution is never about what good or bad other people have done, its about making the best decision you can guided by a belief that you should cause the minimum amount of harm to others.

A freind once told me that you can write 200,000 pages of traffic laws and if the people don't read them, obey them or respect them it will not matter. On the other hand, convince them to "Drive Saftly" and if they truly believe it, act on it and respect it..
I would agree with these statements, but when I got my drivers license I had to pass a test that stated the rules of the road, they just didn’t hand me my drivers license and say “drive safe!” but this example is physical, what about spiritual guidelines, how can you tell someone to drive “spiritually safe” if there are no generally excepted rules, its all personal interpretation. :argh:

Durthorin, Yes. Pretty much correct, then require that they consider the least harm knowing what they do reflects back upon them. The dog is the victim of a disease, one that causes it to attack and die in agony.. also those it bites will have a risk of death. Thats not enlightenment, Leroy, common sense. The greater harm in letting an infected animal run loose is that it will infect other animals and people. Capturing the animal would cause the least harm in a sense, but if you are unable to cure the animal then what your doing it allowing it a slow death. So you release its spirit, quickly cleanly and mercifully. It requires you to think about what your doing, to extend yourself and consider the ramifications of your actions or inaction.
You make the factual statement that the dog is the victim of a disease, isn’t a disease just living organisms trying to perpetuate there species, isn’t this just an act of nature, why do you assume that people, or the dog for that matter (your statement as to trying to cure the dog assumes that you would try to eradicate the species trying to multiple through the dog) have more rights to life them the organisms growing in the dog called rabies? Its easy to make that judgment using Christian doctrine, but how can you justify it using “An it harm none, do as ye will” the dog is one entity the rabies are millions of entities?? :huh:

Durthorin, I don't have to have a book to tell me, "Thou Shall not touch the Fire." I know that the fire and a host of other things are things not to be touched because it harms me.
There are plenty of examples of young children touching hot burners or fireplace grills, this is a lesson, if not communicated to the young person at an early age may hurt them, we don’t just naturally know this, its not as if we looked at fire and thought to ourselves, that is hot and it will burn me, we are taught this by outside influences. Like playing in the street, what is poisonous, etc, these are critical things that we are taught, not just common sense judgments.
What about spiritual things are they not infinitely more important as they will have a longer lasting and greater impact on your life, why would these things be left to common sense, and these other things taught to us?

Durthorin,All religions have a "zero foundation" Leroy...
Oh, but I think your statement is wrong, biblical Christianity stands on a solid foundation, there is a plethora of evidence backing up the bible and the Christian claims, the entire history of this planet has been effected by Christianity, the circumstantial evidence alone if you want to describe it as such is overwhelming. But then again you’re right; I can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to you or anyone else the existence of the Christian God, but the foundations for my belief in that fact are very strong. Don’t feel that you are obligated to attempt to tear down these truths (although I doubt you could), to place some kind of validity in your beliefs, I think your beliefs should stand on there own, and not just be the only viable alterative.
I now can understand the reason Wicca has no foundations because it has few basic tenets other then plan old common sense, and I surely don’t deny the reliability of common sense. But I rely on a lot more then that, by common sense I can’t deny the evidence.
Pascals Wager assumes a certain number of things can’t be known, I deny that assumption.

Leroy

Leroy

December 1st 2003, 10:17 PM

Trout,

Trout, The shocking thing for me Leroy, is the claim by Wiccans that Wicca actually provides help in real life situations, when in fact it actually provides no help or guidelines in dealing with reality.

The Wiccan rede may as well say, Do anything you want, and justify your actions any way you see fit.

I would have to agree at this point.

In the immortal words of Alicia Silverstone;

"I think that the film Clueless was very deep. I think it was deep in the way that it was very light. I think lightness has to come from a very deep place if it's true lightness."

Leroy

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 1st 2003, 11:10 PM

Today @ 06:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322580#post322580)
troutk13:

The shocking thing for me Leroy, is the claim by Wiccans that Wicca actually provides help in real life situations, when in fact it actually provides no help or guidelines in dealing with reality.

The Wiccan rede may as well say, Do anything you want, and justify your actions any way you see fit.

This post displays a marked ignorance of both Wicca and the Rede. You can't personally imagine it being helpful in real life situations, but that is primarly because you can't personally grasp what Wicca is about and what the Rede is actually saying.

Trout

December 1st 2003, 11:22 PM

Eireann:

In my opinion, and the opinion of many Wiccans, "good" and "evil" are merely human traits.

Eireann, if good and evil are merely human traits, what are their origins? In other words, what is the origin of the first wrong thought? And why didn't the rule of threes immediately bring evil to an end?

Eireann:
Nothing and no one is inherently of the nature of good and evil.

Why then would we have the strange ability to tell the differrence?
And why do we seem to have the notion that some things are intrinsically evil? i.e. child molesters?

And why as a Wiccan would choosing good be a better choice than choosing evil?

Trout

December 2nd 2003, 12:07 AM

Durthorin:
I once had an Atheist demand to know what I would do different, if he could prove that the Gods (all of them didn't exist), I smiled and told him not one thing.. Wicca like most pagan faiths at its core is about how you live in this world, with these people and this land.. its a philosphy and a worldview.

In other words, you told him that truth didn't matter. Or, "Don't confuse me with the facts, this is true if I say it's true."

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 2nd 2003, 01:23 AM

Today @ 09:22 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322712#post322712)
troutk13:

Eireann, if good and evil are merely human traits, what are their origins?
There origins are in the human "need" to order things into catagories. "Good" and "evil" aren't things or acts, they're catagories. Things and acts are simply what they are. It is we who have invented the catagories and labels we apply to things, then we, in our fallible wisdom, assume that nature must always follow within the lines we've set for it. Unfortunately for those of you who choose to live by such things, nature doesn't always stay inside the lines.

In other words, what is the origin of the first wrong thought?
That would be human fallibility, the imperfectness of human nature.

And why didn't the rule of threes immediately bring evil to an end?
The "rule of three" is just a catch phrase. It denotes the idea that all actions have consequences. Those consequences don't always negate or prevent future repetition of the action, though.

Why then would we have the strange ability to tell the differrence?
We don't. Some assume they do, assuming that they can easily fit everything into black and white, but they're fooling themselves. The silly Christian catch phrase about "discernment" is exactly that kind of illusion.

And why do we seem to have the notion that some things are intrinsically evil? i.e. child molesters?
"We" don't assume that. Some people assume that, while others assume that "evil" isn't what is necessarily at play with such people, but that they are "sick." Sickness and evil aren't the same thing. Evil is a thing of intent, something the person can control, sickness is something the person can't control, at least not without significant help.

And why as a Wiccan would choosing good be a better choice than choosing evil?
Ever heard the phrase: "You catch more bees with honey than with vinegar?" It's simple common sense.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 2nd 2003, 01:28 AM

Today @ 10:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322749#post322749)
troutk13:

In other words, you told him that truth didn't matter. Or, "Don't confuse me with the facts, this is true if I say it's true."

No, I think it's more like in other words, it's a philosophy that embraces common decency, a lifestyle that isn't particularly affected by whether or not there is some god or goddess out there somewhere in the universe. If there is a God, then a lifestyle that encourages common decency and neighborliness makes sense. If there isn't a God, that lifestyle still makes sense. If there is a God, and it turns out to be Yahweh, it still makes sense. If there is a God, and it turns out to be Zeus, it still makes sense. See?

Durthorin

December 2nd 2003, 01:43 AM

Today @ 08:58 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322652#post322652)
Leroy:

So you believe Brighid was elevated to a goddess because of these oral traditions that were later written down, I can see why you categorize the Bible with The Three Musketeers, your works are so much more well grounded. (just ribbing ya!) :poke:

Actually, search for "Saint Goddess Brighid" in google, what you'll find is that Brighid was worshiped in Celtic Europe before the coming of Chrsitianity. She was an endearing and enduring part of the spirtual life of her people. When Christianity came and here the story gets messy... a "Saint Brighid" Appeared.. The Saint has many of the same characteristics and areas of responsabilities as the Goddess.. The theroy ranges from that the Catholic Church unable to suppress the worship of the Goddess Brighid adopted her into the "fold" Which is known to have happened a number of times... among some stories she is the foster mother of Christ for example. The most generally accepted theory is that the Goddess preceeded the Saint.. that a Saint Brighid existed and over time she and the Goddess have becoming hoplessly intertwined. What is humorous is that in Kildare a flame to the Goddess was supposedly tended by her Priestesses after the coming of Chrsitainity it became a Nunnery where nuns tended the same flame.. when the Celtic Church went to far afield from Rome.. it was finally closed and the flame extinguished.. recently nuns have relit it and it tended by nuns of Saint Brighids order and more than one quiet pagan or two.

how can you tell someone to drive “spiritually safe” if there are no generally excepted rules, its all personal interpretation. :argh:

Its always personal interpretation. Even when have the huge volumes of intricate laws.. how those are "interpreted" become the stuff of Crusades, Inquistions, Pogroms and a host of other ills. Look at the Bible in the following light... "Do unto Others as you would have them do unto you." What ever piece of scripture you use to justify anything.. filter it thru that one phrase.. then remember "What you sow, so shall you reap." You see in its way Christianity has its version of the Rede.. as do most other Faiths.

You make the factual statement that the dog is the victim of a disease, isn’t a disease just living organisms trying to perpetuate there species, isn’t this just an act of nature,

So is my trying to survive and protect my loved ones. Its all part of nature.. I do not scream hatered at the wolf for being a wolf.. no more than he hates me for being human. We both play a part in the wheel.

why do you assume that people, or the dog for that matter (your statement as to trying to cure the dog assumes that you would try to eradicate the species trying to multiple through the dog) have more rights to life them the organisms growing in the dog called rabies?

I don't, I just assume that allowing the disease will cause pain and suffering among animals and human beings. So what causes the least amount of pain and suffering?

Its easy to make that judgment using Christian doctrine, but how can you justify it using “An it harm none, do as ye will” the dog is one entity the rabies are millions of entities?? :huh:

They'll be back.

There are plenty of examples of young children touching hot burners or fireplace grills, this is a lesson, if not communicated to the young person at an early age may hurt them, we don’t just naturally know this, its not as if we looked at fire and thought to ourselves, that is hot and it will burn me, we are taught this by outside influences. Like playing in the street, what is poisonous, etc, these are critical things that we are taught, not just common sense judgments.

True, but no one wrote them down and enshrined them, they were passed down as basic knowledge. You knew fire was hot no doubt long before you could read. It was an orally transmitted message.

What about spiritual things are they not infinitely more important as they will have a longer lasting and greater impact on your life, why would these things be left to common sense, and these other things taught to us?

In some cases they are oral information passed down, in some cases its not that they were left to common sense so much as we as a race have tended to believe we're above the need to pay attention. The most common phrase I think I can remember among new pagans is a sense of coming home once they realize what they believe and they start looking at the world thru a pagan worldview.

Oh, but I think your statement is wrong, biblical Christianity stands on a solid foundation, there is a plethora of evidence backing up the bible and the Christian claims, the entire history of this planet has been effected by Christianity, the circumstantial evidence alone if you want to describe it as such is overwhelming.

But none of that proves the cornerstones of your faith. All that it proves is that a lot of Christians existed.. As I said, I consider the Bible.. historical fiction.. as such their are parts of it that connect with the historical record, but none of what connects validates the Biblical Christianity as opposed to Historical Christianity. Homer wrote of the Gods doing batle and appearing to men at Troy, Many of the great Greek historians wrote of the Gods as characters in history..who spoke to kings, commanded and cursed.

But then again you’re right; I can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to you or anyone else the existence of the Christian God, but the foundations for my belief in that fact are very strong.

The key point is its a belief, a matter in the end of your Faith. An I in all truth respect that. I consider why I walk my path just as much a fact as you do and my faith just as strong. <chuckle> Its had to be since I have been going toa Southern Baptist Church for over 26 years now.

Don’t feel that you are obligated to attempt to tear down these truths (although I doubt you could), to place some kind of validity in your beliefs, I think your beliefs should stand on there own, and not just be the only viable alterative.

To me what you have is a subjective truth as such, I feel no need to attack it.. trust since I respect my wifes faith I have had to walk a very careful tightrope on the issue. In the end we she, you and I all follow our hearts.

Danu Bless, Dur

Trout

December 2nd 2003, 01:44 AM

Eireann:
If there is a God, and it turns out to be Yahweh, it still makes sense.

Isn't determining what is true and living accordingly, the most important thing to do?
If it turns out to be Yahweh, wouldn't obeying His commands instead of making up your own rules be the most sensible thing to do? See?

Eireann:

This post displays a marked ignorance of both Wicca and the Rede. You can't personally imagine it being helpful in real life situations, but that is primarly because you can't personally grasp what Wicca is about and what the Rede is actually saying.

"Marked ignorance" may well be the case, help me to understand.
How about someone with a toothache?

First of all, is the toothache a manifestation of the rule of threes? If not then wouldn't the gods be responsible for the tooth pain and be required to pay a three-fold price? Which begs the question; Why don't the gods simply put an end to suffering? If they have the ability to aid and comfort the human race in our un-earned afflictions and they choose not to, aren't they guilty of harm by not helping? Thus violating the rede

If the toothache is a rule of three pain, then the dentist who relieves the pain of the toothache, has interfered with the rule of threes, thus earning himself a threefold punishment. And as we all know too well, "harm none" is a term the dentist cannot abide in. And since the dentist is instrumental in ending alot of suffering , why don't we see all dentists leading a three-fold better existence than the rest of us? Why do some people in the business of doing harm seem to do so well? Why isn't the rule of threes evident in the universe?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 2nd 2003, 02:33 AM

Yesterday @ 11:44 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=322816#post322816)
troutk13:

Isn't determining what is true and living accordingly, the most important thing to do?
Well, if Truth were that easily determined, you might have a point there. But it isn't. People have been trying to determine what the Truth is since the beginning of time, and haven't come one step closer in all that time. There are a lot of guesses (otherwise known as religions), but guesses don't equate to knowing. And until someone manages to objectively determine what the Truth is, I will stick to the idea that a lifestyle that encourages common decency and neighborliness is a pretty good one.

If it turns out to be Yahweh, wouldn't obeying His commands instead of making up your own rules be the most sensible thing to do? See?
Well, when Yahweh comes down and tells me his rules, I'll let you know. Until then, all we have are man-made, made-up rules. Yes, that includes Christianity.

Why don't the gods simply put an end to suffering?
As many times as this very question has been asked of Christians, I can't imagine that you're hoping that question will upend a Wiccan (or any other religion, for that matter).

If they have the ability to aid and comfort the human race in our un-earned afflictions and they choose not to, aren't they guilty of harm by not helping? Thus violating the rede
Who said God/dess/gods/whatever are beholden to the Rede, considering the Rede was penned by humans, not by gods?

If the toothache is a rule of three pain, then the dentist who relieves the pain of the toothache, has interfered with the rule of threes, thus earning himself a threefold punishment.
Maybe. Who knows?

And since the dentist is instrumental in ending alot of suffering , why don't we see all dentists leading a three-fold better existence than the rest of us?
For about the gazillionth time (in this thread, even), the "rule of three" is just a catch phrase. It isn't law. It's basically a scare tactic to make more certain that people think about consequences before they act in selfish measure. It's a popular catch phrase, but there is no law of nature that says things will come back threefold. It simply represents the fact that all actions have consequences.

Why do some people in the business of doing harm seem to do so well?
"Seem" is often the key word here. Many of them may appear to be doing quite well, particularly financially, but unless you measure the success of someone's life by their money, there are always things going on in their lives you're probably not aware of.

Why isn't the rule of threes evident in the universe?
The basic idea to which the catch phrase refers is evident in the universe. Even Newton's 3rd Law of physics employs this notion (when he speaks of opposite reactions, he isn't speaking of positive begetting negative or negative begetting positive, and when applied here it means that what gets put out [action] will return [reaction]).

Leroy

December 2nd 2003, 04:08 PM

Durthorin,
I appreciate your answers to these questions, it has helped me immensely in better understanding Wiccan belief, on the other hand it has led to more questions, and some of the previous questions that I’ve asked have not been answered in a way a can logically understand, but then again I rationalize everything from a realistic, consistent, factual bases, and some of your answers being highly interpretive for each individual is hard for me to understand, it assumes to claim things might be true for others but is not for him, describing more of a relativist fallacy, but maybe I’m over exaggerating.
I don’t want to seem argumentative, but some of what you say conflicts with a relativistic type of philosophy that underscores your belief.

Durthorin;

Leroy; why do you assume that people, or the dog for that matter (your statement as to trying to cure the dog assumes that you would try to eradicate the species trying to multiple through the dog) have more rights to life them the organisms growing in the dog called rabies?
I don't, I just assume that allowing the disease will cause pain and suffering among animals and human beings. So what causes the least amount of pain and suffering?
A dog and a few people (maybe) vs. thousands of rabies organisms,
The least amount of suffering would be to let the rabies organisms alone to do, as they will. Your still assuming that the dog has more rights then the rabies organisms, Why?

Durthorin;
But none of that proves the cornerstones of your faith. All that it proves is that a lot of Christians existed.. As I said, I consider the Bible.. historical fiction.. as such their are parts of it that connect with the historical record, but none of what connects validates the Biblical Christianity as opposed to Historical Christianity. Homer wrote of the Gods doing batle and appearing to men at Troy, Many of the great Greek historians wrote of the Gods as characters in history..who spoke to kings, commanded and cursed.

Your right, none of that does prove the cornerstones of Christian faith, I didn’t provide any proof, I just stated the Christian cornerstones.

My question all along has been what are the cornerstones of your Wiccan faith.

Proving the cornerstones of your Wiccan faith and my Christian faith is another matter.

The cornerstone of anyone’s beliefs are not solely the appeal to the consequences of that belief, that might be a minor part of it but it can’t realistically be the core, the entire cornerstone, the whole foundation of that belief.

The statement you made as to one of my cornerstones,(one of about 10) the bible for instance. The manuscript evidence supporting the bible's accuracy is overwhelming. There are over 5,400 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, over 10,000 of the Latin Vulgate, and at least 9,300 other early versions. A total of 24,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament today.

Compared to other ancient writings such as Homer's Iliad or Caesar's Gallic Wars, the Bible has more manuscript evidence than any ten pieces of ancient literature combined.

Can you prove with 100% certainty that Wicca is true, I never asked that and I never even intended that, but can you prove Wicca to be true, that is the question I asked, and your answer is that its un-provable.

"Can I prove Christianity to be true?" Most often, however, the question is phrased, "Can you prove 100 percent for certain that Christianity is true?"

The answer to the first question is, "Yes, Christianity can be proven to be true." This, of course does not mean that everyone will accept the evidence, however good it is. But the answer to the second question is, "No, not 100 percent for certain."

Some people feel that this "no" lets them off the hook. The problem is a misunderstanding of the nature of proof. The key is not a perfect or absolute certainty, as some believe, but a standard of proof that amounts to a moral certainty or puts the matter beyond a reasonable doubt.

Using one of Josh McDowell’s examples, “ Everybody makes the decisions of life based on probability, not certainty. Decisions are based on a combination of faith related to fact. For example, a person about to cross a road stands on one side, looks both directions (hopefully he does!), collecting the evidence necessary to determine the probability of making the journey across in safety.

He can never be 100 percent certain that he will make it. He could have a heart attack halfway across, an earthquake could swallow him, etc. The lack of 100 percent certainty doesn't keep him on the side of the road, however. He moves out toward the other side with maybe 90 percent certainty and 10 percent faith, but he must take himself 100 percent across. “

The problem is not a matter of "I can't believe because the facts won't let me" so much as a matter of "No matter what proof, I won't believe."

My rational decision to believe in biblical Christianity is based on a strong basic foundational 10 to 15 points or cornerstones, and these cornerstones are backed up by strong evidence/facts, one of these cornerstones is the consequences of that belief, but that would mean nothing without the others to back it up.

Leroy

Trout

December 2nd 2003, 11:04 PM

Eireann:

Well, if Truth were that easily determined, you might have a point there. But it isn't. People have been trying to determine what the Truth is since the beginning of time, and haven't come one step closer in all that time. There are a lot of guesses (otherwise known as religions), but guesses don't equate to knowing. And until someone manages to objectively determine what the Truth is, I will stick to the idea that a lifestyle that encourages common decency and neighborliness is a pretty good one.

How do you know truth hasn't been found? If truth is taken out of the equation, why Wicca?

Eireann:
Well, when Yahweh comes down and tells me his rules, I'll let you know.

He did, His name is Jesus.

Eireann:
Until then, all we have are man-made, made-up rules. Yes, that includes Christianity.

If Jesus is who He claimed to be, then His rules are the ones to follow.

troutk13:Why don't the gods simply put an end to suffering?

Eireann:
As many times as this very question has been asked of Christians, I can't imagine that you're hoping that question will upend a Wiccan (or any other religion, for that matter).

From the Christian perspective there is a good answer to this question, what is the answer from the Wiccan perspective?

Eireann:
Who said God/dess/gods/whatever are beholden to the Rede, considering the Rede was penned by humans, not by gods?

So then the rede could be the direct opposite of what the gods want?

Eireann:
Maybe. Who knows?

This proves my point for which you proclaimed my ignorance. The rede offers no practical help in decision making.

Eireann:
For about the gazillionth time (in this thread, even), the "rule of three" is just a catch phrase. It isn't law. It's basically a scare tactic to make more certain that people think about consequences before they act in selfish measure. It's a popular catch phrase, but there is no law of nature that says things will come back threefold. It simply represents the fact that all actions have consequences.

So then the "catch phrase" of threes is just as existentially worthless as the rede.

Eireann:
The basic idea to which the catch phrase refers is evident in the universe. Even Newton's 3rd Law of physics employs this notion (when he speaks of opposite reactions, he isn't speaking of positive begetting negative or negative begetting positive, and when applied here it means that what gets put out [action] will return [reaction]).

Only problem with that is Newton's laws are observable the catch phrase of threes isn't.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 3rd 2003, 02:06 AM

Today @ 09:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323806#post323806)
troutk13:

How do you know truth hasn't been found?
Because there is too much left unanswered. The truth is nowhere near having been found. You all continually lock yourselves into the notion that your interpretation equals Truth, but you're locking into an illusion.

If truth is taken out of the equation, why Wicca?
Because it makes sense. That's all I need.

He did, His name is Jesus.
So says your mythology book anyway. Are you sure it was Jesus? Are you sure it wasn't Hercules, or Jason of the Argonauts?

If Jesus is who He claimed to be, then His rules are the ones to follow.
You'll have to forgive me if I don't care to conform my entire life to your IF.

From the Christian perspective there is a good answer to this question,
I've heard answers to the question. I don't know that I'd call any of them "good" answers. It usually comes across more like a "sounds good to me" answer.

What is the answer from the Wiccan perspective?
I don't know that Wiccans generally bother themselves over that question. I know I don't.

So then the rede could be the direct opposite of what the gods want?
Could be. The Bible could be exactly the opposite of what God wants, too. We could play this "could be" game until the end of time, but none of us will get anywhere with it.

This proves my point for which you proclaimed my ignorance. The rede offers no practical help in decision making.
Wrong. Everything has a consequence, for good or ill. Unless you plan to stand in one place all your life, never moving, never speaking, never acting, then you can't avoid consequences (for that matter, you still wouldn't be able to avoid consequences). The consequence element of the Rede isn't a dictate to never act in such a way as to affect others, it is a caution to always be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions and to try to act with forethought. That's good advice for anybody.

So then the "catch phrase" of threes is just as existentially worthless as the rede.
As a Law, yes, it has little worth, but it isn't meant to be taken as Law. The Rede, however, is anything but worthless.

Only problem with that is Newton's laws are observable the catch phrase of threes isn't.
Exactly how many times am I going to have to repeat that the "Rule of Three" isn't meant to be taken as law? It is a catch phrase which isn't meant to be taken literally. What is meant to be taken literally is that actions have consequences. That is observable in nature. Now, how many times do I need to keep repeating that? I think I'm in double digits already!

Bill the Cat

December 3rd 2003, 09:24 AM

:popcorn:

Durthorin

December 3rd 2003, 10:05 AM

Yesterday @ 03:08 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=323333#post323333)
Leroy:

I don't, I just assume that allowing the disease will cause pain and suffering among animals and human beings. So what causes the least amount of pain and suffering?
A dog and a few people (maybe) vs. thousands of rabies organisms,
The least amount of suffering would be to let the rabies organisms alone to do, as they will. Your still assuming that the dog has more rights then the rabies organisms, Why?
[/quote]

If it Harm none, do as you will. Would you consider that rabies virus is killing its host causing harm? As such curing any disease that simply that organism being hit by the rule of three.. or in Christian terms, it reaps what it sows.

But what your getting at it the Noble Wolf concept.. ie a wolf wants to eat a sheep, the sheep, the wolf and I are all equal parts of the Divine, thus by what right do I decide to kill the wolf and protect the sheep. Well, A. Its my sheep and if the wolf eats my family doesn't and I have no wool to sell.. so the wolf causes me harm and I have a right to try defend myself. B. its someone elses sheep and as a member of that society I am responsable for helping protect and care for them too. Thus the wolf is still harming me. Now the wolf decides deer is better than sheep and I watch because it does not harm me or IMPORTANT POINT.. the society/tribe of which I am a socially responsable member. You see part of your problem is that your seeing the Rule of Three and The rede in terms of an individual only without locking into one of the other cornerstones of pagan though. That is that pagan theology is based on living in harmony with your tribe/society and your environment, as such you judge things based on how it will harm your tribe as a whole not just me/myself/& I.

My question all along has been what are the cornerstones of your Wiccan faith.

1. That all paths are equally valid to the divine that do not cause harm to yourself or others.
2. That tolerance is a virtue.
3. That we are part of the universe not its masters and required to live in harmony with it and learn from it.
4. That the universe is the divine and thus reflects the nature of the divine.. ie Male/Female duality.
5. That we are responsable for what we do.
6. That finding the divine can only be done by those that actually look.
7. That what we do comes back to us.

Ie this the sort of thing your looking for?

The cornerstone of anyone’s beliefs are not solely the appeal to the consequences of that belief, that might be a minor part of it but it can’t realistically be the core, the entire cornerstone, the whole foundation of that belief.

Why not? The plane flies, the boat floats.. If something works, then it works.

The statement you made as to one of my cornerstones,(one of about 10) the bible for instance. The manuscript evidence supporting the bible's accuracy is overwhelming. There are over 5,400 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, over 10,000 of the Latin Vulgate, and at least 9,300 other early versions. A total of 24,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament today.

So you have many many copies..does this make its contents any more valid? No. If you have one copy of the Bible and one copy of Homer and you find both historical and non-verifiable events in both then the number of copies is somewhat irrelivant.

Can you prove with 100% certainty that Wicca is true, I never asked that and I never even intended that, but can you prove Wicca to be true, that is the question I asked, and your answer is that its un-provable.

I prove that it works. All claims of truth concerningt he validity of religion are by their nature.. subjective and based upon faith.

"Can I prove Christianity to be true?" Most often, however, the question is phrased, "Can you prove 100 percent for certain that Christianity is true?"

The answer to the first question is, "Yes, Christianity can be proven to be true." This, of course does not mean that everyone will accept the evidence, however good it is. But the answer to the second question is, "No, not 100 percent for certain."

But in my case I know for 100 percent certain that Chrstianity did not work in my life. It offered me no comfort, it did not sustain me when I needed it, it did not answer those questions of life that I required of it. In short it did not work. On the other hand, Wicca and my Pagan faith have answered, comforted and sustained me. Thus when I turned the ignition key on this car, it ran.

He can never be 100 percent certain that he will make it. He could have a heart attack halfway across, an earthquake could swallow him, etc. The lack of 100 percent certainty doesn't keep him on the side of the road, however. He moves out toward the other side with maybe 90 percent certainty and 10 percent faith, but he must take himself 100 percent across. “

The problem is not a matter of "I can't believe because the facts won't let me" so much as a matter of "No matter what proof, I won't believe."

My rational decision to believe in biblical Christianity is based on a strong basic foundational 10 to 15 points or cornerstones, and these cornerstones are backed up by strong evidence/facts, one of these cornerstones is the consequences of that belief, but that would mean nothing without the others to back it up.

Leroy

Consider this analogy, your faith or religion are the car that gets you to god.. it is less about the model than the goal. As such you walk out place faith in the ignition and turn the key and if its all working right, the car starts and you move forward. For some people they walk out get into Chrsitanity, place their faith in the ignition and the engine just clicks.. they get out, they curse, kick the tires and open the hood, tinker, invest call a mecahanic and sometimes they do get it running.. many of those live in fear its going to let them down before they get there.. Sometimes they trade from a Ford to a Chevy but they like a 4 door so they stay with it. Welcome to "denominations".

Others trade it and get a car that works for them, one that they are confident of when they turn the key.. You don't understand what they see in it, it doesn't match your life, how you travel, the comfort you want etc.. but your not driving it, now are you?

Trout

December 3rd 2003, 04:28 PM

Eireann:

Because there is too much left unanswered. The truth is nowhere near having been found. You all continually lock yourselves into the notion that your interpretation equals Truth, but you're locking into an illusion.

First you say, "the truth is nowhere near being found", then you say that I'm "locking into an illusion", after you already admitted that you didn't know if Christianity was false. How do you know what is illusion, how do you determine that?

Eireann:
Because it makes sense. That's all I need.

There are many choices more sensible than Wicca, choices that would be fact based, not feelings based.

Eireann:
So says your mythology book anyway. Are you sure it was Jesus? Are you sure it wasn't Hercules, or Jason of the Argonauts?

There is a mountain of evidence indicating that Jesus is indeed the risen Messiah. Jason and Hercules can easily be dismissed as Saviours of the world. There is in fact more evidence in favor of Hercules or Jason than there appears to be in favor of Wicca though.

Eireann:
You'll have to forgive me if I don't care to conform my entire life to your IF.

I forgive you, but ultimately it's not my forgiveness that counts for eternity.

Eireann:
I've heard answers to the question. I don't know that I'd call any of them "good" answers. It usually comes across more like a "sounds good to me" answer.
I don't know that Wiccans generally bother themselves over that question. I know I don't.

So then Wicca doesn't even answer one of lifes basic questions? Not even with a "sounds good" answer?

Eireann:
. . .always be prepared to accept the consequences of your actions and to try to act with forethought. That's good advice for anybody.

Then why isn't the rede worded like that? I understand that you are living by what seems sensible to you, but in reality what you say and what the rede says are entirely different. The rede is not offering help in real world situations.

Eireann:
Exactly how many times am I going to have to repeat that the "Rule of Three" isn't meant to be taken as law? It is a catch phrase which isn't meant to be taken literally. What is meant to be taken literally is that actions have consequences. That is observable in nature. Now, how many times do I need to keep repeating that? I think I'm in double digits already!

You had tried to equate the catch phrase of threes with one of Newtons laws, it wasn't me who used the parrellel it was you. I was simply answering you.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 3rd 2003, 05:27 PM

Today @ 02:28 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=324995#post324995)
troutk13:

First you say, "the truth is nowhere near being found", then you say that I'm "locking into an illusion", after you already admitted that you didn't know if Christianity was false. How do you know what is illusion, how do you determine that?
Something being true and something being Truth are two different things. I don't know that the basic tenets of Christianity are false, anymore than you know they're true. It's all a matter of faith of belief, which precludes absolutely knowledge. What I do know is that the claim of many Christians to absolutely KNOW that what they believe is true, is false. They don't KNOW, they BELIEVE.

There are many choices more sensible than Wicca, choices that would be fact based, not feelings based.
Such as?

There is a mountain of evidence indicating that Jesus is indeed the risen Messiah.
Yes, I know. It is roughly comparable to the mountain of evidence against.

There is in fact more evidence in favor of Hercules or Jason than there appears to be in favor of Wicca though.
Apples and oranges. Jason and Hercules are purportions of history. Wicca is a purportion to philosophy. If you're looking for hard and fast empirical proof of a philosophy, you're going to be sadly disappointed, whether the philosophy is Wiccan, Christian, nihilist or whatever.

So then Wicca doesn't even answer one of lifes basic questions? Not even with a "sounds good" answer?
It's not one of "life's basic questions." It's one of your philosophy's basic question. We don't practice your philosophy. We just don't generally consider it an important question. There are more important things to worry about.

Then why isn't the rede worded like that? I understand that you are living by what seems sensible to you, but in reality what you say and what the rede says are entirely different. The rede is not offering help in real world situations.
Did you read the in-depth analysis I gave of the Rede? It doesn't say what you apparently think it says.

You had tried to equate the catch phrase of threes with one of Newtons laws, it wasn't me who used the parrellel it was you. I was simply answering you.
No, you must have misunderstood. I equated the notion of consequence and return with Newton's law. "Threes" were not part of the equation.

Dbtng.Thomas

December 3rd 2003, 07:18 PM

BohemianXQueen:

Are there any Wiccans on this site? So far, on all of the topics I've commented on concering Wicca or Paganism, people seem to have it out for Wiccans. They don't seem to even recognize Wicca as a religion. Or, if they do, they seem to think Wiccans are idiots, cult members, or Devil Worshippers. It seems that all these people that call Wiccans "morons" and "idiots" are supposed Christians. How nice, Christians that judge others and disrespect them. Christianity is centered around Jesus, am I wrong about that? Jesus respected all people, he even befriended a prostitute. He didn't go around calling people morons and idiots, and he didn't judge someone based on stereotypes he heard.

I've also been told by some of these "Christians" that they know for a fact that all Wiccans are against the Christian Church. I am not against any church or any religion.

I mean, I respect everyone no matter their race, religion, gender, sexual preference, ect. and I'm Eclectic Wiccan. But I do not respect people who persecute other people just because they don't understand them.

One of my reasons for writing this post was to ask all of the non-Christian, namely Wiccans or other Pagans if they've had this problem. I know there are very respectable and wonderful Christians (I'm friends with some) but the people I've encountered on this site so far who call themselves Christians have been mean and nasty to me because I try to explain that Wicca is not evil and that it is a religion too. I do not understand why these people who say they follow Jesus can lash out at religions they don't seem to understand and tell people they are going to hell and that they are evil. It's sad, really.

"It's not what you have faith in, but the fact that you have faith."

Dear BXQ:

I used to be one of these people who you most encounter, a "born-again" Christian. I empathize with what you must be feeling. I too have encountered rudeness, closed-mindedness, and judgmentalism. It comes with the territory.

I studied Wicca and I agree with much that it respects and I suppose in some ways I could be considered a Wiccan. But I probably can be considered a Buddhist and a few other "ists" as well.

Don't let typical Christian fear and anger blind you to the fact that there are some people here that seem genuinely kind and loving even if somewhat dogmatic. As you said, you have some Christian friends also. It's just that all religions seem to have a good number of zealots who would destroy all of us in the name of their god/s.

Love and peace, sister.

brady love

December 3rd 2003, 10:17 PM

Eirean, Some people assume that, while others assume that "evil" isn't what is necessarily at play with such people, but that they are "sick." Sickness and evil aren't the same thing. Evil is a thing of intent, something the person can control, sickness is something the person can't control, at least not without significant help.

correct me if I'm wrong, but if people "sickness" and "evil" are totally different, than a child molester could just claim that he was sick, to get out of the punishment he deserves, and no one would be able to truly tell whether or not he is telling the truth.

brady love

December 3rd 2003, 10:40 PM

BohemianXQueen:

Are there any Wiccans on this site? So far, on all of the topics I've commented on concering Wicca or Paganism, people seem to have it out for Wiccans. They don't seem to even recognize Wicca as a religion. Or, if they do, they seem to think Wiccans are idiots, cult members, or Devil Worshippers. It seems that all these people that call Wiccans "morons" and "idiots" are supposed Christians. How nice, Christians that judge others and disrespect them. Christianity is centered around Jesus, am I wrong about that? Jesus respected all people, he even befriended a prostitute. He didn't go around calling people morons and idiots, and he didn't judge someone based on stereotypes he heard.

I've also been told by some of these "Christians" that they know for a fact that all Wiccans are against the Christian Church. I am not against any church or any religion.

I mean, I respect everyone no matter their race, religion, gender, sexual preference, ect. and I'm Eclectic Wiccan. But I do not respect people who persecute other people just because they don't understand them.

One of my reasons for writing this post was to ask all of the non-Christian, namely Wiccans or other Pagans if they've had this problem. I know there are very respectable and wonderful Christians (I'm friends with some) but the people I've encountered on this site so far who call themselves Christians have been mean and nasty to me because I try to explain that Wicca is not evil and that it is a religion too. I do not understand why these people who say they follow Jesus can lash out at religions they don't seem to understand and tell people they are going to hell and that they are evil. It's sad, really.

"It's not what you have faith in, but the fact that you have faith."

i wouldn't call any wicca a moron, but i believe the reason that some of the christians on this site are talking to you, and maybe offending you, is because this thread is a debate about wicca. maybe you are offended, because the truth isn't always what we want to hear. truly try to listen to what everyone is saying, and really examine your faith.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 3rd 2003, 11:22 PM

Today @ 08:17 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325296#post325296)
brady love:

correct me if I'm wrong, but if people "sickness" and "evil" are totally different, than a child molester could just claim that he was sick, to get out of the punishment he deserves, and no one would be able to truly tell whether or not he is telling the truth.

Many of them do. But there are also stringent tests in place to determine whether or not an "insanity plea" is applicable, and those tests (I don't know precisely what they are, so don't ask me) catch a lot of the malingerers. It's very uncommon for an insanity plea to be accepted, but when they are it is usually in cases such as child molestation and pedophilia.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 3rd 2003, 11:26 PM

Today @ 08:40 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325307#post325307)
brady love:

BohemianXQueen:

i wouldn't call any wicca a moron, but i believe the reason that some of the christians on this site are talking to you, and maybe offending you, is because this thread is a debate about wicca. maybe you are offended, because the truth isn't always what we want to hear. truly try to listen to what everyone is saying, and really examine your faith.
That advice is a little difficult to take when the people you're arguing against aren't actually listening to you but are rather repeating what amount to little more than soundbites they've heard from their ministers, and so forth. I think the fact that I've had to repeat about a dozen times that the rule of three is not a literal Law, yet others continue asking, "Where is the Rule of Three evident in the universe?" should be a good example of what I'm talking about, about people not actually listening.

Leroy

December 4th 2003, 12:03 AM

Durthorin

Durthorin,

Leroy:

I don't, I just assume that allowing the disease will cause pain and suffering among animals and human beings. So what causes the least amount of pain and suffering?

A dog and a few people (maybe) vs. thousands of rabies organisms,
The least amount of suffering would be to let the rabies organisms alone to do, as they will. Your still assuming that the dog has more rights then the rabies organisms, Why?

If it Harm none, do as you will. Would you consider that rabies virus is killing its host causing harm? As such curing any disease that simply that organism being hit by the rule of three.. or in Christian terms, it reaps what it sows.

Christians can say that after the fall of man sin and disease entered the world so I could say with certainty that the rabies virus is causing harm, you on the other hand have no help in making that distinction, why to you assume the rabies bacteria should be eradicated? Why to they have less rights then the dog? After all, they are just feeding on the dog for there survival aren’t they?

Do you go around killing frogs because they eat bugs, or killing cats because they eat mice?

Durthorin,
But what your getting at it the Noble Wolf concept.. ie a wolf wants to eat a sheep, the sheep, the wolf and I are all equal parts of the Divine, thus by what right do I decide to kill the wolf and protect the sheep. Well, A. Its my sheep and if the wolf eats my family doesn't and I have no wool to sell.. so the wolf causes me harm and I have a right to try defend myself. B. its someone elses sheep and as a member of that society I am responsable for helping protect and care for them too. Thus the wolf is still harming me. Now the wolf decides deer is better than sheep and I watch because it does not harm me or IMPORTANT POINT.. the society/tribe of which I am a socially responsable member. You see part of your problem is that your seeing the Rule of Three and The rede in terms of an individual only without locking into one of the other cornerstones of pagan though. That is that pagan theology is based on living in harmony with your tribe/society and your environment, as such you judge things based on how it will harm your tribe as a whole not just me/myself/& I.

Noble Wolf Concept? Where you getting this? (As a side note you better not be killing any wolves in the states, you’ll be going to the pokey.)

I did a search on the web for the “Noble Wolf Concept” and came up with zipola.

So the plot thickens as far as the If it “harm none then ye do it” concept, so what if the wolf and his family are starving, you come first!

Being in harmony with the environment would be to let the wolf have some food! Living in synchronization with the environment includes the wolf, not giving the wolf the ol’dirt nap.

I still don’t understand how your cord in the harmony is more important then others, as a Christian I can make that judgment, but then again, I have the word of God to follow.

Durthorin,
1. That all paths are equally valid to the divine that do not cause harm to yourself or others.
2. That tolerance is a virtue.
3. That we are part of the universe not its masters and required to live in harmony with it and learn from it.
4. That the universe is the divine and thus reflects the nature of the divine.. ie Male/Female duality.
5. That we are responsable for what we do.
6. That finding the divine can only be done by those that actually look.
7. That what we do comes back to us.

Ie this the sort of thing your looking for?

Are these Wicca Cornerstones? Great!

1. That all paths are equally valid to the divine that do not cause harm to yourself or others.

What proof do you have to back up this statement?

2. That tolerance is a virtue.

Ya gotta be kidding me? So it’s a virtuous mother that tolerates a father having sexual relations with his siblings.

The cry of tolerance really makes me ill! The things people let go under the guise of tolerance disgusts me.

Anyway, any proof I can rationally look at?

3. That we are part of the universe not its masters and required to live in harmony with it and learn from it.

I can’t deny that we are part of the universe, I didn’t think that concept was unique to Wicca only and that is one of the reasons Wicca is set apart in its distintion. But living in harmony is a point of contention with your “Noble Wolf Concept”

4. That the universe is the divine and thus reflects the nature of the divine.. ie Male/Female duality.

Any proof at all here? Anything the qualify this statement? And correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the universe overwhelming mass non-sexual?

5. That we are responsable for what we do.

again, this is not unique to Wicca, give me cornerstones, the things that set Wicca apart and distinct.

6. That finding the divine can only be done by those that actually look.

Proof?

7. That what we do comes back to us.

That’s a pretty universally believed term, are you saying that Wicca was the first to coin that phrase? And where might be the proof?

Ie this the sort of thing your looking for?

Yes, thanks

Durthorin

Leroy,
The cornerstone of anyone’s beliefs are not solely the appeal to the consequences of that belief, that might be a minor part of it but it can’t realistically be the core, the entire cornerstone, the whole foundation of that belief.

Why not? The plane flies, the boat floats.. If something works, then it works.

Because it’s a common logical fallacy, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.

Durthorin,So you have many many copies..does this make its contents any more valid? No.

That’s called proof of its validity, they all same the same thing, no contradictions.

The Bible displays an amazing continuity of message in spite of the fact that it contains many complex ingredients:

It was written over a 1600 year period, covering 60 generations.
Over 40 authors were involved in its final composition, each from a variety of cultural and occupational backgrounds. These included kings, peasants, a fisherman, a tax collector, a rabbi, philosophers, statesmen, scholars, a doctor, a poet, and a general.

It was written from many different locations, under a variety of conditions, from three different continents (Asia, Africa, Europe.)
It was written in three major languages, Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek.

It covers hundreds of controversial subjects, and involves a variety of literary styles, including history, poetry, law, prophesy, and biographies.

Yet, in spite of this multitude of contributing factors, the Bible is a single, unified book with a single, unfolding theme concerning God's redemptive plan for mankind. A unity of such scope gives strong, silent testimony to its divine authorship and design. No other religious work on earth can equal such an accomplishment.
To Illustrate this fact, a test was proposed which would involve ten authors, all from one walk of life, one generation, one place, one time, one continent, one language, and just one controversial subject to see whether they would totally agree.

Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they obviously would not.

Durthorin,If you have one copy of the Bible and one copy of Homer and you find both historical and non-verifiable events in both then the number of copies is somewhat irrelivant.

What’s your point, I missed it?

Are you saying that Homer and the Bible are just as non-verifiable?

Not a single scientific fact or discovery has ever disproven a biblical statement. In fact, the advances of science have repeatedly confirmed the scriptures accuracy.

The Bible revealed that the earth was round nearly 2,200 years before 15th century explorers discovered that the world wasn’t flat after all (Isaiah 40:22) "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." The Hebrew word translated as "circle" in this verse actually means "sphericity" or "roundness."

Before the invention of the telescope, Ptolemy established the number of stars at 1,056; Tycho Brahe figured 777, and Kepley counted 1,005. These figures seem foolish to 20th century man, but in 600 B.C.the prophet Jeremiah revealed that the number of stars was innumerable when he wrote, "the host (stars) of heaven cannot be numbered" (Jer 33:22)

Durthorin,
I prove that it works.

I’m waiting

Durthorin,All claims of truth concerningt he validity of religion are by their nature.. subjective and based upon faith.

All claims or just your claims

Durthorin,
But in my case I know for 100 percent certain that Chrstianity did not work in my life. It offered me no comfort, it did not sustain me when I needed it, it did not answer those questions of life that I required of it. In short it did not work. On the other hand, Wicca and my Pagan faith have answered, comforted and sustained me. Thus when I turned the ignition key on this car, it ran.

Again, The Appeal To The Consequences of Belief fallacy.

Have you ever thought that Christ is where your comfort and sustenance is coming from right now! Maybe your to quick to judge! One day when you die it will ultimately be to late to acknowledge and thank him.

Durthorin,
Consider this analogy, your faith or religion are the car that gets you to god.. it is less about the model than the goal. As such you walk out place faith in the ignition and turn the key and if its all working right, the car starts and you move forward. For some people they walk out get into Chrsitanity, place their faith in the ignition and the engine just clicks.. they get out, they curse, kick the tires and open the hood, tinker, invest call a mecahanic and sometimes they do get it running.. many of those live in fear its going to let them down before they get there.. Sometimes they trade from a Ford to a Chevy but they like a 4 door so they stay with it. Welcome to "denominations".

Others trade it and get a car that works for them, one that they are confident of when they turn the key.. You don't understand what they see in it, it doesn't match your life, how you travel, the comfort you want etc.. but your not driving it, now are you?

Hummm, consider that analogy…It’s Corn-Ball.

Consider this, religion is a gigantic car lot, new cars, used cars, all kinds of cars truck vans etc, and there are hundreds of salesman walking around, “hey you, they say, look at this sweet little number, and hey over here, check out this sporty little model, you’ll be getting the babe’s with this one, and over here partner, a guy like you desires the very best, or this one is very environmentally friendly.” They go on pitching and hucking, telling you just exactly what you want to here, you drive car after car, but all the promises never get you to the ultimate goal…to God.

Then, after all the searching, you stumble unto this little car lot, its been around for years, the salesman says he is giving away cars today, you look around and they don’t look like what you want, there not the right color, they don’t seem sporty, he hands you the key and as you get in the overwhelming scent of the “Holy Spirit” air freshener captors you, it fires up and instantly you’ve arrived, pulling right into the Holy of Holies, right into God’s presence, you reach for the door handle but God says, don’t get out, the only reason you’re here is because of the protective environment of the car, my one and only “Jesus” He can go from 0 to salvation in the blink of an eye. Please wait until the others have arrived and you have been made suitable for the environment.

Consider that analogy..pretty corny, but it was fun to write.

But analogies or religion doesn’t get us to God, it’s our personal relationship with Christ, and belief in Him and Him alone for our salvation, paid in full.

Leroy

Trout

December 4th 2003, 12:52 AM

Eireann:
Something being true and something being Truth are two different things.

Can you explain that a little further please?

Eireann:
What I do know is that the claim of many Christians to absolutely KNOW that what they believe is true, is false. They don't KNOW, they BELIEVE.

How did you come to KNOW that? What is your evidence? Certainly it shouldn't be too hard for you to demonstrate what brought you to that objective conclusion.

Eireann:
Such as?

Any of them that have objective corresponding claims, i.e. Islam, Bahai, Christianity, Humanism, Hare Krishna, etc.

Eireann:
Yes, I know. It is roughly comparable to the mountain of evidence against.

And still far superior to the ZERO evidence Wicca offers.

Eireann:
Apples and oranges. Jason and Hercules are purportions of history. Wicca is a purportion to philosophy. If you're looking for hard and fast empirical proof of a philosophy, you're going to be sadly disappointed, whether the philosophy is Wiccan, Christian, nihilist or whatever.

Again, it was YOU who brought this into the equation not me, I was answering you, the same goes for the rede, you are the one who brought Newton into this, it wasn't me. I'm just looking for how Wicca corresponds with reality.

Eireann:
It's not one of "life's basic questions." It's one of your philosophy's basic question. We don't practice your philosophy. We just don't generally consider it an important question. There are more important things to worry about.

So the question; what part God plays in all this isn't an important question?

Here are the four major questions I have about life, maybe you can tell me how Wicca addresses them:

1. What is my origin?
2. What is life's meaning?
3. How should I act, and why?
4. What is my destiny?

Eireann:
Did you read the in-depth analysis I gave of the Rede? It doesn't say what you apparently think it says.

I read some, but I didn't know if what was written was your interpretation of the rede, so I thought I'd ask you instead.

Eireann:
No, you must have misunderstood. I equated the notion of consequence and return with Newton's law. "Threes" were not part of the equation.

Again, it was you who brought this into the discussion not me. I just thought that one of the main tenets of Wicca would be observable, silly me.

Leroy

December 4th 2003, 01:29 AM

Trout

Eireann:
Something being true and something being Truth are two different things.

Can you explain that a little further please?

:huh: Yes! :shocked:

Durthorin

December 4th 2003, 01:54 AM

Today @ 12:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325482#post325482)
Leroy:

Can you explain that a little further please?

:huh: Yes! :shocked: [/QUOTE]

The difference between subjective truth and objective Truth.

Trout

December 4th 2003, 02:01 AM

Durthorin:

:huh: Yes! :shocked:

The difference between subjective truth and objective Truth.

That can't be Eireann's answer, because he makes an objective statement about the knowability of religious truth, so I'll wait for him.

Leroy

December 4th 2003, 02:10 AM

Eireann

Eireann,

Today @ 08:40 PM post located here
brady love:

BohemianXQueen:

i wouldn't call any wicca a moron, but i believe the reason that some of the christians on this site are talking to you, and maybe offending you, is because this thread is a debate about wicca. maybe you are offended, because the truth isn't always what we want to hear. truly try to listen to what everyone is saying, and really examine your faith.

That advice is a little difficult to take when the people you're arguing against aren't actually listening to you but are rather repeating what amount to little more than soundbites they've heard from their ministers, and so forth. I think the fact that I've had to repeat about a dozen times that the rule of three is not a literal Law, yet others continue asking, "Where is the Rule of Three evident in the universe?" should be a good example of what I'm talking about, about people not actually listening.

I think BL and others seem to see confusion as the terms “Rule” & “Law” are pretty much synonymous, as the definitions below indicate.

Rule;

: a prescribed guide for conduct or action b : the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit d (1) : a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2) : a legal precept or doctrine e : a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct

Law;

1 a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) :commom law b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : litigation (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law

Maybe if you qualified your posts with a statement that you’ll be employing a “laser splitting” of terms that gives you the latitude you need to make your relativistic philosophy work.

I see no comment on,
brady love: maybe you are offended, because the truth isn't always what we want to hear. that statement.

Bringing up a very good point, why are you so dogmatically defending, the undefensable?

Leroy

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 4th 2003, 02:27 AM

Yesterday @ 10:52 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325432#post325432)
troutk13:

Can you explain that a little further please?
Yes. Something being true simply represents that it is as it is presented, that it isn't false, that it is correct. Any given item can be true without approaching Truth. Truth is a sum total of all possible knowledge, it's not a mere portion.

How did you come to KNOW that? What is your evidence? Certainly it shouldn't be too hard for you to demonstrate what brought you to that objective conclusion.
Until you can produce someone who is possessed of the sum total of all possible knowledge (i.e. Truth), I'll trust that I won't need to qualify the objectivity of my observation.

Any of them that have objective corresponding claims, i.e. Islam, Bahai, Christianity, Humanism, Hare Krishna, etc.
Any religion that has an objective claim is sensible, then? So if a religion makes the claim that black people are subhuman and therefore worthy of disdain is a sensible religion, right? After all, that is an objective claim. I think what you're groping for is objective proof of a spiritual claim, and I'm still waiting for anyone to show me objective proof of the spiritual claims of Christianity.

And still far superior to the ZERO evidence Wicca offers.
I've come to trust that in your lingo ZERO evidence doesn't actually mean ZERO evidence, it actually means "no evidence that sounds good or comfortable to me."

Again, it was YOU who brought this into the equation not me, I was answering you, the same goes for the rede, you are the one who brought Newton into this, it wasn't me. I'm just looking for how Wicca corresponds with reality.
It's been shown numerous times. If you're having trouble seeing it, I guess that's your problem.

So the question; what part God plays in all this isn't an important question?
That isn't the question you asked. You asked why don't the gods end all the suffering in the world. That's not an important question to us.

Here are the four major questions I have about life, maybe you can tell me how Wicca addresses them:

1. What is my origin?
2. What is life's meaning?
3. How should I act, and why?
4. What is my destiny?
Except for #3, Wiccans tend not to consider any of the above paramount questions, or at best a waste of time.

Again, it was you who brought this into the discussion not me. I just thought that one of the main tenets of Wicca would be observable, silly me.
*sigh* Do I really need to keep repeating this? Okay, one more time, with feeling:

A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE "RULE OF THREE" IS NOT A BASIC TENET OF WICCA.

THE IDEA THAT ALL ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES IS A BASIC TENET OF WICCA.

THE IDEA THAT ALL ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES IS EVIDENT IN THE UNIVERSE.

ERGO, THAT PARTICULAR BASIC TENET OF WICCA IS EVIDENT IN THE UNIVERSE?

There, now did you get it that time? Do I need to repeat it a few dozen more times? Sorry if that seems rude, but it is rather frustrating trying to continually get that rather simple point across to people who simply won't get it! What's the problem?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 4th 2003, 02:33 AM

Yesterday @ 10:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325375#post325375)
Leroy:

[quote]Because it’s a common logical fallacy, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
I'll trust, for the moment, that you didn't really think that out before you posted it. After all, one of your cornerstone scriptures (John 3:16) is the PERFECT example of the fallacy you've just illustrated.

Durthorin

December 4th 2003, 03:03 AM

Yesterday @ 11:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325375#post325375)
Leroy:

...you on the other hand have no help in making that distinction, why to you assume the rabies bacteria should be eradicated? Why to they have less rights then the dog? After all, they are just feeding on the dog for there survival aren’t they?
[/quoute]

As I said, you can assume at the onset that atempting to take the life of another creature is a bad thing and we have our fundimentalist Wiccans who strict vegans who perceive the world that way. As I said I am Celtic Wiccan so in my case the distinction between, humans an bacteria is simple. While I acknowledge that all things have a part of the divine in them, all things are not beneficial. In some cases the function of the wolf or the bacteria is to teach me or the dog to be stronger. In that it fufills its function within the world and dies.

Do you go around killing frogs because they eat bugs, or killing cats because they eat mice?

Both of these serve the interests of the society of which I am a member.

Noble Wolf Concept? Where you getting this? (As a side note you better not be killing any wolves in the states, you’ll be going to the pokey.)

The phrase one of my teachers used for the moral problem of where humanity sits compared to the creatures that serve us and the creatures of the wild. I doubt you would hae found it online, she was of the old school that required such things be copied by hand.

So the plot thickens as far as the If it “harm none then ye do it” concept, so what if the wolf and his family are starving, you come first!

Pretty much. I am responsable for the wolf in the sense that I share the environment but not in the sense that he is a member of my family and I am required to feed and shelter him. The Wheel is not always kind to the weak, humanity helps its own and survives.. animals find a balance based on strength and weakness. Our social orders and our drives are different. As such the rede which is a simple guide is applied with common sense..in addition you will find that Wicca as other faiths has more than the Rede and the Law of Three.

Being in harmony with the environment would be to let the wolf have some food! Living in synchronization with the environment includes the wolf, not giving the wolf the ol’dirt nap.

The wolf can have what food he can take. That is his nature and to his kind I do the service of keeping a weak wolf from surviving. Being in harmony with your environment is not taking everything for yourself.. it is living simply. If one does that then there is a place for the wolf. As opposed to blacktop parking lots.

I still don’t understand how your cord in the harmony is more important then others, as a Christian I can make that judgment, but then again, I have the word of God to follow.

Its not. An if its not meant to be .. then I die. I do my best to survive, so does the other creature.. after that its in the hnads of the Gods.

Are these Wicca Cornerstones? Great!

No more than any others and subject to change

The problem is that you want me to expalin a pagan faith in Christian terms.. can I offer a suggestion since I'm unable to get the concept of how a pagan worldview works accross to you..

http://au.geocities.com/taspagans/littlewitchandchristian.htm

Go to the above link, read it.. then come back and I think you may have more of an idea of where we come from and what we can use as touchstones.

Ya gotta be kidding me? So it’s a virtuous mother that tolerates a father having sexual relations with his siblings.

The cry of tolerance really makes me ill! The things people let go under the guise of tolerance disgusts me.

Tolerance is never absolute. It does not require one to tolerate the harming of a child as per your example.. but if you hate tolerance so much why are you an American? This nation was at its baseline defined for its tolerance of other views, religious, social and political. Tolerance also is not the same as acceptance.. I can tolerate you for example attacking my faith without accepting your right to make that for example into US law..

I can’t deny that we are part of the universe, I didn’t think that concept was unique to Wicca only and that is one of the reasons Wicca is set apart in its distintion. But living in harmony is a point of contention with your “Noble Wolf Concept”

Not unique to ANY pagan faith as a matter of fact. Harmony from your standpoint is the same as treating them as a furry human without opposable thumbs and a speech problem. A pagan faith takes a more pragmatic view of harmony, its acknowledging the wolf has a place and a purpose in the world and insuring that his place and purpose is allowed to continue.

Any proof at all here? Anything the qualify this statement? And correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t the universe overwhelming mass non-sexual?

The nonsexual/assexual stuff seems to be the inanimate and the lowest forms of life.. thats observation. Care to point out any of what a scientist would call a higher order life form that is single or non-sexed?

again, this is not unique to Wicca, give me cornerstones, the things that set Wicca apart and distinct.

Its a total package.. and most of it is shared by many other Pagan and Neo-Pagan faiths.

Proof that only those that seek the divine find him. <chuckle> Thats like asking me to prove the sun rises.. look at the people in your church.

That’s a pretty universally believed term, are you saying that Wicca was the first to coin that phrase? And where might be the proof?

This is the law of three you have been arguing with, your now saying its a universally believed term?

[quote]
Why not? The plane flies, the boat floats.. If something works, then it works.

Because it’s a common logical fallacy, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.

As I said, logic is a wonderful way to go wrong with confidence. In this case your espousing tossing away what works in favor of what doesn't when you can not prove the consequences of your faith.

Wicca is true for me because Wicca has worked in my life.
Christianity is false for me because Christianity failed to work in my life.

It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (evidence) and a prudential reason to believe (PRB) (motivation). A RRB is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim. A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief) that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim

IF Wicca was a creedal religion that required belief then your fallacy would be correct. In this case Wicca is a philosphy as well.. so Wicca's truth is proved by it functionality not by its promises of an afterlife. Its rational reason to believe is in essence the answer to the following, "What does it do in my life?, How does it help me interact with others and with my environment?" Christianity according to my understandfing of this Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief, since it appeals as fear/threat (Hell) and benefit (heavan).. in fact the first example given as text book is as follows:

"God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!"

That’s called proof of its validity, they all same the same thing, no contradictions.

The Bible displays an amazing continuity of message in spite of the fact that it contains many complex ingredients:

The Council of Nicea. Didn't they basically decide what went in and what didn't go in.. and isn't the differnce between the Catholic Bible and Protesant Bible significant?

Yet, in spite of this multitude of contributing factors, the Bible is a single, unified book with a single, unfolding theme concerning God's redemptive plan for mankind. A unity of such scope gives strong, silent testimony to its divine authorship and design.

Or good editing.

No other religious work on earth can equal such an accomplishment.

The Vedas
Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda and the Atharva-Veda.

To Illustrate this fact, a test was proposed which would involve ten authors, all from one walk of life, one generation, one place, one time, one continent, one language, and just one controversial subject to see whether they would totally agree.

Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they obviously would not.

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief???

Are you saying that Homer and the Bible are just as non-verifiable?

On the critical points.. yes.

Not a single scientific fact or discovery has ever disproven a biblical statement.

There is no evidence for a massive global flood in the geological record. There is no evidence that the world was created in six days.. but a massive amount against it. The Tower of Babel story?

In fact, the advances of science have repeatedly confirmed the scriptures accuracy.

Pardon me? Lets see.. off the top of my head 6 days for the creation of the earth has been confirmed by what geologist? An how many Isrealites walked into the desert for the Exodus from Egypt?

All claims or just your claims

Or Yours, you can prove objectivly the history or even the existence of your faith but you nor I can prove the validity of that faith so we are both left with a subjective truth.

Have you ever thought that Christ is where your comfort and sustenance is coming from right now! Maybe your to quick to judge! One day when you die it will ultimately be to late to acknowledge and thank him.

I have the odd boast of being able to say I have already died clinically three times. The fact I'm alive is considered by two of my doctors to be a miricle outside of ther hands. No, I have never thought your god was there.. because I know the Goddess was. Another subjective experiance but one that for me anyway is telling.

But analogies or religion doesn’t get us to God, it’s our personal relationship with Christ, and belief in Him and Him alone for our salvation, paid in full.

I think you just surrendered the field. You admit its all about what you believe and your faith.

Leroy

December 4th 2003, 03:04 AM

Eireann,

Eireann;

Leroy:

Because it’s a common logical fallacy, Appeal to Consequences of a Belief

X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences.
I'll trust, for the moment, that you didn't really think that out before you posted it. After all, one of your cornerstone scriptures (John 3:16) is the PERFECT example of the fallacy you've just illustrated.

I don’t use that scripture as a proof text to my claims Eireann. I never said hey look the bible is true, look at John 3:16. :noid:

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief as a line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. For example, if someone were to say "If 14’ yellow pixies don’t exist, then I would be miserable, so they must exist" it would be clear that this would not be a good line of reasoning. It is important to note that the consequences in question are the consequences that stem from the belief.

Leroy

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 4th 2003, 04:02 AM

Yesterday @ 10:03 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325375#post325375)
Leroy:

It covers hundreds of controversial subjects, and involves a variety of literary styles, including history, poetry, law, prophesy, and biographies.

Yet, in spite of this multitude of contributing factors, the Bible is a single, unified book with a single, unfolding theme concerning God's redemptive plan for mankind. A unity of such scope gives strong, silent testimony to its divine authorship and design.
No, not really. I've heard this argument ad nauseum as a "proof" of the divine scripting of the Bible. Actually, the only thing it really testifies to is the process of canonization. There were a considerable number of texts that were considered for inclusion in the Bible. Many of them were rejected because they didn't fit the scheme they were looking for. It wasn't like they dug up a whole lot of texts and discovered, "Eureka!" they all say the same thing. No, more like they found a bunch of texts and merely KEPT the ones that said the same thing, many of which were reliant upon each other (Isaiah relied on Moses, Matthew recalled Isaiah and Ezekiel, etc.)

To Illustrate this fact, a test was proposed which would involve ten authors, all from one walk of life, one generation, one place, one time, one continent, one language, and just one controversial subject to see whether they would totally agree.
It's unfortunate that same test was not applied to the Bible itself. In places, it's own authors don't agree, particularly in the Gospels with certain details about Jesus' ministry.

Not a single scientific fact or discovery has ever disproven a biblical statement. In fact, the advances of science have repeatedly confirmed the scriptures accuracy.
That's incorrect. The Bible claims that all the planet was destroyed in the Flood and that only Noah and his family survived. Yet the fact that the Native Americans and Australian Aborigines have lived in an unbroken line in their respective lands since before the Flood is practically undisputed in the archaeological and anthropological communities.

The Bible revealed that the earth was round nearly 2,200 years before 15th century explorers discovered that the world wasn’t flat after all (Isaiah 40:22) "It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth..." The Hebrew word translated as "circle" in this verse actually means "sphericity" or "roundness."
It was never universally believed that the world was flat. That was simply the common belief of the Western world because it was the teaching of the Western church (to say it was round was considered heresy). Have you ever stood outside and gazed at the spanse of the horizon? Ever noticed how it appears to dip downward in circular fashion at the periphery of your vision? Of course, that's a trick of perspective, but it is easy, especially for someone who doesn't understand visual perspectives, to deduce that the world must be round because of that. It certainly doesn't testify to divine authorship.

Before the invention of the telescope, Ptolemy established the number of stars at 1,056; Tycho Brahe figured 777, and Kepley counted 1,005. These figures seem foolish to 20th century man, but in 600 B.C.the prophet Jeremiah revealed that the number of stars was innumerable when he wrote, "the host (stars) of heaven cannot be numbered" (Jer 33:22)
Again, not a testimony to divine authorship. That some well-known historical figures may not have quite grasped spacial depth on a cosmic scale doesn't mean that no one did.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 4th 2003, 04:08 AM

Today @ 01:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325672#post325672)
Leroy:

I don’t use that scripture as a proof text to my claims Eireann. I never said hey look the bible is true, look at John 3:16. :noid:

Appeal to Consequences of a Belief as a line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the consequences of a belief have no bearing on whether the belief is true or false. For example, if someone were to say "If 14’ yellow pixies don’t exist, then I would be miserable, so they must exist" it would be clear that this would not be a good line of reasoning. It is important to note that the consequences in question are the consequences that stem from the belief.

Leroy
You might be surprised just how incredibly often Christians will resort to a similar argument when nothing else works. I've lost count how many times Christians have said to me, "Well, if it doesn't really matter to you whether Christ was the Son of God or not, wouldn't it be safer to go ahead and believe in him, just in case? At best, you get to go to heaven; at worst, you're no worse off than you are now!" In other words, hedge your bet. That's a perfect example of the fallacy you're talking about. The only problem with that argument is that hedging your bet in that fashion sacrifices one critical element -- sincerity.

Durthorin

December 4th 2003, 08:52 AM

Today @ 02:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325672#post325672)
Leroy:

Eireann,

... It is important to note that the consequences in question are the consequences that stem from the belief.
Leroy

Ie Salvation stems from Belief...

But have you not already stated it is belief and belief alone in Jesus..

But analogies or religion doesn’t get us to God, it’s our personal relationship with Christ, and belief in Him and Him alone for our salvation, paid in full.

brady love

December 4th 2003, 01:43 PM

Eirann: You might be surprised just how incredibly often Christians will resort to a similar argument when nothing else works. I've lost count how many times Christians have said to me, "Well, if it doesn't really matter to you whether Christ was the Son of God or not, wouldn't it be safer to go ahead and believe in him, just in case?

i know not one Christian who would say this. And the truth is it does matter to you whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Son of God is the most important decision you will ever make.

Leroy

December 4th 2003, 01:58 PM

Today @ 01:08 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=325708#post325708)
Eireann:

You might be surprised just how incredibly often Christians will resort to a similar argument when nothing else works. I've lost count how many times Christians have said to me, "Well, if it doesn't really matter to you whether Christ was the Son of God or not, wouldn't it be safer to go ahead and believe in him, just in case? At best, you get to go to heaven; at worst, you're no worse off than you are now!" In other words, hedge your bet. That's a perfect example of the fallacy you're talking about. The only problem with that argument is that hedging your bet in that fashion sacrifices one critical element -- sincerity.

Eireann,

I'm not surprised, I agree! "For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge." Romans 10:2. Some people don't have the basic knowledge to defend there positions, that doesn't mean that there positions are necessarily undefensable, it's just they don't got the tools.

I think they retreat to a feeling based defense.

I also agree, hedging your bet so to speak would not be looked upon to favorably by Christ.

Good points Eireann, thanks!

Leroy

Durthorin

December 4th 2003, 02:17 PM

Today @ 12:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326322#post326322)
brady love:

i know not one Christian who would say this. And the truth is it does matter to you whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Son of God is the most important decision you will ever make.

Have seen it myself.. its that Pascal's Wager thing.. At its bottom its an appeal to fear.. if there is even a chance you burn in hell.. don't you want to make sure you don't..

Danu Bless, Dur

Trout

December 4th 2003, 05:59 PM

Durthorin:

Have seen it myself.. its that Pascal's Wager thing.. At its bottom its an appeal to fear.. if there is even a chance you burn in hell.. don't you want to make sure you don't..

Danu Bless, Dur

Dur Dur Dur. . .Again with the Pascal's wager thing. . .sigh. . .we are just trying to figure out why you have chosen a religion with no objective reasons for believing it to be true. . .that's all. . .just give us one little tiny reason for thinking it corresponds with reality. . .any objective reason. . .come on man. . .

Durthorin

December 4th 2003, 06:11 PM

Today @ 04:59 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326661#post326661)
troutk13:

Dur Dur Dur. . .Again with the Pascal's wager thing. . .sigh. . .we are just trying to figure out why you have chosen a religion with no objective reasons for believing it to be true. . .that's all. . .just give us one little tiny reason for thinking it corresponds with reality. . .any objective reason. . .come on man. . .

As I have said before.. it works. As for objective validity of a religion, none have it, so why should you expect mine to? As far as Wicca coresponding to reality.. it coresponds to the functions of the natural world I live in.. so that is more than enough for me.

Question: Why do you bother being a Christian when you have to accept its basic foundation on faith?

Danu Bless, Dur

Trout

December 4th 2003, 06:36 PM

Durthorin:

As I have said before.. it works. As for objective validity of a religion, none have it, so why should you expect mine to? As far as Wicca coresponding to reality.. it coresponds to the functions of the natural world I live in.. so that is more than enough for me.

Question: Why do you bother being a Christian when you have to accept its basic foundation on faith?

Danu Bless, Dur

So there is no objective reason to believe that Wicca is true.

Durthorin

December 4th 2003, 06:52 PM

Today @ 05:36 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326706#post326706)
troutk13:

So there is no objective reason to believe that Wicca is true.

I have many. You don't. By that definition you consider my reasons subjective as I consider your reasosn for being a Christian. Thats why I'm Wiccan and your Christian.

At the end of the day there is no objective proof of the validity of any religion, yours or mine. So the question is why do you keep asking this? The answer is that in your world view, its important.. in mine, its not that big of a deal. Why, because my world view accepts that a number of paths to the divine exist. You believe(have faith) that you have the one TRUE way.. and Christianity if it is not "the one true way" has in essence no validty to you unless it is. Is that not your on Fallacy of Belief?

I suggested some reading to you, did you bother to read it? or did you blow it off?

Danu Bless, Dur

Leroy

December 4th 2003, 07:01 PM

Durthorin

I’m not getting anywhere with the environmental argument, I see some inconsistencies in your statements but they are all interpretational, from my standpoint to yours. Basically you keep moving the cheese, I think we could run around this tree forever.

Durthorin:
As I said, logic is a wonderful way to go wrong with confidence. In this case your espousing tossing away what works in favor of what doesn't when you can not prove the consequences of your faith.

I can prove the consequences of my faith, but my point is proving the consequences of your faith with the consequences of your faith alone is circular and a fallacious response for proof.

Durthorin:
Wicca is true for me because Wicca has worked in my life.
Christianity is false for me because Christianity failed to work in my life.

It is important to distinguish between a rational reason to believe (RRB) (evidence) and a prudential reason to believe (PRB) (motivation). A RRB is evidence that objectively and logically supports the claim. A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor (such as fear, a threat, or a benefit or harm that may stem from the belief) that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim

Where is your RRB for the 2 above claims?

And take a close look your second bolded statement: ”A PRB is a reason to accept the belief because of some external factor that is relevant to what a person values but is not relevant to the truth or falsity of the claim

Give me some relevance,

a rational reason for your believe, evidence, and your prudential reason to believe.

The Burden of Proof is your court!

Durthorin:

IF Wicca was a creedal religion that required belief then your fallacy would be correct. In this case Wicca is a philosphy as well.. so Wicca's truth is proved by it functionality not by its promises of an afterlife. Its rational reason to believe is in essence the answer to the following, "What does it do in my life?, How does it help me interact with others and with my environment?" Christianity according to my understandfing of this Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief, since it appeals as fear/threat (Hell) and benefit (heavan).. in fact the first example given as text book is as follows:

As you state above, Wicca is philosophical as well as creedal, but your creeds are like a rubber nose molded anyway you want to look good.

Philosophically speaking, “What does it do in my life” could only be viable proof if you existed in a vacuum with absolutely no other influences to effect the outcome.

Durthorin:

The Council of Nicea. Didn't they basically decide what went in and what didn't go in.. and isn't the differnce between the Catholic Bible and Protesant Bible significant?

the Roman Catholic bibles five additional books neither adds to, or detracts from the basic principles of scripture. The Pope makes a big difference in there beliefs, I’m not an expert on Roman Catholicism, so don’t quote me.

Do you think your statement in any way discounts the amazing continuity of the message?

Durthorin

Leroy:Yet, in spite of this multitude of contributing factors, the Bible is a single, unified book with a single, unfolding theme concerning God's redemptive plan for mankind. A unity of such scope gives strong, silent testimony to its divine authorship and design.

Or good editing.

5400 original manuscripts, including the dead sea scrolls, all saying the same thing, if editing was done it would have been screamed from the rooftops and discredited the bible long ago.

Durthorin:

Leroy:No other religious work on earth can equal such an accomplishment.
The Vedas
Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda and the Atharva-Veda.

Not even close, but if you want to defend Hinduism go right ahead.

Durthorin:

Leroy:Not a single scientific fact or discovery has ever disproven a biblical statement.
There is no evidence for a massive global flood in the geological record. There is no evidence that the world was created in six days.. but a massive amount against it. The Tower of Babel story?

May statement still stands.

Durthorin:

Pardon me? Lets see.. off the top of my head 6 days for the creation of the earth has been confirmed by what geologist? An how many Isrealites walked into the desert for the Exodus from Egypt?

Maybe thats a point you should address, look whats on the top off your head.

More to my original point would be is this universally disproved.

Your grasping.

Durthorin:

Or Yours, you can prove objectivly the history or even the existence of your faith but you nor I can prove the validity of that faith so we are both left with a subjective truth.

But Christianity has mountains of evidence, to make a rational decision, Wicca has none.

These questions have yet to be answered:

Leroy: 12/03/2003
Are these Wicca Cornerstones? Great!

1. That all paths are equally valid to the divine that do not cause harm to yourself or others.

What proof do you have to back up this statement?

2. That tolerance is a virtue.
any proof I can rationally look at?

4. That the universe is the divine and thus reflects the nature of the divine.. ie Male/Female duality.
Any proof at all here?, you touched on the male/female duality point but I couldn’t make to jump to that being in any way proof of the divine’s duality or the greater point in your statement to the divine of the universe.

5. That we are responsable for what we do.
again, tell me why this is a cornerstone, you failed to mention that.

6. That finding the divine can only be done by those that actually look.
Proof? Where is your proof, do you look to the bible for that.

7. That what we do comes back to us.
That’s a pretty universally believed term, are you saying that Wicca was the first to coin that phrase? And where might be the proof?

Ie this the sort of thing your looking for?

Durthorin:

I think you just surrendered the field. You admit its all about what you believe and your faith

I never said it wasn’t, my belief is based on evidence.

What is yours based on?

I give your link I quick once over, its quite long winded, I wonder if you could back up your statements point-by-point, cut and paste if you have to, but if you could keep it to the point I would appreciate it.

Druthorin;

Leroy:

... It is important to note that the consequences in question are the consequences that stem from the belief.
Leroy
Ie Salvation stems from Belief...

But have you not already stated it is belief and belief alone in Jesus..

again, these consequences are not used as the sole proof of my belief, and its not that Salvation stems from belief, its my personal relationship, with Christ that attains my Salvation, ”Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.” James 2:19

The ball is still in your court Durthorin, pony up the proof.

You stated Wicca was more rational to believe in, you insinuated criticism to Christians that have “Blind Faith” it looks like that’s the seat your setting in now.

Leroy

Trout

December 4th 2003, 07:18 PM

Durthorin:

I have many. You don't. By that definition you consider my reasons subjective as I consider your reasosn for being a Christian. Thats why I'm Wiccan and your Christian.

At the end of the day there is no objective proof of the validity of any religion, yours or mine. So the question is why do you keep asking this? The answer is that in your world view, its important.. in mine, its not that big of a deal. Why, because my world view accepts that a number of paths to the divine exist. You believe(have faith) that you have the one TRUE way.. and Christianity if it is not "the one true way" has in essence no validty to you unless it is. Is that not your on Fallacy of Belief?

I suggested some reading to you, did you bother to read it? or did you blow it off?

Danu Bless, Dur

I read most of that link you posted, the one about the witch and the Christian, but since Wicca is so highly subjective, I didn't want to think that you were of the same belief as the author of the article. I thought I'd ask you instead.

Christianity has many objective verifiable reasons to consider it to be true, Wicca has none.

And why would God have more than one way by which we should worship Him?

Durthorin

December 4th 2003, 07:34 PM

Today @ 06:18 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326744#post326744)
troutk13:

I read most of that link you posted, the one about the witch and the Christian, but since Wicca is so highly subjective, I didn't want to think that you were of the same belief as the author of the article. I thought I'd ask you instead.

We share similiar concepts.

Christianity has many objective verifiable reasons to consider it to be true, Wicca has none.

As an Ex-Christian I found none.

And why would God have more than one way by which we should worship Him?

Why should the Divine have only one way when if you assume correctly he went to great trouble to make each one of us an individual with free will? To me it seems self limiting to assume that an infinite omnipotent being knowing the exact method that will an can reach every person on earth chooses to use a "single" path. To "me" much of Christianity is used to explain why this infinite, all powerful, all good, all knowing creature does in essence.. nothing.

Danu Bless, Dur

brady love

December 4th 2003, 08:02 PM

Durthorin

December 4th 2003, 08:09 PM

Today @ 07:02 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326805#post326805)
brady love:

i have no idea what you are trying to say!

brady love:

i know not one Christian who would say this. And the truth is it does matter to you whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Son of God. Whether or not you believe that Jesus is the Son of God is the most important decision you will ever make.

The answer was in reference to this...I have seen Christians use that exact argument.. its been used in this very thread. The argument is known as Pascal's Wager and is based on the thesis if one course of action ends in heaven and the other hell and both choices are equal.. then you should always select the option that leads to heaven.

Durthorin

December 4th 2003, 08:12 PM

Today @ 06:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=326731#post326731)
Leroy:

Durthorin

I can prove the consequences of my faith, but my point is proving the consequences of your faith with the consequences of your faith alone is circular and a fallacious response for proof.

But you can not prove the consequences of your faith. Been dead? Seen heaven? Seen Hell? Have pictures? What you have is a logic model based on the statement "If the Bible is true, then.." While my Faith is based on "If I follow these precepts my life will go this way.. " You keep asking why is Wicca true and I keep telling you.. because when I followed its precepts, the outcome was as predicted. Is that objective? No.. its a subjective proof.

Where is your RRB for the 2 above claims?

In my case the Observation was of other pagans and their lives. Ie what did they belive and did it function in their lives? The answer was Yes it did.

the Roman Catholic bibles five additional books neither adds to, or detracts from the basic principles of scripture. The Pope makes a big difference in there beliefs, I’m not an expert on Roman Catholicism, so don’t quote me.

Do you think your statement in any way discounts the amazing continuity of the message?

Actually.. salvation outside the Catholic Church was for the longest consdiered immpossiable. But thats changed.. but truth is I don't think the message has had that much continuity. Christian thought has been reinvented on a regular basis.. the words may remain the same but the words "Now Mean this" An off we go again.

5400 original manuscripts, including the dead sea scrolls, all saying the same thing, if editing was done it would have been screamed from the rooftops and discredited the bible long ago.

Saying the same thing doesn't make it true and doesn't make it valid. The number of manuscripts is irrelivant. Also from what I gather they don't say 'exactly" the samne thing or those minor differences wouldn't have had christians killing each other posative the others were not real Christians, now would it?

The Vedas
Rig-Veda, the Yajur-Veda, the Sama-Veda and the Atharva-Veda.

Not even close, but if you want to defend Hinduism go right ahead.
[quote]

I don't have to its done an admirable job of defending itself from Christianity.

[quote]
There is no evidence for a massive global flood in the geological record. There is no evidence that the world was created in six days.. but a massive amount against it. The Tower of Babel story

May statement still stands.

I see, Science and the Bible have been at odds for years, but your just going to say your statement still stands even if college geology courses teach that the world was not created in six days..

Maybe thats a point you should address, look whats on the top off your head.

More to my original point would be is this universally disproved.

Your grasping.

Actually, I'm not.. tell me how many you "think" marched into the desert and we can play a game called logistics.

As for the Earth created in 6 days myth, no crediable geologist would even consider it.

But Christianity has mountains of evidence, to make a rational decision, Wicca has none.

As an ex-Christian none that I found crediable enough to keep me a Christian.

TO BE CONTINUED Sorry real work

Leroy

December 4th 2003, 09:50 PM

Durhtorin;

Durhtorin;
But you can not prove the consequences of your faith. Been dead? Seen heaven? Seen Hell? Have pictures?

That’s my point exactly!!! The cornerstones of my belief are not based on these.

Durthorin;
What you have is a logic model based on the statement "If the Bible is true, then.." While my Faith is based on "If I follow these precepts my life will go this way..

Why are you putting words into my mouth?

Quit building these ridicules “straw man” arguments and then refuting them, there not my arguments!

Durthorin;
" You keep asking why is Wicca true and I keep telling you.. because when I followed its precepts, the outcome was as predicted. Is that objective? No.. its a subjective proof.

If that’s all you got, fine. Your belief is based on no external supporting evidence.

Why do you keep making claims as if they were facts, when your just making them up as you go.

If there is no evidence to back up your statement it’s no more then a fairy tale.

Durthorin;

In my case the Observation was of other pagans and their lives. Ie what did they belive and did it function in their lives? The answer was Yes it did.

Whatever, move the cheese.

Durthorin;
Actually.. salvation outside the Catholic Church was for the longest consdiered immpossiable. But thats changed.. but truth is I don't think the message has had that much continuity. Christian thought has been reinvented on a regular basis.. the words may remain the same but the words "Now Mean this" An off we go again.

Oh really, I didn’t see the apostle Paul saying anything about that, and what does that have to do with my statement anyway, the bible says the same thing as it did then, if the Roman Catholic’s wanted to try and corner the market, does that change the message in the bible, no, it just proves that personal interpretation and beliefs handed down verbally from person to person causes problems.

another Red Herring.

Durthorin;

Saying the same thing doesn't make it true and doesn't make it valid. The number of manuscripts is irrelivant. Also from what I gather they don't say 'exactly" the samne thing or those minor differences wouldn't have had christians killing each other posative the others were not real Christians, now would it?

No it doesn’t make it true, but it sure lends to it’s credibility, if I bought something from you and handed you a 20 dollar bill and it had a picture of Daffy Duck on it, would you just take it, because after all the number of 20 dollar bills you’ve seen in the past is irrelevant?

Durthorin;

I see, Science and the Bible have been at odds for years, but your just going to say your statement still stands even if college geology courses teach that the world was not created in six days..

Science and the Bible have not been in odds for years, skeptical scientists have tried to disprove the Bible for years, but its still hanging in there, and wow, how controversial was it back in the day the scientists new the world was flat?

Durthorin;

Actually, I'm not.. tell me how many you "think" marched into the desert and we can play a game called logistics.

As for the Earth created in 6 days myth, no crediable geologist would even consider it.

My position doesn’t crumble if there’s not a mountain of evidence for these points, there not central to my evidentiary value.

Durthorin;

As an ex-Christian none that I found crediable enough to keep me a Christian.

and you found it in Wicca, so far that only proves to me that you were not looking for credibility, you were looking for something that tickled your fancy.

Leroy

Leroy

December 4th 2003, 10:28 PM

Eireann,

Eireann
No, not really. I've heard this argument ad nauseum as a "proof" of the divine scripting of the Bible. Actually, the only thing it really testifies to is the process of canonization. There were a considerable number of texts that were considered for inclusion in the Bible. Many of them were rejected because they didn't fit the scheme they were looking for. It wasn't like they dug up a whole lot of texts and discovered, "Eureka!" they all say the same thing. No, more like they found a bunch of texts and merely KEPT the ones that said the same thing, many of which were reliant upon each other (Isaiah relied on Moses, Matthew recalled Isaiah and Ezekiel, etc.)

Well that only make sense Eireann, why would you take a bunch of copies of “War and Peace” and combine them with copies of “Little Women” and then say, “now that’s a better representation of what Tolstoy was saying”???

Eireann
It's unfortunate that same test was not applied to the Bible itself. In places, it's own authors don't agree, particularly in the Gospels with certain details about Jesus' ministry.

It is! Take a look at the dead sea scrolls, geat example.

Wow Mark saw two men, Mathew saw one… crushing.

No doctrinal differences, just history told from different perspectives.

Eireann

That's incorrect. The Bible claims that all the planet was destroyed in the Flood and that only Noah and his family survived. Yet the fact that the Native Americans and Australian Aborigines have lived in an unbroken line in their respective lands since before the Flood is practically undisputed in the archaeological and anthropological communities.

There are two sides to that fence.

Eireann
It was never universally believed that the world was flat…

Not universally but the overwhelming majority did.

Eireann

Again, not a testimony to divine authorship. That some well-known historical figures may not have quite grasped spacial depth on a cosmic scale doesn't mean that no one did.

Right, but that doesn’t mean that the bible had it wrong! For all you now they could have read the scriptures and found out.

Leroy

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 4th 2003, 11:43 PM

Today @ 07:50 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327015#post327015)
Leroy:

No it doesn’t make it true, but it sure lends to it’s credibility
Actually it doesn't lend much of anything. Did you see what I said earlier?

Science and the Bible have not been in odds for years
That's incorrect. When a Christian says that no evidence has been shown to refute any biblical statement, what that actually means is they don't buy the evidence that has been shown. Rather than allowing their beliefs to be malleable so that the theories can change with new information, they instead choose to accept and reject evidence based solely on whether or not the evidence conforms to their beliefs. That's just bad science.

My position doesn’t crumble if there’s not a mountain of evidence for these points, there not central to my evidentiary value.
Strange that you just don't get that when it's offered by someone else, though.

and you found it in Wicca, so far that only proves to me that you were not looking for credibility, you were looking for something that tickled your fancy.
This post tells me that you define credibility as "that which conforms to what I believe."

Trout

December 5th 2003, 01:09 AM

Durthorin:

As an Ex-Christian I found none.

There are objective reasons to be a Christian, whether you recognize them or not.

Durthorin:
To "me" much of Christianity is used to explain why this infinite, all powerful, all good, all knowing creature does in essence.. nothing.

Danu Bless, Dur

Please explain what the Wiccan diety "does".

Durthorin

December 5th 2003, 01:30 AM

Today @ 12:09 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327264#post327264)
troutk13:

There are objective reasons to be a Christian, whether you recognize them or not.

Then by Websters definition they are subjective reasons.

Please explain what the Wiccan diety "does".

Dieties. Which one? But in most cases they act to answer prayers in the same way Christians see God as answering their prayers. They are not all knowing nor all powerful.. If Christians see God as the All Powerful Father.. think that most pagans see their dieties as Elder Brothers and Sisters with certain things they do well.. consider Brighid, Danu and the Morrigan as examples..

Trout

December 5th 2003, 01:43 AM

Durthorin:

Then by Websters definition they are subjective reasons.

Wrong, by Websters definitions there are many objective reasons to consider Christianity.

There is still no reason to think Wicca resembles reality any more than the Cat in the Hat does.

Durthorin:
Dieties. Which one? But in most cases they act to answer prayers in the same way Christians see God as answering their prayers. They are not all knowing nor all powerful.. If Christians see God as the All Powerful Father.. think that most pagans see their dieties as Elder Brothers and Sisters with certain things they do well.. consider Brighid, Danu and the Morrigan as examples..

So when you pray to these Wiccan dieties you are asking that they change the course of human events?

If so, why not ask them to end all suffering on planet earth?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 5th 2003, 03:21 AM

Yesterday @ 11:43 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327288#post327288)
troutk13:

Wrong, by Websters definitions there are many objective reasons to consider Christianity.
Such as?

There is still no reason to think Wicca resembles reality any more than the Cat in the Hat does.
A non-Christian might say exactly the same thing about your religion ... with equal conviction. You're basically arguing into the wind.

So when you pray to these Wiccan dieties you are asking that they change the course of human events?

If so, why not ask them to end all suffering on planet earth?
Ah, yet another question easily turned back on its maker.

Durthorin

December 5th 2003, 07:36 AM

Today @ 12:43 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327288#post327288)
troutk13:

Wrong, by Websters definitions there are many objective reasons to consider Christianity.

Main Entry: 1ob·jec·tive
Pronunciation: &b-'jek-tiv, äb-
Function: adjective
Date: 1620
1 a : relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independent existence -- used chiefly in medieval philosophy b : of, relating to, or being an object , phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind <objective reality> <our reveries... are significantly and repeatedly shaped by our transactions with the objective world -- Marvin Reznikoff> -- compare SUBJECTIVE 3a c of a symptom of disease : perceptible to persons other than the affected individual -- compare SUBJECTIVE 4c d : involving or deriving from sense perception or experience with actual objects , conditions, or phenomena <objective awareness> <objective data>
2 : relating to, characteristic of, or constituting the case of words that follow prepositions or transitive verbs
3 a : expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations<objective art> <an objective history of the war> <an objective judgment> b of a test : limited to choices of fixed alternatives and reducing subjective factors to a minimum

So considering the Webster.. it is not objective. Its there in black and white. By the nature of the argument between Christians and Non-Christians for centuries.

So when you pray to these Wiccan dieties you are asking that they change the course of human events?

If so, why not ask them to end all suffering on planet earth?

Remember the Gods are not all powerful in the Wiccan world view.. they maybe able to help me deal with suffering but if I want to walk over broken glass then they are going to let me. An in many cases the answer is here is the strength to deal with what you must.

Trout

December 5th 2003, 10:54 AM

Eireann:

Such as?

A non-Christian might say exactly the same thing about your religion ... with equal conviction. You're basically arguing into the wind.

Ah, yet another question easily turned back on its maker.

This thread is named Wicca in general, what we are trying to determine is the viability of the Wiccan worldview,I know the answers from a Christian worldview, I want to know what Wicca says about these questions in particular.

Leroy

December 5th 2003, 01:06 PM

Interesting article excerpt from a former Wiccan High Priest;

Any objective person will find that Wicca is made up of fables, vain imagination, paganism, blasphemy, lies, tales, heresay, and a seemingly endless list of ceremonies, magick, sabbats, etc. According to former Wiccan High Priest, Bill Schnoebelen, the serious practitioner of Wicca will find himself going to deeper depths which lead further into the worship of Lucifer aka Satan.
I personally hear from Wiccans, pagans, Satanists, Buddhists, etc.--in other words, I get just about every ingredient in the Devil's mumbo-jumbo gumbo. And each of these groups got something in common-- Lucifer. And the remarkable thing is that many of these groups actually know him by "Lucifer" or some derivative whether the horned god, Pan (the goat-foot god), Cernunnos, Dionysos, Osiris, Bacchus, etc. The horned god is a phallic deity of fertility. Why would people worship the devil? Because he offers what they like! "Do what thou wilt shalt be the whole of the law".

wiccan rede (motto/creed): "An' it harm none, Do what thou will."

satanic creed: "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law"

It is the same thing. Do what you feel like doing.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 5th 2003, 01:58 PM

Today @ 11:06 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327752#post327752)
Leroy:

Interesting article excerpt from a former Wiccan High Priest;

Any objective person will find that Wicca is made up of fables, vain imagination, paganism, blasphemy, lies, tales, heresay, and a seemingly endless list of ceremonies, magick, sabbats, etc. According to former Wiccan High Priest, Bill Schnoebelen, the serious practitioner of Wicca will find himself going to deeper depths which lead further into the worship of Lucifer aka Satan.
I personally hear from Wiccans, pagans, Satanists, Buddhists, etc.--in other words, I get just about every ingredient in the Devil's mumbo-jumbo gumbo. And each of these groups got something in common-- Lucifer. And the remarkable thing is that many of these groups actually know him by "Lucifer" or some derivative whether the horned god, Pan (the goat-foot god), Cernunnos, Dionysos, Osiris, Bacchus, etc. The horned god is a phallic deity of fertility. Why would people worship the devil? Because he offers what they like! "Do what thou wilt shalt be the whole of the law".

wiccan rede (motto/creed): "An' it harm none, Do what thou will."

satanic creed: "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law"

It is the same thing. Do what you feel like doing.
Those sound suspiciously like the words of Bill Schnoebelen from "Wicca: Satan's White Lie." If that's the case, he was never a Wiccan high priest. His claims to his own titles are easily debunked by anyone who knows the actual process of attaining the title of High Priest in the traditions in which he claimed.

As to the other two, first, that is not the correct wording of the Wiccan Rede. It is "do as ye will," not "do what thou will." There is a world of difference between those two.

As to the second, what you refer to as the satanic creed, it isn't the Satanic crede. There is Satanism, and there is Ceremonial Magick. One of the main Ceremonial fraternities is the Order of the Golden Dawn. Crowley was a member, and Crowley wrote the creed you cited above. The Golden Dawn follows that creed, Satanists do not.

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 5th 2003, 02:01 PM

Today @ 08:54 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327560#post327560)
troutk13:

This thread is named Wicca in general, what we are trying to determine is the viability of the Wiccan worldview,I know the answers from a Christian worldview
No, actually what you have are the interpretations from the Christian worldview. An interpretation isn't necessarily an answer, it is merely an attempt to answer.

I want to know what Wicca says about these questions in particular.
It's been asked and answered more than once. You're having a bit of trouble grasping the answer, which is mostly because your own worldview filters the incoming information so that if it doesn't correspond to the parameters your religion follows, it is incomprehensible to you. Wiccans don't suffer that setback nearly as often.

Trout

December 5th 2003, 02:11 PM

Eireann:

As to the other two, first, that is not the correct wording of the Wiccan Rede. It is "do as ye will," not "do what thou will." There is a world of difference between those two.

What's the difference?

Durthorin

December 5th 2003, 02:20 PM

Today @ 12:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327752#post327752)
Leroy:

Interesting article excerpt from a former Wiccan High Priest;

Any objective person will find that Wicca is made up of fables, vain imagination, paganism, blasphemy, lies, tales, heresay, and a seemingly endless list of ceremonies, magick, sabbats, etc. According to former Wiccan High Priest, Bill Schnoebelen, the serious practitioner of Wicca will find himself going to deeper depths which lead further into the worship of Lucifer aka Satan.
I personally hear from Wiccans, pagans, Satanists, Buddhists, etc.--in other words, I get just about every ingredient in the Devil's mumbo-jumbo gumbo. And each of these groups got something in common-- Lucifer. And the remarkable thing is that many of these groups actually know him by "Lucifer" or some derivative whether the horned god, Pan (the goat-foot god), Cernunnos, Dionysos, Osiris, Bacchus, etc. The horned god is a phallic deity of fertility. Why would people worship the devil? Because he offers what they like! "Do what thou wilt shalt be the whole of the law".

wiccan rede (motto/creed): "An' it harm none, Do what thou will."

satanic creed: "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law"

It is the same thing. Do what you feel like doing.

http://www.witchvox.com/whs/kerr_schnoebelen1.html

Read about your source.. <chuckle>

Durthorin

December 5th 2003, 02:23 PM

Today @ 01:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327892#post327892)
troutk13:

What's the difference?

Ye is more a plural that includes you & Diety.. in short do as ye will is do what you and the Divine working in concert think best.. More modern traditions of Wicca use Tho or You.. but end up explaining that ANY decision you make requires listening to the Divine.

Reasonable?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 5th 2003, 02:58 PM

Today @ 12:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327892#post327892)
troutk13:

What's the difference?

"Ye" does not have a singular translation. It is plural only. It refers to your will being in accord with that of a higher will, namely deity.

Trout

December 5th 2003, 03:35 PM

Dur, I can't figure out why you keep on posting the definition of of objective.

Post an objective reason to think that Wicca is a viable option.

Durthorin

December 5th 2003, 04:46 PM

Today @ 02:35 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=328024#post328024)
troutk13:

Dur, I can't figure out why you keep on posting the definition of of objective.

Post an objective reason to think that Wicca is a viable option.

Because as much as I've tried to explain it, you don't seem to grasp the word doesn't mean what you think it means. I have given you what I consider objective reasons.. you have dismissed them..I have pointed out that I have dismissed your reasoning for Chrisitanity thus neither faith has any objective reason to think they are viable options.. In the end your belief in your God is a subjective experiance as is mine in the Goddess.

What I have pointed out to you is that we seem to lack an agreed on definition. I keep pointing to Websters and you keep wanting something that does not exist in either faith. I see a worldview where what makes logical sense is the pagan philosphy/religion of Wicca and the Celts. To me it works admirably. It is in its essence seeing in Nature the nature of diety. Whereas you are looking at the Bible and saying the nature of God is told in these words and upon these pages.. what I am doing is looking att he world around me.. I am in essence reading the nature of the Divine by reading this world.

In my worldview, I see that all higher forms of life have two sexes, not one.. so I consider that the Divine has two aspects, male and female. Its a pattern used everywhere in nature. Whereas if I was a Christian I assume god is assexual? Why would an asexual being create sexuality in the form it is and make it the predominant form of reproduction? Why use it as a model of reproduction then make it sinful? if your all knowing .. you know the problems it will cause.. and if your all powerful you can pick another less problematic solution.

Any ecologist will tell you the world is made of interdependant systems.. destroy one and you get side effects. Living in harmony with your environment is mandted by the simple rules you were taught when you were three.. you don't crap where you live.. you don't destroy things that effect you.. and once you expand the thought process.. you get a Wiccans belief that we need to live in harmony with our environment. If we are not meant to live in harmony with our environment then no doubt we wouldn't have to worry about eating our own waste products.

The point is that there is no fiction that says on this date the Goddess came down handed Gardner the first Book Of Shadows, performed a miricle and vanished. What does exist is a Neo_pagan religion that gathered philosphical constructs from pre-christian faiths and created from it a cohesive whole that performs as advertised. You keep hammering that it doesn't work, can't work, because it offers not black and white answers. It has no "thou shall nots" and those are the things your looking for.

"A religion is a social mechanism whereby individuals are related to each other and to the Divine (however Named or understood) and from that they are related back to the rest of the world. And, it has three defining characteristics: a creed, a code and a cultus."

"So, back to the definition of religion, any religion has those three characteristics: a creed (what is believed), a code (how to behave, i.e. rituals, morals and ethics), and a cultus (who or how 'Ultimate Reality' is named and understood and worshipped).

"Let's first apply that to Christianity to illustrate the definition. Christianity's creed is basically the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the message of Jesus. Its code is basically the message of faith and loving kindness as taught by Jesus and the celebration of Eucharist or other fellowship on Sundays and holidays to commemorate Jesus. Its cultus is God, as the Trinity but with an obvious emphasis upon Jesus Christ. But, it all starts with the belief in Jesus and His message. I know I'm summarizing, but am I basically right?"

So lets try to find some common ground, shall we? Do you agree that this fairly describes Christianity? If you do then myself and other Wiccans such as Err will try to build an understandable concept of Creed, Code and Cultus for you and explain where we differ on the importance we apply to each and why.

Danu Bless, Dur

Leroy

December 5th 2003, 05:36 PM

Further information from another article I shamefully use without permission by Diane Vera,

She prefaces the article by saying;

Note: The following article should NOT be taken as implying that Wicca is a form of Satanism.

Although this article focusses on similarities and historical connections between Wicca and 19th century literary Satanism, there are plenty of differences too, and even more differences between Wicca and modern (post-LaVey) Satanism.

Wicca is an eclectic modern religion which has drawn inspiration from many sources, both ancient and modern. Literary Satanism is just one of those many sources.

In their attempts to dissociate themselves from Satanism, Wiccans have tended to distort their own history. Wicca and Satanism are indeed very distinct religious categories. But there are some intimate historical ties between the two, as even some Wiccan scholars are finally starting to admit. See, for example, Aidan Kelly's book Crafting the Art of Magic (pp.21-22, 25-26, and 176).

Wicca is not "the Old Religion", though it does draw inspiration from various old religions. Wicca as we now know it is derived from 19th-century occult philosophy -- including literary Satanic philosophy, among others -- projected onto a non-Christian Goddess and God, plus some de-Christianized Golden Dawn style ceremonial magick, plus assorted turn-of-the-century British folklore, more recently re-shaped by neo-Pagan scholarship and by modern feminist and ecological concerns.

At least several different sides of Wicca's convoluted family tree can be traced to 19th-century literary Satanism, some forms of which had more in common with present-day Wicca than with present-day Satanism.

The prime example of literary Satanism that strongly influenced Wicca, especially feminist Wicca, is the book La Sorciere by the 19th-century French historian Jules Michelet (published in English by Citadel Press under the title Satanism and Witchcraft).

Michelet's ideas, as paraphrased by feminist writers such as Barbara Ehrenreich and Deirdre English in their booklet Witches, Midwives, and Nurses: A History of Women Healers (Feminist Press, 1973), have played an important role today's women's health movement. (At least Ehrenreich and English were honest enough to list Michelet in their bibliography.) See especially Michelet's introduction. Michelet was, as far as I know, the literary origin of today's feminist image of the Witch as a healer. Among other things, he theorized that the witchhunts were used by the emerging male medical profession to wipe out their peasant female competition.

According to Jeffrey B. Russell in A History of Witchcraft, pre-feminist classical Wicca also drew lots of inspiration indirectly from Michelet. Michelet was a major source of inspiration to Margaret Murray, Charles G. Leland, and Sir James Frazer, whom most knowledgeable Wiccans do recognize as influential. (Russell points this out, yet neglects to inform the reader that Michelet's book is full of passionate, sympathetic depictions of Satan as well as of the medieval witches. Russell too perpetuates the false counter-myth that Wicca Has Nothing To Do With Satanism.)
I'll leave it to folks more scholarly than myself to debate just how indebted Murray and Leland were to Michelet. In any case, the Italian witch mythology Leland presented in Aradia: Gospel of the Witches (originally published 1899), one of Wicca's major sources, contains some diabolical-witchcraft elements of its own. The very first paragraph reads:

Diana greatly loved her brother Lucifer, the god of the Sun
and of the Moon, the god of Light, who was so proud of his
beauty, and who for his pride was driven from Paradise.

Wiccans usually argue that "Lucifer" is not the Christian Devil but is just "the god of the Sun and of the Moon". (I too distinguish between Satan and Lucifer, as do many occultists.) Yet the statement that Lucifer was "driven from Paradise" for his "pride" is clearly a reference to Christianity's Devil myth. Aradia contains a mix of mythologies.

Wiccans are correct to say that their Horned God is not Satan. But it isn't historically true that the Christian image of Satan is a re-interpretation of the Wiccan God. On the contrary, the modern Wiccan concept of the Horned God has its literary origin in a Paganized re-interpretation of medieval Christian Devil imagery (as in Margaret Murray's and earlier writings). It's true that medieval Christian Devil imagery, in turn, incorporates distorted versions of many ancient Gods (not all of whom were Horned, e.g. the trident comes from Poseidon/Neptune). But the Wiccan image of its Horned God is not a direct continuation of any ancient religion, and at least one key aspect does come from no source other than the medieval Christian Devil concept as manifest in the witchhunts. The idea of a Horned God associated specifically with witchcraft is derived from the Christian witchhunts, and from no previous source. In pre-Christian European religion, there were Goddesses associated with witchcraft, e.g. Hecate; but Pan and other horned male Gods were not associated with witchcraft, as far as I know. Much of Wicca's self-image is based on the Paganized re-interpretation of alleged Devil-worship, rather than on actual ancient religion. Much of Wicca's terminology and imagery, e.g. the words "witch", "coven", and "sabbat", are used because of the Wiccan myth that Wicca is the survival of an underground medieval religion that was the target of the witchhunts. (Regardless of the linguistic origin of the words themselves, this constellation of terms comes from the witchhunts.) The related idea that modern Wiccans too are in continual danger of being confused with Satanists is at least partly a self-fulfilling prophecy. Far fewer people would confuse modern Wicca with Satanism if Wicca didn't use so many witchhunt-derived words and other trappings popularly associated with diabolical witchcraft.

Durthorin

December 5th 2003, 06:11 PM

From and Article by Kerr Cuhulain the author of this article, is known to the mundane world as Detective Constable Charles A Ennis of the Vancouver Police Department, Youth Services Unit. Ennis, a child abuse investigator for the VPD, is the author of several articles on child abuse investigation that appeared in Law & Order Magazine. Better known to the Pagan community by his Wiccan name, Kerr Cuhulain, Ennis was the first Wiccan police officer to go public about his beliefs 25 years ago. Kerr is now the spokesperson for Officers of Avalon. Kerr went on to write three books: The Law Enforcement Guide to Wicca (Horned Owl Publishing) as well as Wiccan Warrior and Full Contact Magick: A Book of Shadows for the Wiccan Warrior. (Llewellyn Publications).

The next page in Reckart's "Studies on the Cults of Witchcraft" web site is "Satanism and the History of Wicca". What Reckart has done is to paste in a copy of an article with the same title written in 1992 by Diane Vera. Vera describes herself as a "Theistic Satanist" and revised this article in 1994 and 1996. Reckart introduces Vera's article by stating: "Ms Vera has been a satanist for many years. Her article below speaks for itself. Wicca is not just a nature religion with a group of naked men and women having a nudist party to enact the role of the male and the female in nature, the birds and the bees... Wicca is tied to witchcraft with unbreakable chords of ritual, god, oaths, and degrees." I don't know whether Vera is aware that Reckart has borrowed her article for his web site.

Vera's article starts by stating that Wicca is not an old religion. At the time that Vera initially wrote her article that might have been news to some Wiccans, but most of us figured that out decades ago. Vera more or less accurately describes the various elements that make up modern Wicca and it is no surprise that they don't resemble Reckart's claims. Vera points out that Satanists and Wiccans have borrowed similar elements from ceremonial magic, which is also true. She quotes Jeffrey B. Russell and Aidan Kelly, whose books on Wicca are both recommended by me. In fact I don't take much issue with her article, which is thoughtful and articulate. Vera has a different perspective and some different interpretations, but I can certainly live with them. It seems as if Reckart included it because he seems to think that it shores up his argument that there is some sort of link between Wicca and Satanism. Vera makes it clear at the beginning of her article that these two religions are quite distinct.

I'm sure that one of the things that motivated Vera to write "Satanism and the History of Wicca" is that many Satanists feel that Wiccans try to distance themselves from descriptions of "Satanism" by people such as Reckart by simply saying that they are not "Satanists". While it is true that Wiccans aren't Satanists, it is equally true that Satanists don't resemble the descriptions of people like Reckart either. Vera also doesn't like that modern Wiccans chose the terms witchcraft and Witch to describe ourselves, as she believes that they were originally Satanic terms. I think that it would be more accurate to say that both Wiccans and Satanists borrowed the same terms from similar sources to describe their own things and that this obviously has led to some confusion. I do think that Vera has some valid concerns. You can check out Diane Vera's Theistic Satanism web page at http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/ if you'd like to get some more accurate information on Satanism.

http://www.witchvox.com/whs/kerr_jmf3.html

Leroy

December 5th 2003, 06:19 PM

Today @ 11:20 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=327908#post327908)
Durthorin:

http://www.witchvox.com/whs/kerr_schnoebelen1.html

Read about your source.. <chuckle>

Durthorin

This disputes my source?…. that’s comical,
Complete hearsay, no source evidence, part of the authors claims against Schnoebelen was the fact that he mixed other religions in with him Wicca beliefs, wiccan’s claim to fame is its eclectic nature, you yourself said something about Christian-Wiccan’s

Your author quotes Gerald Gardner! That’s funny, his credibility was seriously disputed just a few posts ago, by another Wiccan!

NOTE: This is absurd. Gerald Gardner, the founder of Gardnerian Wiccan became public back in the early 1950's. Alex Sanders, the founder of the Alexandrian tradition that Schnoebelen (falsely) claims to have been initiated into became public shortly thereafter. There are numerous books by Gardner and various Alexandrians trained by Sanders such as the Farrars still in print which clearly demonstrate that there is nothing in their beliefs or practices that is Satanic

NOTE: Lucifer is a Biblical figure, not a Wiccan one. Nor do Wiccans believe in proselytizing. And Wiccans do not have any equivalent to Scripture, so it is hard to explain how Schnoebelen figures that they would be "preaching the gospel" of Witchcraft.

Wiccan’s have no set beliefs, you stated that over and over again, so what’s this authors perscieved problem with other wiccan doing proselytizing, having Scripture?"An' it harm none, Do what thou will."

The author himself says that there is no information to prove some of the stuff Schnobelen claimed, so what does that mean, its automatically false? Like Witches keep records.

This authors attempt to discredit Schnoebelen, is laughable.

What, did you think I wouldn’t read it?

Leroy

December 5th 2003, 06:33 PM

Today @ 03:11 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=328179#post328179)
Durthorin:

From and Article by Kerr Cuhulain the author of this article, is known to the mundane world as Detective Constable Charles A Ennis of the Vancouver Police Department, Youth Services Unit. Ennis, a child abuse investigator for the VPD, is the author of several articles on child abuse investigation that appeared in Law & Order Magazine. Better known to the Pagan community by his Wiccan name, Kerr Cuhulain, Ennis was the first Wiccan police officer to go public about his beliefs 25 years ago. Kerr is now the spokesperson for Officers of Avalon. Kerr went on to write three books: The Law Enforcement Guide to Wicca (Horned Owl Publishing) as well as Wiccan Warrior and Full Contact Magick: A Book of Shadows for the Wiccan Warrior. (Llewellyn Publications).

The next page in Reckart's "Studies on the Cults of Witchcraft" web site is "Satanism and the History of Wicca". What Reckart has done is to paste in a copy of an article with the same title written in 1992 by Diane Vera. Vera describes herself as a "Theistic Satanist" and revised this article in 1994 and 1996. Reckart introduces Vera's article by stating: "Ms Vera has been a satanist for many years. Her article below speaks for itself. Wicca is not just a nature religion with a group of naked men and women having a nudist party to enact the role of the male and the female in nature, the birds and the bees... Wicca is tied to witchcraft with unbreakable chords of ritual, god, oaths, and degrees." I don't know whether Vera is aware that Reckart has borrowed her article for his web site.

Vera's article starts by stating that Wicca is not an old religion. At the time that Vera initially wrote her article that might have been news to some Wiccans, but most of us figured that out decades ago. Vera more or less accurately describes the various elements that make up modern Wicca and it is no surprise that they don't resemble Reckart's claims. Vera points out that Satanists and Wiccans have borrowed similar elements from ceremonial magic, which is also true. She quotes Jeffrey B. Russell and Aidan Kelly, whose books on Wicca are both recommended by me. In fact I don't take much issue with her article, which is thoughtful and articulate. Vera has a different perspective and some different interpretations, but I can certainly live with them. It seems as if Reckart included it because he seems to think that it shores up his argument that there is some sort of link between Wicca and Satanism. Vera makes it clear at the beginning of her article that these two religions are quite distinct.

I'm sure that one of the things that motivated Vera to write "Satanism and the History of Wicca" is that many Satanists feel that Wiccans try to distance themselves from descriptions of "Satanism" by people such as Reckart by simply saying that they are not "Satanists". While it is true that Wiccans aren't Satanists, it is equally true that Satanists don't resemble the descriptions of people like Reckart either. Vera also doesn't like that modern Wiccans chose the terms witchcraft and Witch to describe ourselves, as she believes that they were originally Satanic terms. I think that it would be more accurate to say that both Wiccans and Satanists borrowed the same terms from similar sources to describe their own things and that this obviously has led to some confusion. I do think that Vera has some valid concerns. You can check out Diane Vera's Theistic Satanism web page at http://www.angelfire.com/ny5/dvera/ if you'd like to get some more accurate information on Satanism.

http://www.witchvox.com/whs/kerr_jmf3.html

Sounds like your surrendering the field.

Trout

December 5th 2003, 07:56 PM

Durthorin:

Because as much as I've tried to explain it, you don't seem to grasp the word doesn't mean what you think it means. I have given you what I consider objective reasons..

Wrong, you haven't given objective reasons.

Durthorin:
you have dismissed them..I have pointed out that I have dismissed your reasoning for Chrisitanity

I haven't posited any, are you saying that you are dismissing them before I post them?

Durthorin:
thus neither faith has any objective reason to think they are viable options..

Wrong again.

Durthorin:
In the end your belief in your God is a subjective experiance as is mine in the Goddess.

Yes my belief is subjective, but my reasons for belief are objective.

Durthorin:
What I have pointed out to you is that we seem to lack an agreed on definition. I keep pointing to Websters and you keep wanting something that does not exist in either faith. I see a worldview where what makes logical sense is the pagan philosphy/religion of Wicca and the Celts.

No, you insist on reading the meanings into words out of your own personal need to justify your non-reality based worldview.

Durthorin:
To me it works admirably.

You have yet to say what it is.

Durthorin:
It is in its essence seeing in Nature the nature of diety. Whereas you are looking at the Bible and saying the nature of God is told in these words and upon these pages.. what I am doing is looking att he world around me.. I am in essence reading the nature of the Divine by reading this world.

No, I'm looking at the world around me and marveling at how the bible corresponds with reality.

Durthorin:
In my worldview, I see that all higher forms of life have two sexes, not one.. so I consider that the Divine has two aspects, male and female. Its a pattern used everywhere in nature. Whereas if I was a Christian I assume god is assexual? Why would an asexual being create sexuality in the form it is and make it the predominant form of reproduction?

So if I follow your logic, would you say that God was produced by sexual reproduction? And if so can you tell me where the first mating pair of gods came from?

Durthorin:
Why use it as a model of reproduction then make it sinful? if your all knowing .. you know the problems it will cause.. and if your all powerful you can pick another less problematic solution.

He didn't make it sinful. And I guess He could have easily created a race of automatons and solved the problem. But then if He's all knowing, maybe He has a plan that's better than yours.

Durthorin:
Any ecologist will tell you the world is made of interdependant systems.. destroy one and you get side effects. Living in harmony with your environment is mandted by the simple rules you were taught when you were three.. you don't crap where you live.. you don't destroy things that effect you.. and once you expand the thought process.. you get a Wiccans belief that we need to live in harmony with our environment. If we are not meant to live in harmony with our environment then no doubt we wouldn't have to worry about eating our own waste products.

Do you think Wicca invented the concept of living in harmony with the earth? Are you trying to make me believe that since Wicca teaches that concept then therefore Wicca is true? The bible antedates Wicca and explains these concepts very well. So that won't work as a reason to think that Wicca is valid.

Durthorin:
The point is that there is no fiction that says on this date the Goddess came down handed Gardner the first Book Of Shadows, performed a miricle and vanished.

Dur, I already know there are many reasons to think that Wicca is non-reality based, we are looking for evidence in favor of Wicca.

Durthorin:
What does exist is a Neo_pagan religion that gathered philosphical constructs from pre-christian faiths and created from it a cohesive whole that performs as advertised.

Then it should be easy to demonstrate how it corresponds objectively with reality.

Durthorin:
You keep hammering that it doesn't work, can't work, because it offers not black and white answers. It has no "thou shall nots" and those are the things your looking for.

Me and everyone else.

Durthorin:

"A religion is a social mechanism whereby individuals are related to each other and to the Divine (however Named or understood) and from that they are related back to the rest of the world. And, it has three defining characteristics: a creed, a code and a cultus."

"So, back to the definition of religion, any religion has those three characteristics: a creed (what is believed), a code (how to behave, i.e. rituals, morals and ethics), and a cultus (who or how 'Ultimate Reality' is named and understood and worshipped).

No, lets see if Wicca can offer any proof as to it's own validity.
There are many religions that match your definition that are demonstrably false.

Durthorin:
"Let's first apply that to Christianity to illustrate the definition. Christianity's creed is basically the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the message of Jesus. Its code is basically the message of faith and loving kindness as taught by Jesus and the celebration of Eucharist or other fellowship on Sundays and holidays to commemorate Jesus. Its cultus is God, as the Trinity but with an obvious emphasis upon Jesus Christ. But, it all starts with the belief in Jesus and His message. I know I'm summarizing, but am I basically right?"

No you aren't basically right.

Durthorin:
So lets try to find some common ground, shall we? Do you agree that this fairly describes Christianity? If you do then myself and other Wiccans such as Err will try to build an understandable concept of Creed, Code and Cultus for you and explain where we differ on the importance we apply to each and why.

Danu Bless, Dur

OK, start by posting something objectively true about Wicca, and we'll go from there.

Durthorin

December 5th 2003, 08:56 PM

Today @ 05:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=328187#post328187)
Leroy:

Durthorin

This disputes my source?…. that’s comical,
Complete hearsay, no source evidence, part of the authors claims against Schnoebelen was the fact that he mixed other religions in with him Wicca beliefs, wiccan’s claim to fame is its eclectic nature, you yourself said something about Christian-Wiccan’s

Your author quotes Gerald Gardner! That’s funny, his credibility was seriously disputed just a few posts ago, by another Wiccan!

NOTE: This is absurd. Gerald Gardner, the founder of Gardnerian Wiccan became public back in the early 1950's. Alex Sanders, the founder of the Alexandrian tradition that Schnoebelen (falsely) claims to have been initiated into became public shortly thereafter. There are numerous books by Gardner and various Alexandrians trained by Sanders such as the Farrars still in print which clearly demonstrate that there is nothing in their beliefs or practices that is Satanic

NOTE: Lucifer is a Biblical figure, not a Wiccan one. Nor do Wiccans believe in proselytizing. And Wiccans do not have any equivalent to Scripture, so it is hard to explain how Schnoebelen figures that they would be "preaching the gospel" of Witchcraft.

Wiccan’s have no set beliefs, you stated that over and over again, so what’s this authors perscieved problem with other wiccan doing proselytizing, having Scripture?"An' it harm none, Do what thou will."

The author himself says that there is no information to prove some of the stuff Schnobelen claimed, so what does that mean, its automatically false? Like Witches keep records.

This authors attempt to discredit Schnoebelen, is laughable.

What, did you think I wouldn’t read it?

If you want to believe the man feel free.. Some people believed Jim Jones. But those that studied under the people he says he did .. say in essence he is a power tripping egotist who creates whatever credentials his audience wants to hear. Your man claims lineage in two of the most "High Church" structured Wiccan Traditions.. like Christianity being Gardenarian or Alexandrian requires set rituals, time periods, sponsorship etc.. even Among Wiccan's they are jokingly considered the Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox of our faith.. Some Wiccan Traditions are fixed internally.. they don't mind you being Wiccan.. your just -not- of their Tradition.

As for Kerr, I'd say he did a fine job proving his point.. but I think you have a subjective belief he didn't.

Danu Bless, Dur

Durthorin

December 5th 2003, 08:59 PM

Today @ 05:33 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=328204#post328204)
Leroy:

Sounds like your surrendering the field.

No. Not at all, what gave you that idea?

Durthorin

December 5th 2003, 09:38 PM

Today @ 06:56 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=328272#post328272)
troutk13:

Wrong, you haven't given objective reasons.

There are no objective reasons to believe in the validity of any religion. I have stated my reasons and you have dismissed them.. so from the text book definition they are subjective.

I haven't posited any, are you saying that you are dismissing them before I post them?

I dismissed your subjective reasoning behind Christianity when I left it 19 years ago.

“ Durthorin:
thus neither faith has any objective reason to think they are viable options..
”

Wrong again.

“ Durthorin:
In the end your belief in your God is a subjective experiance as is mine in the Goddess. ”

Yes my belief is subjective, but my reasons for belief are objective.

Feel free to tell me.. since nothing you have said so far is anything more than a subjective opinion from my standpoint.

No, you insist on reading the meanings into words out of your own personal need to justify your non-reality based worldview.

The definition is clear it says "all" ie everyone..2 thirds of the planet don't agree with you.. so how does that classify as "all" agree with your evidence. Read the definition.. what you do not wish to face is that your evidence is -not- objective or its just not evidence.

“ Durthorin:
To me it works admirably. ”

You have yet to say what it is.

I have shown it with examples.. you've basically said NO it can't work.. ignoring that it does work for about a quarter of a million people in the US so far. Give me a sitution and I'll give you an explanation based on my faith.. again. You will so NO it doesn't make sense and I'll smile and we can start all over again.

No, I'm looking at the world around me and marveling at how the bible corresponds with reality.

That why your a Christian and how you see the world. I'm happy for you.

So if I follow your logic, would you say that God was produced by sexual reproduction? And if so can you tell me where the first mating pair of gods came from?

Actually the Divine is eternal it has always been.. as for the God and Goddess.. they showed up when they were first needed in the aspect that people needed.. no doubt a Hunter/Warrior God and an Earth Mother Goddess.

He didn't make it sinful. And I guess He could have easily created a race of automatons and solved the problem. But then if He's all knowing, maybe He has a plan that's better than yours.

I guess you have to take that on faith since its a subjective belief.

Do you think Wicca invented the concept of living in harmony with the earth? Are you trying to make me believe that since Wicca teaches that concept then therefore Wicca is true? The bible antedates Wicca and explains these concepts very well. So that won't work as a reason to think that Wicca is valid.

Nope, I don't think they invented.. Wicca as a religion is about 75 years Old.. hard to invent something like that.. I'd give the invention points to any of a dozen tribal or native american faiths. What I'm trying to get accross to you is that in your faith its all about what you "believe".. what you believe supplies validity. In my faith its about what you do and what it does in your life. What you want is a historical smoking gun .. preferablly a miricle story of some sort.. what you get is an interlocking set of beliefs that if you live it makes you a better person.

Dur, I already know there are many reasons to think that Wicca is non-reality based, we are looking for evidence in favor of Wicca.

I see its reality everytime I walk outside. To me non-reality was Christianity.

Then it should be easy to demonstrate how it corresponds objectively with reality.

I've given you examples already.. you tend to dismiss them since they don't match what you want to hear. You also seem to want something "uniquely" Wiccan which your not goingt o find since Wicca in most of its incarnations takes from other faiths.. In my case Celtic Paganism. I don't talk about the "Great Mother Goddess" to me the Goddess is Danu, Brigid.. the Morrigan.. the God is Lugh or Angus Mac Og for example. Where you might refer to the scripture or psalms I'll refer to the Triads.

It is easier to determine the truth when these three prime evidences are existent: physical items which tell a story; trustworthy witnesses which tell their story; and concurrence with known truths. .

Three things from which never to be moved: one's oaths; one's Gods; and the truth

No, lets see if Wicca can offer any proof as to it's own validity.
There are many religions that match your definition that are demonstrably false.

Its not a defintion of a religions validity but of the characteristics of that religion, ie the things that define it. All religions will have the three characteristics: a creed (what is believed), a code (how to behave, i.e. rituals, morals and ethics), and a cultus (who or how 'Ultimate Reality' is named and understood and worshipped

Durthorin:
"Let's first apply that to Christianity to illustrate the definition. Christianity's creed is basically the life, death and resurrection of Jesus and the message of Jesus. Its code is basically the message of faith and loving kindness as taught by Jesus and the celebration of Eucharist or other fellowship on Sundays and holidays to commemorate Jesus. Its cultus is God, as the Trinity but with an obvious emphasis upon Jesus Christ. But, it all starts with the belief in Jesus and His message. I know I'm summarizing, but am I basically right?"

No you aren't basically right

OK.. correct it. Creed, Code and Cultus?

OK, start by posting something objectively true about Wicca, and we'll go from there.

It has at best count about a quarter of a million American adherants and is considered one of the fastest growing faiths in the US.

Danu Bless, Dur

Eyeheart Pumpkin

December 5th 2003, 10:31 PM

Let me see if I can put this in simple terms for Trout and Leroy. You are basically trying to analyze Wicca through a Christian scope. That's not going to ever work, because not only are they two very different religions, they are two very different KINDS of belief systems.

Christianity is a mixture of philosophy, law and history. Wicca is pretty much pure philosophy, relying very little on either law or history. Christianity is based very much upon the writings of man, upon the interpretations of those writings, and upon interpretations and purportions of historical happenings. History and the written word are things to which the word "objective" can be applied, inasmuch as purportions of history are objective because there are only two choices, either it did or did not happen. Whether or not we can discover if a thing happened or not does not affect whether or not it is objective. It's either objectively true, or objectively false. Jesus either lived or he didn't; he didn't live for some and not live for others. He was either resurrected or he was not. Either way, the reality of it is objective. Likewise, with the written word, either Paul (or Moses, or Luke, or Isaiah, or Dean Koontz, or Shakespeare) did write such and such, or he did not.

Interpretations of the MEANINGS of writings, however, are subjective. Interpretations of the significance of historical happenings are subjective.

Philosophy is subjective. It isn't proveable one way or another, because philosophy is based ENTIRELY upon interpretations of various different things, including history, writings, social trends, and so on. There is no objective "proof" of the viability of the philosophical element of ANY religion, because objectivity simply does not apply. And for religions, such as Wicca, that are purely philosophical, as opposed to those like Christianity that incorporate a much greater degree of objective material, you're wasting your time trying to ask for objective "proof" of its viability. Its viability is found in the hearts and souls of its followers. It doesn't need any more than that. However, coming as you do from a background in a religion that places critical importance on historical and allegedly observable happenings, it is obviously difficult for you to understand a belief system that places practically no importance on such things.