Wicca is an evil, demonic power thirsty faith.

[headheart]

76037

Calmly now. :smile:

This is knee-jerk post based on a question presented to me.

The question was:
Is Mormonism (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150852-Is-Mormonism-or-Wicca-on-your-agenda) or Wicca on your agenda?

Knowing how slow witches are to respond on this forum, I decided to take a plunge into the ether lands of the LDS - Mormonism forum (here on Theology Web Campus) and within 10 posts I began encountering dark matter from a couple of Christians who made some unsubstantiated claims about Wicca.

The first came from Bill The Cat (Department Head) who stated:

"Wicca has no foundation in reality"

The second came from a new t-webber - SwordEphesians6 who stated:

"Wicca is pure evil, I used to dabble in it."

I presented the following reply:

'Contrary to what those who choose to persecute or lie about us wish to believe, Wicca is a very peaceful, harmonious and balanced way of life which promotes oneness with the divine and all which exists.' What is Wicca by Herne (read more (http://wicca.com/celtic/wicca/wicca.htm))

To which I received further unsubstantiated statements by SwordEphesians6 (and decided it was time I brought the argument here to Wicca Land):

"Harmonious? Really? Bending the forces of nature to your will? Hardly seems harmonious to me. (I used to dabble in this stuff)"

"Wicca is ancient, it is paganism revived, a lane on the road to destruction."

"Wicca is an evil, demonic power thirsty faith."

Of course I asked for specifics and I'm sure I'll get some details, but in the meantime I thought it best to bring it here and direct the flow of argument here as best as I can.

Peace,
Eric

The Mad Hatter's Tea Party
(stuff I normally only think about after the fact)


"Wicca is both a religion and a Craft. ... As a religion - like any other religion - its purpose is to put the individual and the group in harmony with the divine creative principal of the Cosmos, and its manifestation at all levels. As a Craft, its purpose is to achieve practical ends by psychic means, for good, useful and healing purposes. In both aspects, the distinguishing characteristics of Wicca are its Nature- based attitude, its small group autonomy with no gulf between priesthood and 'congregation', and its philosophy of creative polarity at all levels, from Goddess and God to Priestess and Priest.' "

Janet and Stewart Farrar, Eight Sabbats For Witches, Robert Hale, London, 1981.

From: Wicca and Witchcraft (http://www.nz.paganfederation.org/wicca.php) (Pagan Federation - New Zealand)

76038


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxPEA1mBer4
"Herne" by Jenna Greene ( Album: Crossroads )

[Bill the Cat]

As I stated in the other thread:

That's just the window dressing. None of that is anchored in any reality. It is a feelings based response used to draw you away from the truth of the resurrection. "Oneness" with God only comes through Jesus Christ, not any peaceful, harmonious and balanced act we perform.

I'll ask a counter question... What is the foundation of Wicca?

[Durthorin]

Define Foundation: The Foundational Practice, Belief or History?

At a short, The Foundation of most Pagan faiths of which Wicca is one is the practice of our faith to bring us closer to the divine which we see in all things and all people All is One.

Blessed Be, Dur

[Bill the Cat]

Define Foundation: The Foundational Practice, Belief or History?

The foundation of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a single historic event we point to as the bedrock of our faith. Everything else depends on that historical fact.

[Cerebrum123]

:popcorn:
Don't mind me folks, I just want to see how this one plays out.

[Cow Poke]

The foundation of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a single historic event we point to as the bedrock of our faith. Everything else depends on that historical fact.

1 Cor 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

[Sparko]

and "evil" doesn't necessarily mean something horrible and mean. It is anything that detracts men from worshiping the true God, so in that respect, all other religions and even atheism is "evil"

[Durthorin]

The foundation of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a single historic event we point to as the bedrock of our faith. Everything else depends on that historical fact.

But it is not a historical fact, there is no historical evidence of the event, the resurrection is something that you accept as a matter of faith. Sorry.

Blessed Be, Dur

[Durthorin]

1 Cor 15:12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen: 14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

*smile* Sorry quoting the Bible to me is about like a Moslem quoting the Koran to you.. Null program. I don't believe the Bible.

Blessed Be, Dur

[Durthorin]

and "evil" doesn't necessarily mean something horrible and mean. It is anything that detracts men from worshiping the true God, so in that respect, all other religions and even atheism is "evil"

Very true, arguing that any non-Christian faith is good to a Christian is by the definition of your faith a waste of time. So I never bother on that one. The Christian faith requires that any non-Christian is either ignorant or willfully evil. Such is life.

Blessed Be, Dur

[Sparko]

But it is not a historical fact, there is no historical evidence of the event, the resurrection is something that you accept as a matter of faith. Sorry.

Blessed Be, Dur

Of course there is historical evidence. We have several eye witness testimonies to it. That is pretty much the only type of historical evidence we have of any event in history, written records, and many times it isn't even from eye witnesses, but written by others decades and centuries after the event.

[Cow Poke]

*smile* Sorry quoting the Bible to me is about like a Moslem quoting the Koran to you.. Null program. I don't believe the Bible.

Blessed Be, Dur

You asked a question about our foundation. That you don't believe it doesn't make it null. Program fail.

Bless your heart.

[Sparko]

Very true, arguing that any non-Christian faith is good to a Christian is by the definition of your faith a waste of time. So I never bother on that one. The Christian faith requires that any non-Christian is either ignorant or willfully evil. Such is life.

Blessed Be, Dur

It's just logical. If Christianity is true, then logically all other religions are false.

[headheart]

It's just logical. If Christianity is true, then logically all other religions are false.

If
Rudyard Kipling


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jdkaLCGM5k

[Scrawly]

But it is not a historical fact, there is no historical evidence of the event, the resurrection is something that you accept as a matter of faith. Sorry.

Blessed Be, Dur

No historical evidence? Really? So why do people like Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, NT Wright, to name a few, write entire volumes on the historicity of the resurrection? Also why do critical scholars accept that same historical evidence ?

[headheart]

As I stated in the other thread:

That's just the window dressing. None of that is anchored in any reality. It is a feelings based response used to draw you away from the truth of the resurrection. "Oneness" with God only comes through Jesus Christ, not any peaceful, harmonious and balanced act we perform.

I'll ask a counter question... What is the foundation of Wicca?

No, no, no, no you will not ask a counter question, you will first defend your accusation against facts and not use this thread as a place to promote your particular faith view of reality.

Your challenge was: (refer: Post 6 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150852-Is-Mormonism-or-Wicca-on-your-agenda&p=3403195#post3403195) in Is Mormonism or Wicca on your agenda? ) where you stated:

"Wicca has no foundation in reality."

This is the only sentence I am interested in at the moment, because it is an unsubstantiated accusation and fails outright to take into consideration the beliefs of another.

Once we are done with that, then you are welcome to start a thread informing others why your beliefs have a foundation in reality. btw. Your choice of proof-text does not go a long way to support your claim. Personally, I'd have a close look at what aspects of your belief have a 'foundation in reality' before thundering down on those of others.

Peace,
Eric

[SwordEphesians6]

First off I apolagise for the intrusion into the LDS forums, I just clicked a link and typed away. Thanks for the welcome Headheart.

1) We first need to recognise we are all acting on presuppositions here. If you don't want Christains to point to the Bible then you are going to have to give a reason as to why you reject its historicty. The resurrection of Christ Jesus is the most well documented fact of the past two millinia and has effected millions of people in various ways. You must give a foundation for Wicca for it even to be considered legitimate. We have ours, the resurrection, though there are many other stones in the archway that rely on it as a capstone, such as prophecy, miracles and Christian testimony today.

2) Durthorin states: At a short, The Foundation of most Pagan faiths of which Wicca is one is the practice of our faith to bring us closer to the divine which we see in all things and all people All is One.
You need to provide a why you see these things as something that can bring you closer to the "divine" and also tell us how your particular pagan belief views deity. I know one thing, it cannot be necessary nor can it be any of the omni qualities we find in the Lord God. Why do you hold to this faith? Justify these things if you please.

3) Sparko states: "and "evil" doesn't necessarily mean something horrible and mean. It is anything that detracts men from worshiping the true God, so in that respect, all other religions and even atheism is "evil" "
Durthorin states in response to Sparko: "Very true, arguing that any non-Christian faith is good to a Christian is by the definition of your faith a waste of time. So I never bother on that one. The Christian faith requires that any non-Christian is either ignorant or willfully evil. Such is life.

Blessed Be, Dur "

We need to understand what "good" and "evil" are in an objective sense. For anything to be good or evil it must be defined by a necessary being which holds good within its nature such as the Lord does. Anything that is then evil follows to be a privation of said good, and thus displeasing to the goodness of the nature of God. I would be interested to know how Wiccans define good and evil, as when I was once dabbling in said Wiccan practices the only thing any of us cared about was our own selfish desires to become more powerful.

I look forward to a response. May the Living Lord save you.

[Bill the Cat]

No, no, no, no you will not ask a counter question, you will first defend your accusation against facts and not use this thread as a place to promote your particular faith view of reality.

What facts? You have presented no positive evidence for anything! I have given you the fact of the resurrection as the foundation for Christianity, and I eagerly await you giving me a similar historical event for the founding of Wicca.


Your challenge was: (refer: Post 6 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150852-Is-Mormonism-or-Wicca-on-your-agenda&p=3403195#post3403195) in Is Mormonism or Wicca on your agenda? ) where you stated:

"Wicca has no foundation in reality."

This is the only sentence I am interested in at the moment, because it is an unsubstantiated accusation and fails outright to take into consideration the beliefs of another.

I am not interested in the "beliefs" of another in this accusation. Show me the evidence! If you have a positive evidentiary claim for the foundation of Wicca, I'm all ears. But as of now, I've never seen or heard any.


Once we are done with that, then you are welcome to start a thread informing others why your beliefs have a foundation in reality.

Sorry, Eric. That's not how it is done. I made a very succinct comparison and I challenge you to prove positive and real evidence for Wicca.


btw. Your choice of proof-text does not go a long way to support your claim.

It wasn't intended to support any claim. It was a bit of wisdom for one like you who is dabbling in things that the Lord said not to. You are certainly free to take it or leave it.


Personally, I'd have a close look at what aspects of your belief have a 'foundation in reality' before thundering down on those of others.

I'll take the reality of the resurrection, an actual historical event, over feelings any day.

[headheart]

What facts?

You're a big boy why don't you read the opening post and relative links and then present something that is more in line with the sort of post one might expect from a Department Head.

Goodbye,
Eric

[Bill the Cat]

You're a big boy why don't you read the opening post and relative links and then present something that is more in line with the sort of post one might expect from a Department Head.

Goodbye,
Eric

What makes you think I didn't read them? There is no historical foundation on anything you linked to. But, since you don't trust my words... how about a respected wiccan writer?

Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today by Margot Adler, 1979

The Wiccan revival starts with a myth, that Witchcraft is a religion that dates back to paleolithic times, to the worship of the god of the hunt and the goddess of fertility. . . . Today most revivalist Witches in North America accept the universal Old Religion more as metaphor than as literal reality--a spiritual truth more than a geographic one.

[Cow Poke]

What makes you think I didn't read them? There is no historical foundation on anything you linked to. But, since you don't trust my words... how about a respected wiccan writer?

Drawing Down the Moon: Witches, Druids, Goddess-Worshippers, and Other Pagans in America Today by Margot Adler, 1979

The Wiccan revival starts with a myth, that Witchcraft is a religion that dates back to paleolithic times, to the worship of the god of the hunt and the goddess of fertility. . . . Today most revivalist Witches in North America accept the universal Old Religion more as metaphor than as literal reality--a spiritual truth more than a geographic one.

Kinda sounds like Kwanzaa

[headheart]

Kinda sounds like Kwanzaa

Not even




close.

[Cow Poke]

Not even




close.

Kwanzaa ALSO claimed, initially, to have a rich cultural background, until it was shown that it was invented by Maulana Karenga in 1966 as an alternative to white people's Christmas. (Then, later, NOT an alternative to Christmas, but "additional". :shrug:)

So, yeah, kinda.

[Darth Executor]

At a short, The Foundation of most Pagan faiths of which Wicca is one

Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to lump in the foundation of Wicca which was invented in the 20th century with "most Pagan faiths", some (mostly the dead ones) of which are quite ancient?

[headheart]

Kwanzaa ALSO claimed, initially, to have a rich cultural background, until it was shown that it was invented by Maulana Karenga in 1966 as an alternative to white people's Christmas. (Then, later, NOT an alternative to Christmas, but "additional". :shrug:)

So, yeah, kinda.

None of this addresses Bill The Cat's statement (refer: Post 16 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403637#post3403637) ) and if that's all you've got.

I Fart In Your General Direction! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA)

[Cow Poke]

None of this addresses the Bill The Cat's statement and if that's all you've got.

Calm yourself, brother... The article Bill posted stated...


Today most revivalist Witches in North America accept the universal Old Religion more as metaphor than as literal reality--a spiritual truth more than a geographic one.

To which I replied, in comparison....


Kwanzaa ALSO claimed, initially, to have a rich cultural background, until it was shown that it was invented by Maulana Karenga in 1966 as an alternative to white people's Christmas. (Then, later, NOT an alternative to Christmas, but "additional". :shrug:)

So, yeah, it does. :glare:


I Fart In Your General Direction! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWBUl7oT9sA)

Well, yeah, that doesn't surprise me at all. :shrug:

[headheart]

Calm yourself, brother...

Calm as a jelly fish. :lol:

The thing is that though this addresses foundation ideas that was was the second question, not my question which relates more generally.

Now take a deep breath and calm down. Read it slowly and thoughtfully and then try again.

"Wicca has no foundation in reality." (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403637#post3403637)

Peace,
Eric

[Cow Poke]

Calm as a jelly fish. :lol:

The thing is that though this addresses foundation ideas that was was the second question, not my question which relates more generally.

Now take a deep breath and calm down. Read it slowly and thoughtfully and then try again.

"Wicca has no foundation in reality." (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403637#post3403637)

Peace,
Eric

I don't know why I ever try to have a sensible discussion with you. :shrug: And, actually, I was responding to Bill, NOT you.

Bye, Eric!

[headheart]

First off I apolagise for the intrusion into the LDS forums, I just clicked a link and typed away. Thanks for the welcome Headheart.

No harm, you are most welcome as long as you refrain from using such strong language when describing Wicca. Not everyone who is has had the same experiences that you have had and so it's best to dial those flames right down and not follow the example of others who don't seem to know how to show respect for their thinking and beliefs.
The reason that I don't want Christians to sandbag this discussion with comparisons with their view of reality is because that is not in question.
The primary statement that was made by Bill The Cat, namely: "Wicca has no foundation in reality." (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403637#post3403637) is what is being considered at this time. (refer also post 27 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403729#post3403729))

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

I don't know why I ever try to have a sensible discussion with you. :shrug: And, actually, I was responding to Bill, NOT you.

Bye, Eric!

I don't recall having spoken to you in the past. :shrug:

Then don't quote me. (refer: Post 26 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403721#post3403721) )

NB: Conversation in a discussion such as this are progressive and open to anyone who wants comment. Not just Department Heads who want to force and agenda!!!!

Sure, bye-bye then,

Peace,
Eric.

[Bill the Cat]

Post 20 still remains unaddressed.

[headheart]

Post 20 still remains unaddressed.

Refer: Post 26 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403729#post3403729)

Peace,
Eric.

[Cow Poke]

I don't recall having spoken to you in the past. :shrug:

Oh, you HAVE! :smile: I was somebody else back then.


Then don't quote me. (refer: Post 26 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403721#post3403721) )

NB: Conversation in a discussion such as this are progressive and open to anyone who wants comment. Not just Department Heads who want to force and agenda!!!!

I think you have Department Head Envy. :lmbo:


Sure, bye-bye then,

Peace,
Eric.

I'm not talking to you. :glare:

[Bill the Cat]

Refer: Post 26 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403729#post3403729)

Peace,
Eric.

CP posted Post 26. You asked for evidence for my assertation. I gave you a Wiccan's testimony on the subject. Now, it's your turn to answer. What is the foundation of Wicca?

[headheart]

CP posted Post 26. You asked for evidence for my assertation. I gave you a Wiccan's testimony on the subject. Now, it's your turn to answer. What is the foundation of Wicca?

Oops, the links was good the post number was wrong. Please try post 27. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403729#post3403729)

Gotta go shopping now.
Bye-bye,
Eric.

[Bill the Cat]

Oops, the links was good the post number was wrong. Please try post 27. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403729#post3403729)

Gotta go shopping now.
Bye-bye,
Eric.

Still doesn't address my evidence. I showed you a WICCAN author that said modern wicca has no actual historical root. Or are you going to nitpick my choice of words?

[Sparko]

What the heck happened to you Eric???

Wicca? Really?

[SwordEphesians6]

No harm, you are most welcome as long as you refrain from using such strong language when describing Wicca. Not everyone who is has had the same experiences that you have had and so it's best to dial those flames right down and not follow the example of others who don't seem to know how to show respect for their thinking and beliefs.
The reason that I don't want Christians to sandbag this discussion with comparisons with their view of reality is because that is not in question.
The primary statement that was made by Bill The Cat, namely: "Wicca has no foundation in reality." (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403637#post3403637) is what is being considered at this time. (refer also post 27 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3403729#post3403729))

Peace,
Eric

My respect must be earned where it is not commanded of me by the Lord. As it stands, Wicca is not eligible for such respect, meagre as it may be. AS for your insistance on this statement:

"Wicca has no foundation in reality."
I'm shocked to see how litereally you are taking it - something I'd expect from the sceptics in the chat room I moderate. It is obvious that Bill was making a comparative statement to his own faith. The statement is trying to say that there is no historical basis for Wicca to the extent that Christianity does - making it an unreasonable faith. To try and force the meaning that Wicca has absolutely no foundation is to show yourself in possession of a rampant pedantic attitude and a good eye for quote mining.

[headheart]

What the heck happened to you Eric???

Wicca? Really?

Don't worry your little pirates head. If you really want to know where I am at. Note, if you r e a l l y want to know where I'm at then read post 17 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150852-Is-Mormonism-or-Wicca-on-your-agenda&p=3403648#post3403648) on the thread which you sent up river to the Comp. Rel. Forum.

Peace,
Eric

[Sparko]

Don't worry your little pirates head. If you really want to know where I am at. Note, if you r e a l l y want to know where I'm at then read post 17 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150852-Is-Mormonism-or-Wicca-on-your-agenda&p=3403648#post3403648) on the thread which you sent up river to the Comp. Rel. Forum.

Peace,
Eric
tldr

[headheart]

My respect must be earned where it is not commanded of me by the Lord. As it stands, Wicca is not eligible for such respect, meagre as it may be.

It doesn't work like that in the "real" world. In the words of Tanita Tikaram 'the world outside your window isn't free' Being a Christian does not give you a mandate to make wild and insulting comments about people who do not share the same beliefs that you do. (refer my opening post just in case you have forgotten how HOT your words are!) If that is how you are going to roll here, then I think you will find that you'll either become a Department Head :wink: or you'll end up finding that most of the people you want to share your beliefs with will put you on their ignore list along with all the other hot-headed trolls.

Your second answer is a goodish one but fails because BTC altered it once it became clear that his primary thesis was flawed. Unless he withdraws that he will have to substantiate his charge or feel the crack of the whip of truth dealt you in the previous stanza. Don't hide behind BTC for your comments are far HOTTER than his and in due time you will need to present strong arguments to make them hold or else do the same.

Goodbye.
Eric.

[headheart]

d
tldr

If that is the standard of discussion, argument and debate on this forum then I guess I am wasting my t i m e with the likes of ye witch burning evangelical nomads.

Goodbye,
Eric

[SwordEphesians6]

It doesn't work like that in the "real" world. In the words of Tanita Tikaram 'the world outside your window isn't free' Being a Christian does not give you a mandate to make wild and insulting comments about people who do not share the same beliefs that you do.

Indeed, my comments were hot - and rightly so. You are forgetting I was a Wiccan, once, and know the penalties for such practices. My respect is earned, though I did mention I hold any respect you may get from me to be meagre. I'm just an A Level student, my respect should not be worth much to anyone. No, though I choose who to respect, it is no great thing to posses it.


Your second answer is a goodish one but fails because BTC altered it once it became clear that his primary thesis was flawed. Unless he withdraws that he will have to substantiate his charge or feel the crack of the whip of truth dealt you in the previous stanza.

Bill can fight for himself, I am sure. Whilst I interpreted his comment to be comparative, mine was not. I do believe Wicca to be objectively evil.


Don't hide behind BTC for your comments are far HOTTER than his and in due time you will need to present strong arguments to make the hold or else do the same.

Who is hiding? Once you decide to stop speaking with Bill, or visa versa, I shall present a defence of what I stated - that is, why I believe Wicca to be pure evil, demonic and power thirsty. I don't think I need to remind you of what I said back in post 17 about presuppositions and fully expect you to understand that I will be making a Christian argument. To ask me to do otherwise is like asking a man running for prime minister not to argue from his policies.

[headheart]

SwordEphesians6,

Seeing as you are happy to piggyback ride on BTC flawed thesis instead of answering directly with regard to the HEAT that you generated. Let's have look at your primary thesis:

"Wicca is pure evil, I used to dabble in it."

Like I said what exactly do you mean by 'I used to dabble in it' ? Please be specific.

Obviously you have very strong feelings about this but the first part of your primary thesis is clearly nonsense. What on earth is 'pure evil' and how does this relate to Wicca?

Peace,
Eric.

[Cow Poke]

I'm shocked to see how litereally you are taking it - something I'd expect from the sceptics in the chat room I moderate. It is obvious that Bill was making a comparative statement to his own faith. The statement is trying to say that there is no historical basis for Wicca to the extent that Christianity does - making it an unreasonable faith. To try and force the meaning that Wicca has absolutely no foundation is to show yourself in possession of a rampant pedantic attitude and a good eye for quote mining.

Ummmm... you quoted something I quoted -- not something I said. :shrug:

[headheart]

I'm just an A Level student, my respect should not be worth much to anyone.

Alright Jack. I must say for someone so young you certainly know how to assemble sentences far better than most the jugglers and clowns around here . Are you sure you don't have someone writing out you splendid volleys or is that just a really great education banging at my door? I'll go for the latter. You have youth on your side, but having had a pretty dark journey myself and currently rewriting a book that I wrote about "Witchcraft" (from a Christian perspective) and hoping for a more balanced approach I have spent hours on the Celtic Connection Forum in direct dialogue with witches (Wiccans and those into Traditional Witchcraft) unlearning a lot of the stuff that is fed to Christians who have been primed by those who know about the beliefs but not the people. I was also a member at ex-witch and though my then Hyper-Calvinist stance got me the boot, I learned enough about ex-witches to know that not everything in Wicca is wretched. (I could elaborate but I would really like those who are hammering down on me to make some effort to assemble more than cliches in the way they are approaching a subject which has held my attention for quite a few years now.) I don't even want to begin to talk about the shocks that I had moving from South Africa to England. A whole other story indeed!!!!


I don't think I need to remind you of what I said back in post 17 about presuppositions and fully expect you to understand that I will be making a Christian argument.

Okay. I can understand that you don't have a considerable archive of information to draw from and in your case I am willing to let you get on with that. Obviously, others are going to want to back-you-up and so I will probably not be able to respond as I might have. Anyhow it's over to you then, young Jack.

Peace,
Old Man (54)
Eric.

[Bill the Cat]

... BTC flawed thesis .

You've yet to show a flaw, Eric.

[headheart]

You've yet to show a flaw, Eric.

Oh, I have many floors. You might like to start off by reading my first draft of 'Witchcraft' (http://www.delusionresistance.org/christian/wicca.html) by Eric Sawyer (roughly 12 years ago)

Peace,
Eric

[SwordEphesians6]

Seeing as you are happy to piggyback ride on BTC flawed thesis instead of answering directly with regard to the HEAT that you generated. Let's have look at your primary thesis:

Piggyback? What? Other than that you are yet to explain why Bill's statement is flawed and just keep saying it is entirely flawed in your view. You need to present some sort of historical foundation for Wicca.


Like I said what exactly do you mean by 'I used to dabble in it' ? Please be specific.

I mean that I and a friend of mine did what every Wiccan does. We worked to become more in tune to the magical/divine essence around us, and utilise said essence as we saw fit. We cast spells and lusted after power. We wanted to gain even more power, something that I am not willing to share the specifics of, but am willing to say that it stopped me from practising such wicked things.


Obviously you have very strong feelings about this but the first part of your primary thesis is clearly nonsense. What on earth is 'pure evil' and how does this relate to Wicca?

Pure evil is the privation of pure good. See point three on post seventeen.


Okay. I can understand that you don't have a considerable archive of information to draw from and in your case I am willing to let you get on with that.

I may surprise you yet.


"Wicca is pure evil, I used to dabble in it."

Pure evil is indeed Wicca, as it is not of the Lord it is a privation of the only good there is: that which he encapsulates in his nature. Its rather simple really.


I was also a member at ex-witch and though my then Hyper-Calvinist stance got me the boot, I learned enough about ex-witches to know that not everything in Wicca is wretched.

What is your stance now then? Apostate? LDS? Wiccan?

[headheart]

You say:


I mean that I and a friend of mine did what every Wiccan does. We worked to become more in tune to the magical/divine essence around us, and utilise said essence as we saw fit. We cast spells and lusted after power. We wanted to gain even more power, something that I am not willing to share the specifics of, but am willing to say that it stopped me from practising such wicked things.

Ah_______ their in lies the problem. So you were a seeker but did you ever receive proper teaching in the fundamentals of Wicca?

Here are a few excepts for you to consider based on my research :


‘Witchcraft or Wicca is not a cult. We do not proclaim ourselves to be spokespersons for the divine or try to get others to follow us as their leaders.

We do not worship Satan or consort with Demons. Satan is a Christian creation and they can keep him. We do not need a paranoid creation of supreme evil and eternal damnation to scare us into doing the right thing and helping others. We choose to do the right thing and love our brothers and sisters because it IS the right thing and it feels good to do it. I suppose it is a maturity thing.

We do not sacrifice animals or humans because that would violate our basic tenant of “Harm None.” Anyone who does and claims to be a Wiccan or a Witch is lying.

We have no need to steal or control the life force of another to achieve mystical or supernatural powers. We draw our energy from within, our personal relationship with the divine and nature.

We do not use the forces of nature or the universe to hex or cast spells on others. Again, “Harm None” is the whole of the law.’

From: The Lighter Side (http://aerycksmusic.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/wicca-n-witchcraft-the-lighter-side/) by Eric Sawyer / From a discussion at the Celtic Connection.


'From the beginning I was very upfront about my reasons for being on TCC Forums and as a result I found them to be very friendly but cautious because of trolls.
After a quick introduction I visited the Arts, Literature and Music forum and then opened up a post which generated more than enough information on the subject of Wicca ‘n Witchcraft.

I asked three questions.

Is Wicca a religion with a set creed ?

If no, what is consistenly believed among Wiccans ?

If yes, what is the creed ?

What follows is only a summary of the responses and replies to my questions, as the forum is for members only.(Private)

Though I am not going to go into the details of our friendly discussion, I am happy to share my list of 9 possible topics which I gleaned from our discussion, topics which I think might be helpful in understanding Wicca.

1. Wiccan Belief.
2. Wiccan Principle.
3. Working Tool Association.
4. Working Tool Use.
5. Magical Responsibility.

6. Wiccan Rede.
a. It’s Meaning
b. Basic Practical Guidelines.

7. The Personal Self-Dedication Rite.
8. Details of the further training.
9. A description of the three degrees.

Apart from a colossal list of books that I was referred to, it was indicated that I “seek” for “Wicca is a seeking religion.” I was also informed that there were three books that might be helpful in giving me a better understanding of ‘Wicca’

1. “A Witches’ Bible” by Janet & Stewart Farrar
2. “Drawing Down The Moon” by Margot Adler
3. “Wicca” – A Guide For The Solitary Practitioner by Scott Cunningham (Includes Author’s Book of Shadows)

There was also mention of Raymond Buckland’s “Complete Book of Witchcraft” and a general consensus that ‘Wicca’ was started by Gerald Gardener in the early nineteen fifties. (I’ll try to add more details about this and others in subsequent linked posts.) I’m hoping to start separate posts, discussing each of the 9 topics.(above)'

From: Witchraft Exposed (Part 2) (http://aerycksmusic.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/witchcraft-exposed-part-2-reexamined/) Reexamined! by Eric Sawyer



Pure evil is the privation of pure good. See point three on post seventeen.

I'm going to leave Durthorin to reply to you as you've included both Sparko's and his comments in this regard. You might have to wait a while but I'm sure in due course he'll reply to you, when he is ready.


I may surprise you yet.

I'm sure you will.


Pure evil is indeed Wicca, as it is not of the Lord it is a privation of the only good there is: that which he encapsulates in his nature. Its rather simple really.

'I'm going to leave Durthorin to reply to you as you've included both Sparko's and his comments in this regard. You might have to wait a while but I'm sure in due course he'll reply to you, when he is ready.'


What is your stance now then? Apostate? LDS? Wiccan?

Neither. I'm a Smeagologist.

Peace,
Eric.

[Durthorin]

No historical evidence? Really? So why do people like Mike Licona, Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, NT Wright, to name a few, write entire volumes on the historicity of the resurrection? Also why do critical scholars accept that same historical evidence ?

But they don't. That a man named Jesus may have existed, yes.. that he rose from the dead and this was confirmed positively not. The only ones who accept the Resurrection as a fact are strangely enough .. Christians.

Blessed Be, Dur

[Catholicity]

Wicca is what one might call Gardenerian Practice. That said.....in the occult, I was a solitary, anti-Gardenarian. So I wouldn't be one to answer any questions about Wicca. life has taught me that I don't believe that the teenage-young adult population who seeks after Wicca/Gardenarian practice is evil/demonic/power thirsty. I think often they are hurt, agnostic seeking young teens/adults looking for something greater to assist them in life. Many may have been raised in and hurt by the church. Well this is my personal experience.

[Sparko]

But they don't. That a man named Jesus may have existed, yes.. that he rose from the dead and this was confirmed positively not. The only ones who accept the Resurrection as a fact are strangely enough .. Christians.

Blessed Be, Dur

well gee Dur, if you accepted the Resurrection, wouldn't you be a Christian too? Why would someone accept the ressurection and not be a Christian? :duh:

but you are also wrong in claiming that his resurrection is not historical evidence. Of course it is. It was written by eye witnesses. The church itself started AFTER Jesus died. Why would it start if he stayed dead, if it is based on his resurrection? Apparently a lot of people believed it was true at the time and many wrote about it. We have no refutations of it either. It is historical evidence.

[SwordEphesians6]

But they don't. That a man named Jesus may have existed, yes.. that he rose from the dead and this was confirmed positively not. The only ones who accept the Resurrection as a fact are strangely enough .. Christians.

Blessed Be, Dur

Probably because once you realise the resurrection is a historical fact, you have no choice but to profess Christ as Lord. Take Lee Strobel for instance.

[Durthorin]

Let me begin in a certain fashion so that those who don't know me will know where I was, where I walked and how I came here. Was I always Pagan/Wicca, No once long ago I was Christian/Southern Baptist. A Sunday school teacher among other things and what I think of as devote in my faith. But over years and over certain crisis in my life I found myself looking at my faith.. not just that cursory inspection but looking deeply at what it was in in my life, what it did and what it accomplished in the lives of others. At a particular point almost 30 some odd years ago.. I found myself under the sky asking for the Gods to give me and answer and the Goddess did. I have followed this path every since. Some may ask why, in my mind in my spirit its not a question, my Goddess is real, she has healed me and helped me, lifted me up and supported me over 30 years. I have been dead on an operating table and told after I came back I would never walk or lift my arm by science.. and then prayed and to Her, felt Her and within three months was running 3 miles each morning and lifting weights. I have raised two healthy happy children into adulthood, one who follows my path and is in the Air Force, the other more eclectic working on her doctorate while being marred to the same woman for over 35 years. this is all to point out that I have had life experience, I am not some weird flake hugging trees nor am I somewhat divorced from reality, My hobby is the study of military history so I am no stranger to research.



1) We first need to recognise we are all acting on presuppositions here. If you don't want Christains to point to the Bible then you are going to have to give a reason as to why you reject its historicty. The resurrection of Christ Jesus is the most well documented fact of the past two millinia and has effected millions of people in various ways. You must give a foundation for Wicca for it even to be considered legitimate. We have ours, the resurrection, though there are many other stones in the archway that rely on it as a capstone, such as prophecy, miracles and Christian testimony today.


Agreed and yours is that the resurrection of Christ Jesus is fact. It isn't, it is to use a phrase "a reputed event", an event reputed to have taken place only by those who have a vested interest in it. Other sources report Christians saying it took place, they do not support the event actually took place. An here we get into one of the primary differences between Pagan and Christian religions, yours is a religion based on a creed which demands belief in an event. If not all of Christianity is a lie and means nothing. ignoring that as a system of behavior, morals and ethics.. the Resurrection is not required. While most Pagan faiths are about what you do. So we are in essence starting from two separate world views.




We need to understand what "good" and "evil" are in an objective sense. For anything to be good or evil it must be defined by a necessary being which holds good within its nature such as the Lord does. Anything that is then evil follows to be a privation of said good, and thus displeasing to the goodness of the nature of God. I would be interested to know how Wiccans define good and evil, as when I was once dabbling in said Wiccan practices the only thing any of us cared about was our own selfish desires to become more powerful.

An again we hit the problem of world view, I do not define Good or Evil in relationship to your God. To me for example the genocide ordered by God is by the nature of the act, evil.. therefore ipso facto, the God who ordered it is evil. Therefore using him as a touchstone to define good fails. As for dabbling, to quote a Christian friend, Dabblers are a curse on all faiths.. One does not dabble in a faith.. one commits to it follows it, studies it, learns it, prays about it and in the end allows it to change your life. A dabbler by his nature is "looking" for what that faith will give him... and wrong attitude usually results in wrong result. In Wicca or in Christianity.

Blessed Be Dur.

PS: My time is limited and I will respond as time permits, but one reason I stopped lurking about here is I simply did not have the spare time to spend.. so bear with me if the response is days in coming rather than hours.

[Durthorin]

Don't you think it's a bit disingenuous to lump in the foundation of Wicca which was invented in the 20th century with "most Pagan faiths", some (mostly the dead ones) of which are quite ancient?

Not really. How do you define Pagan? Hinduism? Is a Buddhist Pagan? By some Christian definitions any faith not Christian is "Pagan" An Wicca is borrows from older theology variations an from other existing Pagan faiths.. at its core again, Wicca is not about who you believe in but "how you live."

Blessed Be, Dur

[Catholicity]

Darth, Wicca is definately a pagan belief system, however you think of it. Gardener borrowed a lot from Crowley, Celtic, and various Mythologies. Wicca is kind of a Hodgepodge of Paganism. In fact I think its referenced in the "Neopaganism" movement. Pagan the word actually means country dweller, however more often it is associated with polytheism or indigenous religion. Wicca being part of a new aspect of polytheistic religions is appropriately called "neopagan"

[Durthorin]

well gee Dur, if you accepted the Resurrection, wouldn't you be a Christian too? Why would someone accept the ressurection and not be a Christian? :duh:

but you are also wrong in claiming that his resurrection is not historical evidence. Of course it is. It was written by eye witnesses. The church itself started AFTER Jesus died. Why would it start if he stayed dead, if it is based on his resurrection? Apparently a lot of people believed it was true at the time and many wrote about it. We have no refutations of it either. It is historical evidence.

Well, since I was a Christian, past tense. I at one point in my younger years did accept it. Actually the majority of people up till Constantine in fact didn't believe it. I think the figures were (pardon spelling) Diocletian's reign as emperor they were like 10% of the empire mostly in the cities. An that was about 300AD. They were the largest monotheistic cult of the time no doubt and there are a number of historians who wrote things derogatory to the Christian belief system, unfortunately what we have of those texts is fragmentary as the process which preserved the texts of that period was centered around the church an it can be assumed they didn't really see a reason to preserve thought critical of their faith.

Blessed be, Dur

[Durthorin]

Darth, Wicca is definately a pagan belief system, however you think of it. Gardener borrowed a lot from Crowley, Celtic, and various Mythologies. Wicca is kind of a Hodgepodge of Paganism. In fact I think its referenced in the "Neopaganism" movement. Pagan the word actually means country dweller, however more often it is associated with polytheism or indigenous religion. Wicca being part of a new aspect of polytheistic religions is appropriately called "neopagan"

Thank you, quite accurate. Blessed Be, Dur

[SwordEphesians6]

An here we get into one of the primary differences between Pagan and Christian religions, yours is a religion based on a creed which demands belief in an event. If not all of Christianity is a lie and means nothing. ignoring that as a system of behavior, morals and ethics.. the Resurrection is not required. While most Pagan faiths are about what you do. So we are in essence starting from two separate world views.

In other words you can't base your faith on anything save your own personal experience? Christian sources reporting the resurrection of Christ also report that the Jews accepted the body was gone. Taking in all the factors, such as the elite guards at the tomb, the Roman wax seal and the huge boulder then Christ must have risen. Another way of putting what you just said: "Christianity relies on history, with Wicca we just do what we do."



An again we hit the problem of world view, I do not define Good or Evil in relationship to your God. To me for example the genocide ordered by God is by the nature of the act, evil.. therefore ipso facto, the God who ordered it is evil. Therefore using him as a touchstone to define good fails.

The flip side to this is that you yourself worship a contingent goddess who relies on some other absolute truth in order to even make the claim that an act is evil by its own nature. In the Christian God, we have all that is good encapsulated in His nature - making Him a necessary being. Also I'd like you to point out to me where this genocide took place, though I'm sure you are referring to Joshua where there is no such event.

Yes I dabbled and fine, I don't claim to know more than you on this topic Dur so I shall cease mentioning it.

That is great you have such a nice family - though you should beware Galatians 1:8 (yes I know you do not believe it.)

[headheart]

Thank you, quite accurate. Blessed Be, Dur

Yes, it's good to see that somebody is actually reading and thinking before putting bear claw in mouth.


Darth, Wicca is definately a pagan belief system, however you think of it. Gardener borrowed a lot from Crowley, Celtic, and various Mythologies. Wicca is kind of a Hodgepodge of Paganism. In fact I think its referenced in the "Neopaganism" movement. Pagan the word actually means country dweller, however more often it is associated with polytheism or indigenous religion. Wicca being part of a new aspect of polytheistic religions is appropriately called "neopagan"

Here's something that I wanted to reference earlier but was sure it was in a longer answer and it turned out to be in the Question and Answers section at Witchcraft, Wicca and Paganism FAQ (http://wicca.com/celtic/wicca/faq.htm):



Q. Who do Witches Worship?

A. There is a single power defined as the One or All, which is composed of everything it has ever created. This supreme energy force does not rule over the Universe, it IS the Universe. Since most find it difficult to talk to or call upon a faceless mass of Divine energy, this supreme power is personified into male and female aspects as the Goddess and God. This simply makes the concept easier for the human mind to comprehend and relate to. Some take this concept a step further and use actual names, like Astarte, Isis, Odin, Pan, Dianna, Cernunnos, etc., when invoking the Goddess and God. In the end, it is a personal preference and what a Witch uses depends on what "feels" right for them individually.

There's more on the site but I think it's really a case of those who prefer to forge ahead with their opinions will do so regardless.

Peace,
Eric.

[headheart]

There are a couple more which might interest the earnest "seeker" :wink:


Q. How do Witches view Christianity. Are Witches Anti-Christian?

A. Not necessarily. Witchcraft, overall, is very tolerant of other religious views, and does not engage itself in criticizing the beliefs of other people, providing that their beliefs do not violate the basic tenant of "Harm None." Witches do object to religions that attempt to suppress the religious beliefs of others, or every human's right to seek spirituality in their own way. This is why there is a slight rub between Wiccans, Pagans, Witches, and some Christians. Many of them feel they have exclusive rights to the divine. We also have a strong disdain for those who use religion as an excuse to commit mass genocide. The "Burning Times" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Modern_European_witchcraft_trials)* are a clear historical example of one religious group attempting to exert its philosophies and beliefs upon others using extreme measures.

Perhaps an over simplified way of describing our view is this: Imagine a beautiful meadow in the forest, and their are many paths leading to this meadow. It really does not matter which path you take to get there, the important thing is that you get there without harming anyone or anything along the way.

From: Witchcraft, Wicca and Paganism FAQ (http://wicca.com/celtic/wicca/faq.htm)


Peace,
Eric

=============
*Ronald Hutton, in his unpublished essay "Counting the Witch Hunt", counted local estimates, and in areas where estimates were unavailable attempted to extrapolate from nearby regions with similar demographics and attitudes towards witch hunting. He reached an estimate of 40,000 total executions. Table of recorded and estimated executions according to Hutton's estimate. (refer: The Hall of Rememberance : Estimates of Executions > Recorded and Estimated (http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/remembrance/current.htm) )

[headheart]

Seeing as certain folks here who're not seem really quick to assume that I'm into Wicca might find this rather interesting, I know I did when I first read it some years back:


Q. Can I follow the path of Wicca or Witchcraft and be a Christian too?

A. Again, some say yes and others maintain that they are completely separate religions. I believe that if one looks closely at the true teachings of Jesus with an open heart, you will find some stark commonalities. It is only when one takes literally the sometimes frail misinterpretations of those who misunderstood the intent or used the teachings to suit their own political agendas that one see's wide differences.

As a solitary you are free to choose any path you desire, or any blend that "feels" right to you. The important thing is to not allow a name or word to become a stumbling block. It is the intent of your actions and spirituality that matters in the end. I realize it is a poor comparison; Peanut Butter and Chocolate are two completely separate things. The fact remains, however, that they work pretty well when mixed together. Ultimately you must do what "feels" right to you..

From: Witchcraft, Wicca and Paganism FAQ (http://wicca.com/celtic/wicca/faq.htm)

76096

Peace,
Eric

[SwordEphesians6]

Seeing as certain folks here who're not seem really quick to assume that I'm into Wicca might find this rather interesting, I know I did when I first read it some years back:

Peace,
Eric

Hogwash! Wicca denies the shema, how is it compaitble with Christian faith?

[Chrawnus]

There are a couple more which might interest the earnest "seeker" :wink:




Peace,
Eric

=============
*Ronald Hutton, in his unpublished essay "Counting the Witch Hunt", counted local estimates, and in areas where estimates were unavailable attempted to extrapolate from nearby regions with similar demographics and attitudes towards witch hunting. He reached an estimate of 40,000 total executions. Table of recorded and estimated executions according to Hutton's estimate. (refer: The Hall of Rememberance : Estimates of Executions > Recorded and Estimated (http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/remembrance/current.htm) )

Well, to be honest it doesn't matter what Wiccans think on the matter when it comes to whether or not their religion is anti-Christian or not. What's important is the definition of anti-christian that the Bible gives, which is:


Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

and:


By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

So, the question is, does Wicca qualify as anti-Christian under the above definitions? If so, Wicca is anti-Christian, regardless of whatever it's adherents claim. Of course, the converse is also true, namely, if Wicca doesn't deny that Jesus is the Christ and that He's from God, then it's not (necessarily an anti-Christian religion). However, if one accepts that Jesus is the Christ and that He's from God, then one must also accept his claim that he's the Way, the Truth and the Life and that no one comes to the Father except through him. Anything less would count as a rejection of Jesus, which, IMO, means that one is anti-Christian.

So, to sum it up, if a religion denies that Jesus is the only way to having a relationship with God then that religion is anti-Christian, whatever it's adherents may claim. :shrug:

[headheart]

Jack,
I'm sure that Durthorin will reply to your comment but seeing as I'm in the FAQs I thought it might help you to get a better understanding of 6. Wiccan Rede (which I referred to in Post 50 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3404319#post3404319) ) before that happens:


....Wicca we just do what we do."



Q. The Wiccan Rede says "An it harm none, do as ye will." Does that mean a Witch can do anything they want and its OK if they justify the action to themselves?

A. An excellent question indeed! and the answer is no... The whole premise of our belief system is based on living in harmony with all things that exist. This includes, but is not limited to the earth, trees, rivers, lakes, oceans, air, and all of earth's creatures, as well as other people without regard to race, color, religion, or sexual orientation.

( read the complete answer by clicking here >>> From: Witchcraft, Wicca and Paganism FAQ (http://wicca.com/celtic/wicca/faq.htm) )

Of course, you need to watch out for an occasional "ZAP" should you consistently do 'something very wrong within society and causing a lot of harm to others.'

76097

Kinda reminds of some of the verses in the New Testament. i.e., '....you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.' (1 Corinthians 5:5)

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

Hogwash! Wicca denies the shema, how is it compaitble with Christian faith?

You should try eating some of the 'Hogwash!' and read the FAQ instead of making more of your jabber-dabble-doob infamous HOT lines referred to in the opening post. It seems you are marching to the same tune as the TEKTON gang. Well, that's about if from me. Enjoy your 'Hogwash' sulphur stew while I head off to eat some yummy chicken for dinner.

Peace,
Eric

[Scrawly]

But they don't. That a man named Jesus may have existed, yes.. that he rose from the dead and this was confirmed positively not. The only ones who accept the Resurrection as a fact are strangely enough .. Christians.

Blessed Be, Dur

I think you misunderstood me. You originally claimed that there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. I stated that this is false because a broad spectrum of New Testament critics who teach at secular universities and non-evangelical seminaries have come to regard as historical the basic facts which support the resurrection of Jesus. I never said that these critics accept the resurrection of Jesus, instead they posit a naturalistic explanation to account for the facts (which I believe falls woefully short but that's not what I am arguing here). The facts/evidence for the resurrection of Jesus that you stated doesn't exist is as follows:


FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

This is not merely an appeal to authority. These facts are accepted by the majority of NT critical scholars for good reasons (not stated here because it would be too time consuming). I just wanted to establish that your claim that there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is simply false.

[Catholicity]

Here's something that I wanted to reference earlier but was sure it was in a longer answer and it turned out to be in the Question and Answers section at

Yes, Eric, I know the site, quite well.

Hogwash! Wicca denies the shema, how is it compaitble with Christian faith?

Paganism (now I'm speaking in general terms because I am not going to distinguish one pathway from the other) is as a general rule polytheistic, with its own beliefs and many many pagans are not Christians Indeed they deny the one and only God, Christ's resurrection etc. However ,every once in a while you may encounter some Christians who believe in (such as Amish, Celtic, African etc.) local folk traditions and some may even take part in such traditions without negating there belief in Christ. However these traditions are often centuries old. (This does not make them right or wrong many times they are neutral. Ex. A celtic home leaves out food believing it will bring them good luck. An Amish family uses lavender believing it wards away evil spirits etc.) Its a distinction when someone believes in other spirits (benign or malevolent) yet still worships the one and only God, and someone distinctly denies Him in favor of Another god. Many pagans do the latter. Its merely more than the Shema. Its a denial of God in favor of spirits and other gods.

[Durthorin]

Here's something that I wanted to reference earlier but was sure it was in a longer answer and it turned out to be in the Question and Answers section at Witchcraft, Wicca and Paganism FAQ (http://wicca.com/celtic/wicca/faq.htm):




There's more on the site but I think it's really a case of those who prefer to forge ahead with their opinions will do so regardless.

Peace,
Eric.

Yes its often taught as "From the One comes the Two, from the Two the Many."

Blessed Be, Dur

[Durthorin]

I think you misunderstood me. You originally claimed that there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. I stated that this is false because a broad spectrum of New Testament critics who teach at secular universities and non-evangelical seminaries have come to regard as historical the basic facts which support the resurrection of Jesus. I never said that these critics accept the resurrection of Jesus, instead they posit a naturalistic explanation to account for the facts (which I believe falls woefully short but that's not what I am arguing here). The facts/evidence for the resurrection of Jesus that you stated doesn't exist is as follows:


FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.

This is not merely an appeal to authority. These facts are accepted by the majority of NT critical scholars for good reasons (not stated here because it would be too time consuming). I just wanted to establish that your claim that there is no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is simply false.

Again, what you have is not fact but a supposition. It is a fact only to Christians. Sorry. You may accept those Biblical Scholars, I prefer Historians.

Blessed Be, Dur.

[Durthorin]

Well, to be honest it doesn't matter what Wiccans think on the matter when it comes to whether or not their religion is anti-Christian or not. What's important is the definition of anti-christian that the Bible gives, which is:


Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

and:


By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God;
and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God; this is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

So, the question is, does Wicca qualify as anti-Christian under the above definitions? If so, Wicca is anti-Christian, regardless of whatever it's adherents claim. Of course, the converse is also true, namely, if Wicca doesn't deny that Jesus is the Christ and that He's from God, then it's not (necessarily an anti-Christian religion). However, if one accepts that Jesus is the Christ and that He's from God, then one must also accept his claim that he's the Way, the Truth and the Life and that no one comes to the Father except through him. Anything less would count as a rejection of Jesus, which, IMO, means that one is anti-Christian.

So, to sum it up, if a religion denies that Jesus is the only way to having a relationship with God then that religion is anti-Christian, whatever it's adherents may claim. :shrug:

I would tend to say not Christian as opposed to anti-Christian, I don't oppose your faith I simply don't believe its basic tenant. But I accept that makes me according to you and enemy of your faith and your God. It does also make me glad I live in a society where freedom of religion is guaranteed by secular law. Not to say I think you would personal persecute nonChristians...

Blessed Be, Dur

[Sparko]

Again, what you have is not fact but a supposition. It is a fact only to Christians. Sorry. You may accept those Biblical Scholars, I prefer Historians.

Blessed Be, Dur.

so basically what you accept is historic and what you don't is supposition. I sure am glad we have such wonderful arbiters of truth as you to protect us from falling for suppositions.

[Durthorin]

In other words you can't base your faith on anything save your own personal experience? Christian sources reporting the resurrection of Christ also report that the Jews accepted the body was gone. Taking in all the factors, such as the elite guards at the tomb, the Roman wax seal and the huge boulder then Christ must have risen. Another way of putting what you just said: "Christianity relies on history, with Wicca we just do what we do."


My experience, the experience of other Pagans I have met in my journey, those of my Circle. "Christian sources".... Sorry, I'm sure Moslem sources can validate the claims of the Prophet.



The flip side to this is that you yourself worship a contingent goddess who relies on some other absolute truth in order to even make the claim that an act is evil by its own nature. In the Christian God, we have all that is good encapsulated in His nature - making Him a necessary being. Also I'd like you to point out to me where this genocide took place, though I'm sure you are referring to Joshua where there is no such event.


Numbers 25

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; CHECK

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; CHECK

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; CHECK

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; CHECK

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.CHECK


Blessed Be, Dur

[Durthorin]

so basically what you accept is historic and what you don't is supposition. I sure am glad we have such wonderful arbiters of truth as you to protect us from falling for suppositions.

I don't. I just don't believe it as you do.

Blessed Be, Dur

[Cerebrum123]

My experience, the experience of other Pagans I have met in my journey, those of my Circle. "Christian sources".... Sorry, I'm sure Moslem sources can validate the claims of the Prophet.



Numbers 25

Excerpt from the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of Genocide (For full text click here)
"Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group; CHECK

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; CHECK

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; CHECK

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; CHECK

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.CHECK


Blessed Be, Dur

Considering some of the claims of Mohammed, no there isn't a way for a Muslim to validate Mohammed. One of them being the failed prophecies. There are other reasons as well(such as declaring all women deficient in their intellect).

[Scrawly]

Again, what you have is not fact but a supposition. It is a fact only to Christians. Sorry. You may accept those Biblical Scholars, I prefer Historians.

Blessed Be, Dur.

The historical facts that I presented above are not only accepted by Christian's. They are accepted by the vast majority of NT critics. These are scholars that do not believe the Bible is the word of God. These are scholars that reject the resurrection of Jesus. Yet these same scholars accept the facts I stated in my previous post because they are well attested on historical grounds. You would be hard pressed to find a historian that has studied this issue, yet rejects those facts. Can you name some historians that do?

[headheart]

This might be a constant for those Christians who are engaged in a certain type of apologetic argument yet this view is not the only view.


The foundation of Christianity is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a single historic event we point to as the bedrock of our faith. Everything else depends on that historical fact.

This is something I read a few years ago:


'What Christianity is = If Christianity is in essence neither creed, nor a code, nor ceremonies, what is it? It is Christ. Whoever first coined the phrase "Christianity is Christ" hit bedrock. "No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid," wrote Paul, "which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. 3:11). He is the foundation on which the superstructure of Christianity is built. He is the jewel which the casket of Christianity treasures. Christianity is not a system of any kind - philosophical, ethical or ceremonial; it is a Person. Take Christ from Christianity and you murder it. Christianity without Christ is a dead and gruesome skeleton with neither flesh nor life. Once place Jesus Christ in the centre, and all other things follow - including both what you believe and how you behave. Dislodge Christ from His central position, and everything else is out of gear.'

From: Your Confirmation by J.W.R Stott

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

Yes, Eric, I know the site, quite well.


Paganism (now I'm speaking in general terms because I am not going to distinguish one pathway from the other) is as a general rule polytheistic, with its own beliefs and many many pagans are not Christians Indeed they deny the one and only God, Christ's resurrection etc. However ,every once in a while you may encounter some Christians who believe in (such as Amish, Celtic, African etc.) local folk traditions and some may even take part in such traditions without negating there belief in Christ. However these traditions are often centuries old. (This does not make them right or wrong many times they are neutral. Ex. A celtic home leaves out food believing it will bring them good luck. An Amish family uses lavender believing it wards away evil spirits etc.) Its a distinction when someone believes in other spirits (benign or malevolent) yet still worships the one and only God, and someone distinctly denies Him in favor of Another god. Many pagans do the latter. Its merely more than the Shema. Its a denial of God in favor of spirits and other gods.

Thanks for your sober minded replies. I refer back to post 61 and "Q. Who do Witches Worship?" = 'This supreme energy force does not rule over the Universe, it IS the Universe.' From: Witchcraft, Wicca and Paganism FAQ (http://wicca.com/celtic/wicca/faq.htm)

Now let's look at "The Concept of Deity" and compare that with the Hebrew question of "What is G-d?" being discussed by Tanakh Keeper, Shunyadragon, robrecht and moi (others are welcome)

A. The Celtic Connection > Wicca and Witchcraft Information Index > Wicca Concepts of Deity (http://wicca.com/celtic/wicca/concepts.htm)

I've left out the introduction, so you'll need to go through to read it all.

The Supreme Creative Force:

The One is the all encompassing unity of all things which exist. This includes that which is manifest to our limited awareness and understanding as well as that which is not. The One is infinite to a point that the human mind simply cannot comprehend its vastness.

Polarities of The One:

'The Goddess and God are seen as a manifestation of the feminine and masculine forces of nature. Each having unique characteristics that when combined result in the harmonious creation of life.

We see examples of this in everything around us as nothing can exist without the interaction of feminine and masculine energy. This creative energy is omnipresent. They are concepts that allow the human mind to comprehed the creative force of the world around us.

Giving name to the divine or feminine and masculine energies is in many ways irrevalent and certainly cannot justify the wars and bloodshed history has seen because of it. They are simply names humanity, a culture or specific belief system has created over time for association purposes.

It really matters little whether we associate with the divine as the "Father, Son and Holy Ghost" or "The One, Goddess and God." Ultimately, the concept is the same.'

B. What is G-d? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?149047-What-is-G-d) (Judaism) >

It's a very long opening post so I am only going to post the first few lines, you will have to go there to read TK's adaptation From "The Handbook of Jewish Thought" (Vol. 1) (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?149047-What-is-G-d) :

'Over in the Apologetics thread, someone is attempting to start a debate about G-d's existence and the corollary point, 'What is G-d?" Though I'm uninterested in the debate itself, the thread provided enough incentive for me to provide instruction about the question 'What is G-d?' from the perspective of Judaism.' (to read the post and the discussion that is still going on please click here. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?149047-What-is-G-d))

=======================NB====>

Along with this is the initial discussion "Is Mormonism or Wicca on your agenda?" (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150852-Is-Mormonism-or-Wicca-on-your-agenda) (in Comp. Rel.) which resulted in this one; both which were sparked by "Judachrislam" (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150753-Judachrislam&p=3402037#post3402037) (Apologetics) which are almost required reading to keep up with where this might go. Who knows where it will end up, for sure I don't. :shrug:

=======================NB====>

Peace,
Eric

[Bill the Cat]

:no:

All this posturing over the resurrection's historicity missed the point I was making. We Christians can point to a single event as the basis of our belief. Wicca just points to their own feelings on reality itself. Nothing concrete. It's a salad bar. Pick what you want and it's all good, just so long as you don't harm others...

[headheart]

:no:

All this posturing over the resurrection's historicity missed the point I was making. We Christians can point to a single event as the basis of our belief. Wicca just points to their own feelings on reality itself. Nothing concrete. It's a salad bar. Pick what you want and it's all good, just so long as you don't harm others...

BTC,
Seeing as you know-it-all (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3404596#post3404596) there's not much more to discuss.
Goodbye,
Eric

[Scrawly]

:no:

All this posturing over the resurrection's historicity missed the point I was making. We Christians can point to a single event as the basis of our belief. Wicca just points to their own feelings on reality itself. Nothing concrete. It's a salad bar. Pick what you want and it's all good, just so long as you don't harm others...

My bad. Durth just made a false statement, and I felt he needed to be called on it. I don't even want to argue the case for the Resurrection, I just want him to see that there is in fact evidence for it.

[Durthorin]

:no:

All this posturing over the resurrection's historicity missed the point I was making. We Christians can point to a single event as the basis of our belief. Wicca just points to their own feelings on reality itself. Nothing concrete. It's a salad bar. Pick what you want and it's all good, just so long as you don't harm others...

Pretty much true from your standpoint Bill, but frankly we're OK with that.

Blessed Be, Dur

[Durthorin]

The historical facts that I presented above are not only accepted by Christian's. They are accepted by the vast majority of NT critics. These are scholars that do not believe the Bible is the word of God. These are scholars that reject the resurrection of Jesus. Yet these same scholars accept the facts I stated in my previous post because they are well attested on historical grounds. You would be hard pressed to find a historian that has studied this issue, yet rejects those facts. Can you name some historians that do?

Well I suppose that puts me in that minority. You see if I accept them I lend validity to something that has no support that *I* consider valid, I concede a point. You see the only actual reports are essentially biblical. An there is a bit of circular logic in using a book to validate itself? Now extra biblical sources don't even mention the resurrection.



Charles Guignebert (1867–1939), Professor of the History of Christianity at the Sorbonne, maintained that the "conclusions which are justified by the documentary evidence may be summed up as follows: Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself.". He adds elsewhere "there is no reason to suppose he was not executed"


Blessed Be, Dur

[Durthorin]

The only documented evidence.. is the Bible? True? Frankly thats like reading Gone with the Wind to validate what happened to Scarlett as historical Fact.

Blessed Be, Dur

[headheart]

Well I suppose that puts me in that minority. You see if I accept them I lend validity to something that has no support that *I* consider valid, I concede a point. You see the only actual reports are essentially biblical. An there is a bit of circular logic in using a book to validate itself? Now extra biblical sources don't even mention the resurrection.

Blessed Be, Dur

Hi Durthorin,

I also note that you quoted "Charles Guignebert (1867-1930)" as a source for your conclusions. (Post 84 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3404639#post3404639))
Is it not possible that 82 years of research since the passing of Charles Guignebert by notable scholars engaged in the quest for the historical Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus) has provided us with more than this?

Peace,
Eric

[Chrawnus]

I would tend to say not Christian as opposed to anti-Christian, I don't oppose your faith I simply don't believe its basic tenant. But I accept that makes me according to you and enemy of your faith and your God. It does also make me glad I live in a society where freedom of religion is guaranteed by secular law. Not to say I think you would personal persecute nonChristians...

Blessed Be, Dur

Note that it was not the individual adherents of Wicca that I said was possibly anti-Christan, but the religion itself. A religion could be anti-Christian while it's members (or atleast not all of them) were not. Kind of like how there can be both deceivers and deceived in a group (religious or otherwise).

Besides, anti-Christ(ian) is more of a biblical term than anything else, which means that, as I said before, it should be defined the way the Bible defines it. And if Wicca falls under the definition of anti-Christian that the Bible gives then Wicca is anti-Christian. :shrug:

[Bill the Cat]

BTC,
Seeing as you know-it-all (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3404596#post3404596) there's not much more to discuss.
Goodbye,
Eric

:haha: You're funny...

[headheart]

:haha: You're funny... :haha: Who'd a thought Department Heads have time to waste on Mere Wicca? :wink:

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

Note that it was not the individual adherents of Wicca that I said was possibly anti-Christan, but the religion itself. A religion could be anti-Christian while it's members (or atleast not all of them) were not. Kind of like how there can be both deceivers and deceived in a group (religious or otherwise).

Besides, anti-Christ(ian) is more of a biblical term than anything else, which means that, as I said before, it should be defined the way the Bible defines it. And if Wicca falls under the definition of anti-Christian that the Bible gives then Wicca is anti-Christian. :shrug:

The terms "Christian" and "Christianity" (and anti-Christian) are still areas that differ from one Christian group/denomination to the next one and even among those groups of "Christians" who have not been accepted by various mainstream "Christian" and primary examples of the "Christian" groups/denominations. e.g., Roman Catholic, Easter Orthodox, Church of England, Congregational, Methodist, Presbyterian to mention a few. Whereas groups/denominations such as The Society of Friends (Quakers) and Unitarianism etc. (a new one popping up everyday) though still regarded as "Christian" holding to "Christianity" have more obvious fusions with other world religions such as Buddhism, Hinduism and yes even Wicca.

A brief description of Unitarianism:
'Unitarianism is a Christian theological movement, named for its understanding of God as one person, in direct contrast to Trinitarianism which defines God as three persons coexisting consubstantially as one in being. ( Knight, Kevin, ed., "The dogma of the Trinity" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm), Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent ) Thus, Unitarians adhere to strict monotheism, and maintain that Jesus was a great man and a prophet of God, but not God himself. ( Miano, David (2003), An Explanation of Unitarian Christianity (http://www.americanunitarian.org/explanation.htm), AUC, p. 15. )'

And so on and on, if you know what I mean?

Peace,
Eric

[Durthorin]

Note that it was not the individual adherents of Wicca that I said was possibly anti-Christan, but the religion itself. A religion could be anti-Christian while it's members (or atleast not all of them) were not. Kind of like how there can be both deceivers and deceived in a group (religious or otherwise).

Besides, anti-Christ(ian) is more of a biblical term than anything else, which means that, as I said before, it should be defined the way the Bible defines it. And if Wicca falls under the definition of anti-Christian that the Bible gives then Wicca is anti-Christian. :shrug:

I will concede and have that by Christian terms/definitions both my faith and myself are considered anti-Christian. I will further point out that by accepted secular usage I do not actively oppose your faith. An only let myself be dran back into this type of discussion when I perceive attacks upon my faith.

Blessed Be, Dur

[Bill the Cat]

:haha: Who'd a thought Department Heads have time to waste on Mere Wicca? :wink:

Peace,
Eric

Since I'm the Dept Head over this area, I have to visit from time to time. It's in the job description...

[Durthorin]

Hi Durthorin,

I also note that you quoted "Charles Guignebert (1867-1930)" as a source for your conclusions. (Post 84 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith&p=3404639#post3404639))
Is it not possible that 82 years of research since the passing of Charles Guignebert by notable scholars engaged in the quest for the historical Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus) has provided us with more than this?

Peace,
Eric

No, not really.

Blessed Be, Dur

[headheart]

No, not really.

Blessed Be, Dur


Hi Durthorin,

You wrote, "You see the only actual reports are essentially biblical," and quoted the following, 'Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself.". He adds elsewhere "there is no reason to suppose he was not executed"
Are you aware that this is a very light version?

Peace,
Eric

[Scrawly]

Well I suppose that puts me in that minority. You see if I accept them I lend validity to something that has no support that *I* consider valid, I concede a point. You see the only actual reports are essentially biblical. An there is a bit of circular logic in using a book to validate itself? Now extra biblical sources don't even mention the resurrection.



Blessed Be, Dur

It seems you don't lend validity to the Bible for other reasons because virtually no historian looks at the Bible and rejects it totally. The facts that I presented are accepted by the majority who are well read on this issue because they are well attested historically. So, yes, you are in the minority here, why do you think that is?

Thank-you for mentioning Charles Guignebert because it possibly highlights the reason you are in the minority when it comes to current NT scholarship - could it be that you are in the minority because you are not familiar with current scholarship on this issue?

[Catholicity]

The facts/evidence for the resurrection of Jesus that you stated doesn't exist is as follows:


FACT #1: After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea.

FACT #2: On the Sunday following the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers.

FACT #3: On multiple occasions and under various circumstances, different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead.

FACT #4: The original disciples believed that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary.
Scrawly, For those who dispute the innerency of scripture, this is not a good argument. One must have other apologetic sources or better arguments other than merely stating that these are the facts..... if you have no "proofs" to back them up.
This type of argument does more to drive people away from Christianity than it will to bring them to it. FYI.
Dur, I believe (correct me if I am wrong Dur) like many other pagans, atheists, agnostics deists, etc, dispute the innerency and authorit of Scripture as fact, As a "Historical Reference with some religious myth?" not so much. Just be aware of that when you argue. and Find better points

[Scrawly]

The only documented evidence.. is the Bible? True? Frankly thats like reading Gone with the Wind to validate what happened to Scarlett as historical Fact.

Blessed Be, Dur

Well, when looking at the Bible in the most objective and unbiased way possible we ought not it presuppose that it is the Word of God; Similarly, we ought not dismiss it in toto. When one comes to this point in their analysis, then they will most likely agree with the majority of NT scholars, including skeptical ones, that:

1) Jesus died by crucifixion
2) His disciples had experiences that they sincerely believed were of the Risen Jesus to them
3) A persecutor of the Church, Paul, converted to Christianity (Messianic Judaism) when he had an experience that he too believed was of the Risen Jesus

These 3 facts are well established and almost unanimously acknowledged by scholars of all stripes in the field of NT studies. The empty tomb is also on solid ground for good historical reasons, however, only about 75% of scholars accept its historicity according to Dr. Habermas' research. Those facts lay the groundwork for building a robust case for the historicity of the resurrection.

[Scrawly]

Scrawly, For those who dispute the innerency of scripture, this is not a good argument. One must have other apologetic sources or better arguments other than merely stating that these are the facts..... if you have no "proofs" to back them up.
This type of argument does more to drive people away from Christianity than it will to bring them to it. FYI.
Dur, I believe (correct me if I am wrong Dur) like many other pagans, atheists, agnostics deists, etc, dispute the innerency and authorit of Scripture as fact, As a "Historical Reference with some religious myth?" not so much. Just be aware of that when you argue. and Find better points


Sorry Cath but it seems that you are equally in the dark when it comes to the minimal facts case. These are facts accepted by the majority of NT scholars who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Do you know why they are accepted by those who do not hold to the inerrancy of Scripture? Because they are well attested historically. if you wish, with Durth, to stand with the minority and dispute any one of those facts, then you are going to need to provide some good reasons. I have good reasons as to why I hold to them as historical, if you or Durth wish to know the reasons, I will be happy to provide them.

[Catholicity]

Sorry Cath but it seems that you are equally in the dark when it comes to the minimal facts case. These are facts accepted by the majority of NT scholars who do not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. Do you know why they are accepted by those who do not hold to the inerrancy of Scripture? Because they are well attested historically. if you wish, with Durth, to stand with the minority and dispute any one of those facts, then you are going to need to provide some good reasons. I have good reasons as to why I hold to them as historical, if you or Durth wish to know the reasons, I will be happy to provide them.
Quote arrogant aren't we Scrawly? You haven't the foggiest Idea as to why I corrected your argument and gently if I might add, yet you'll be fast to make a clueless accusation about me and my own deeply held faith? You are without a doubt one of the most pig-headed Christians I've come accross.

[Scrawly]

Quote arrogant aren't we Scrawly?

Am I the one calling people (brothers) pig-headed and clueless?


You haven't the foggiest Idea as to why I corrected your argument

You didn't...


and gently if I might add, yet you'll be fast to make a clueless accusation about me and my own deeply held faith?

Is this from like 1 year ago when I started that thread for you to provide some clarification?


You are without a doubt one of the most pig-headed Christians I've come accross.

Wow...

[headheart]

Am I .... pig-headed and clueless?



There'll be not slam dunk evangelical basket ball routines on this thread or in the forum. Tone it down please Brawly.

Peace,
Eric

[Scrawly]

There'll be not slam dunk evangelical basket ball routines on this thread or in the forum. Tone it down please Brawly.

Peace,
Eric

Acts 5:29. :teeth:

[headheart]

Acts 5:29.

Colossians 4:5-6 :teeth:

[Adrift]

Scrawly, For those who dispute the innerency of scripture, this is not a good argument. One must have other apologetic sources or better arguments other than merely stating that these are the facts..... if you have no "proofs" to back them up.
This type of argument does more to drive people away from Christianity than it will to bring them to it. FYI.
Dur, I believe (correct me if I am wrong Dur) like many other pagans, atheists, agnostics deists, etc, dispute the innerency and authorit of Scripture as fact, As a "Historical Reference with some religious myth?" not so much. Just be aware of that when you argue. and Find better points

Scrawly is indeed correct that even very critical scholars hold to certain historical claims concerning Christianity. Here are some of the reasons why;

Fact 1, one of the best reasons this is agreed on by most scholars is because there are no early records from the opponents of Christianity in the early church that refutes the claim. In fact, the main claim by the opponents of Christianity early on was that the disciples stole the body away. Which indicates that they understood and believed that Jesus was no longer in the tomb. Another fact that corroborates this is that the disciples of Jesus did not mark his tomb out for veneration, nor did they make pilgrimages to it early on, as was often the case for other 1st century Jewish religious leaders, and that's because they knew that his body was not in the tomb.

Fact 2, Female testimony in the ANE was considered highly suspect and worthless. So in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews he writes, “But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex, nor let servants be admitted to give testimony on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment”, and in the Talmud “Any evidence which a woman [gives] is not valid (to offer), also they are not valid to offer. This is equivalent to saying that one who is Rabbinically accounted a robber is qualified to give the same evidence as a woman”. Because of the sexist climate of the time concerning female testimony, its implausible that the account of women being the first to find and report the empty tomb is fictional, and this is agreed to by most critical historians including folks like like the Jewish scholar Geza Vermes.

Fact 3, and 4 are substantiated in a number of ways, including the boldness of the disciples in the face of ex-communication from the synagogue (which would have been unthinkable to most 1st century Jews), general persecution, and execution.

I think its important to realize something here though. Using the historical method, the NT is considered just as valid as any document (secular or religious in nature) in ancient history. Almost all ancient documents (unless we're dealing with ledgers or something) are going to be written with certain biases, and most historians know that going in. Also, the Bible isn't one monolithic book. In the NT we're dealing with a number of separate letters, by different writers, in different genres. Then of course there are the secular mentions of Jesus or of the early Christian movement, and finally there are the writings of the early church fathers and their opponents. Historians take all of these writings into consideration when coming to conclusions about the minimal facts.

[Catholicity]

Scrawly is indeed correct that even very critical scholars hold to certain historical claims concerning Christianity. Here are some of the reasons why;

Adrift;
I believe that there is historical evidence to completely corroberrate Christ's existence. And I do not dispute that he rose from the dead. But neither am I particularly interested in ressurrection proof at this point. Its something merely that I take on faith 1) because I know Jesus, 2) I agree with the eyewitness testimony as stated in Scripture, and the following writings of the early church Fathers, but again, its not something I'm interesting or have particularly set out to prove and slam in someone's face as this is true you have to believe it, etc. but I'm not really an apologetics/evangelical person. Its more this is what I believe this is what I'll teach my child to believe, and because of it I'll act/live a certain way, and if you have questions you can ask me about it.

[Adrift]

Adrift;
I believe that there is historical evidence to completely corroberrate Christ's existence. And I do not dispute that he rose from the dead. But neither am I particularly interested in ressurrection proof at this point. Its something merely that I take on faith 1) because I know Jesus, 2) I agree with the eyewitness testimony as stated in Scripture, and the following writings of the early church Fathers, but again, its not something I'm interesting or have particularly set out to prove and slam in someone's face as this is true you have to believe it, etc. but I'm not really an apologetics/evangelical person. Its more this is what I believe this is what I'll teach my child to believe, and because of it I'll act/live a certain way, and if you have questions you can ask me about it.

That's fair, and I don't think its something to slam in anyone's face either. I also believe that the resurrection can't be "proved" by showing someone the minimal facts, however the minimal facts (historian Gary Habermas counts at least 12 minimal facts that even most critical scholars agree on) do require an explanation, and it seems that the resurrection appears to be the best explanation for those facts (assuming that the supernatural is possible). This isn't the only reason that people accept Christ though, which seems to me both a working of the Holy Spirit and the human intellect.

Just out of curiosity, when you say that you take the resurrection on "faith", would you mind defining what you consider Biblical "faith"? I've found that different people (including Christians) put different emphasis, or have a different definition for that word. I personally understand it to mean something like trust or confidence in God based on his promises and past performance, but what Biblical faith isn't is blind or "belief not based on proof".

[Scrawly]

Thank-you Adrift for providing some of the reasons why those facts are generally accepted, even by critical scholars. I wasn't trying to slam this in Durths' face, but rather, I presented those minimal facts in order to demonstrate that there is historical evidence for the resurrection. I believe that the resurrection hypothesis is quickly dismissed, not on historical grounds, but rather on philosophical grounds, namely, that God does not exist or He does not or cannot intervene in history.

Thanks again!

[Catholicity]

I also believe that the resurrection can't be "proved" by showing someone the minimal facts, however the minimal facts (historian Gary Habermas counts at least 12 minimal facts that even most critical scholars agree on)

Forgive me, I am extremely unfamiliar with Habermas that is until I googled his name. As far as the definition of the word "scholar" I would disagree in that he has a bias in that he is an evangelical Christian. That aside, I agree with this statement of yours

This isn't the only reason that people accept Christ though, which seems to me both a working of the Holy Spirit and the human intellect.
The ressurrection, well documented through eyewitness testimony and written down through the Apostles (St, Paul being the only one who did not apparently "know Jesus personally") But had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus after his assumption writes this: "If Christ was not risen from the dead, then our Faith is in vain." Biblical faith as I understand it is essentially: Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. 2 For by this the ancients obtained a testimony. Hebrews 11: 1-2, This is Biblically the definition of Faith. Today we cannot see the ressurrection, but we have our reasoning, we have eyewitness accounts left behind, and we can study the scriptures, asking that Jesus open our eyes so that we may know the Truth. And it is by Him and through Him and only through Him that we are able to have this Faith. It is a gift which comes from of course the Holy Spirit (Now of these three things remain Faith (which just defined) Hope and Love...etc.) Naturally the use of intellect comes when we have the eyewitness accounts of the ressurrection. How I reason these to be true is this formula. In Hebraic culture, by law you had to have two witnesses to prove an event. We have more than two witnesses which collaberate the empty tomb and the risen Christ. (They recognized Him in the breaking of the bread and according to St Luke spent 40 days with Him and watched his ascension. St Luke was a disciple if my memory serves me well.) This is more than adequate to serve the Hebraic law of witnesses to collaberate an event. My mind is satisfied that the ressurrection was an actual occurence. The only other choice is that All involved were crazy and it was a mass hallucination. The latter is less likely and my moneyis on the first By historical account, Jesus existed and was crucified (thankfully the Romans were great record keepers.) Rarely one finds a rogue scholar who denies the existence of Jesus, but its more common to find an historian who attempts to disprove the ressurrection.

I personally understand it to mean something like trust or confidence in God based on his promises and past performance, but what Biblical faith isn't is blind or "belief not based on proof".
Well there are many that have come to know God based on reason and intellect. But at a certain point, Faith does take over. My Faith is not based on total blind acceptance of everything handed to me (if it was I'd still be a fundamentalist) rather it is and still remains based and founded firmly in what I like to call a long time intellectual quest for who God is in my life, where does he fit? Is God even real, and how do I find Him not on an emotional level (emotions left me in the dust) but on a logical level

[Bill the Cat]

Colossians 4:5-6 :teeth:

1 Cor 4:13

[headheart]

1 Cor 4:13

Romans 12:14-21

Finis.

[Adrift]

Forgive me, I am extremely unfamiliar with Habermas that is until I googled his name.

Sort of unusual in that he's not an unfamiliar name on this forum, but maybe he's just more well known in the Apologetics 301 sub-forum, which I don't think you post in that often.


As far as the definition of the word "scholar" I would disagree in that he has a bias in that he is an evangelical Christian.

Being an evangelical Christian doesn't make one any less a scholar. Here are his qualifications (http://www.liberty.edu/academics/religion/index.cfm?PID=2246),

Ph.D., History and Philosophy of Religion, Michigan State University (1976)
M.A., Philosophical Theology, University of Detroit (1973)
B.R.E., Christian Education, Bible, Social Sciences; William Tyndale College (1972)

Distinguished Research Professor; Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School; Chair, Department of Philosophy and Theology, Liberty University; current appointment: teaching in PhD program, Liberty University, 1981-Present.
Chairman of Philosophy Department, Associate Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy of Religion, William Tyndale College, 1979-1981.

He has a number of peer reviewed papers, and has published over 36 books. So he certainly has the credentials and meets the requirements of an academic scholar, evangelical Christian or no. Concerning his Minimal Facts (http://www.garyhabermas.com/vitainnuce.htm) thesis,

Studying relevant historical, philosophical, and religious questions, Habermas proposed an historical study of Jesus’ resurrection (what else?) for his Ph.D. dissertation. The topic was approved by his committee, but he was told specifically that he could not use the New Testament as evidence, unless the individual passages could be affirmed by ordinary critical standards, apart from faith. During his doctoral study, Habermas developed what he now terms the "minimal facts" approach to the resurrection. According to this method, the chief (if not the only) historical data that could be utilized were those that passed two critical tests: 1) each datum had to be multiply attested by normal critical means, preferably from more than one angle. 2) The vast majority of critical scholars had to concede the probability of this historical fact.

In addition to the data itself, this meant conducting a long, arduous study of most of the critical publications on the subject of the resurrection, in order to ascertain the scholarly "lay of the land." Habermas concluded that the resurrection could be known according to probability as a normal historical fact. To this day, he marks the conclusion of his study as giving him the conviction that the resurrection had occurred in history and could be evidenced as such. His dissertation was accepted by his committee and he began to pursue a college teaching position.

Dr. Habermas probably has the best understanding of the scholarly consensus on the question of the Resurrection than any other scholar in Academia (that I know of). In 2005 he wrote a peer reviewed paper (http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005/J_Study_Historical_Jesus_3-2_2005.htm) that took him 5 years of research on over 1400 scholarly publications dating between 1975 to 2005 and which included a range of scholars (critical, moderate, and conservative) from America, England, France, and Germany.

Again though, I don't think Habermas' research is set to prove the resurrection so much as to show that the resurrection is the most likely explanation for the data.


That aside, I agree with this statement of yours

:thumb:


The ressurrection, well documented through eyewitness testimony and written down through the Apostles

If you're referring to the Gospels, I believe only two of the authors are considered Apostles (Matthew and John), though we have the Epistles of Peter which I believe most scholars think were written by his disciples or a Petrine school with different authors or scribes for each book (see Richard Bauckham on this).


(St, Paul being the only one who did not apparently "know Jesus personally") Though he apparently knew his brother James, which is considered great incidental evidence for the historicity of Jesus (though RC's don't believe that Jesus had brothers I suppose).


But had an encounter with Jesus on the road to Damascus after his assumption writes this: "If Christ was not risen from the dead, then our Faith is in vain."

:yes:


Biblical faith as I understand it is essentially: Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not. 2 For by this the ancients obtained a testimony. Hebrews 11: 1-2, This is Biblically the definition of Faith. Today we cannot see the ressurrection, but we have our reasoning, we have eyewitness accounts left behind, and we can study the scriptures, asking that Jesus open our eyes so that we may know the Truth.

Crossway's ESV Commentary (my quick and dirty "go to" for commentaries) has a great break down on this passage that I think condenses both our thoughts on the subject maybe,

Heb. 11:1 assurance. Greek hypostasis, also translated “confidence” (3:14). hoped for. On hope, see 3:6; 6:11, 18; 7:19; 10:23. conviction of things not seen. By defining faith (Gk. pistis) as “assurance” and “conviction,” the author indicates that biblical faith is not a vague hope grounded in imaginary, wishful thinking. Instead, faith is a settled confidence that something in the future—something that is not yet seen but has been promised by God—will actually come to pass because God will bring it about. Thus biblical faith is not blind trust in the face of contrary evidence, not an unknowable “leap in the dark”; rather, biblical faith is a confident trust in the eternal God who is all-powerful, infinitely wise, eternally trustworthy—the God who has revealed himself in his word and in the person of Jesus Christ, whose promises have proven true from generation to generation, and who will “never leave nor forsake” his own (13:5). Such faith in the unseen realities of God is emphasized throughout ch. 11 (e.g., 11:7, 8; cf. v. 3) and has provided confidence and assurance to all who receive Christ as their Lord and Savior.


And it is by Him and through Him and only through Him that we are able to have this Faith. It is a gift which comes from of course the Holy Spirit

I think maybe the spiritual gift of faith is something different from the more ordinary type of Biblical faith as described in Hebrews 11:1, but maybe that's best left for another sort of thread.


(Now of these three things remain Faith (which just defined) Hope and Love...etc.) Naturally the use of intellect comes when we have the eyewitness accounts of the ressurrection. How I reason these to be true is this formula. In Hebraic culture, by law you had to have two witnesses to prove an event. We have more than two witnesses which collaberate the empty tomb and the risen Christ. (They recognized Him in the breaking of the bread and according to St Luke spent 40 days with Him and watched his ascension. St Luke was a disciple if my memory serves me well.) This is more than adequate to serve the Hebraic law of witnesses to collaberate an event. My mind is satisfied that the ressurrection was an actual occurence. The only other choice is that All involved were crazy and it was a mass hallucination. The latter is less likely and my moneyis on the first By historical account, Jesus existed and was crucified (thankfully the Romans were great record keepers.)

Luke was Greek, and a disciple and companion of Paul, but other than that, fair enough.


Rarely one finds a rogue scholar who denies the existence of Jesus, but its more common to find an historian who attempts to disprove the ressurrection.

I think most historians are less interested in disproving the resurrection than they are simply documenting history which means the most critical scholars just talk around the resurrection event and/or base their conclusions concerning the minimal facts on anything within the naturalistic realm that they can grasp on to. I'm reminded of scholars like "Bishop" John Shelby Spong, who denies that the resurrection was an historical event, yet cannot deny that the disciples experienced something tremendous and transformative, and (if I remember correctly) concludes that the story of the resurrection was simply the result of inner catharsis and relief from guilt for abandoning Jesus at the cross.


Well there are many that have come to know God based on reason and intellect. But at a certain point, Faith does take over.

Agreed.


My Faith is not based on total blind acceptance of everything handed to me (if it was I'd still be a fundamentalist) rather it is and still remains based and founded firmly in what I like to call a long time intellectual quest for who God is in my life, where does he fit? Is God even real, and how do I find Him not on an emotional level (emotions left me in the dust) but on a logical level

:yes: I think emotions are fine. God created us with emotions, so he must have known that we'd use them. I just think that we need to keep them in balance, and not let them over rule our minds and the leading of the Spirit, but overall, yes, I agree with you.

[headheart]

No, not really.

Blessed Be, Dur

Okay, now that the cloud of unknowing has passed over. Let me try that again:

Hi Durthorin,

You wrote, "You see the only actual reports are essentially biblical," and quoted the following, 'Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself.". He adds elsewhere "there is no reason to suppose he was not executed"
Are you aware that this is a very light version?

Peace,
Eric

[Bill the Cat]

Romans 12:14-21

Finis.

I meant to say 1 Cor 11:14

[headheart]

I meant to say 1 Cor 11:14


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XUaUOJi1so
Gary S. Paxton - Will There Be Hippies In Heaven [I Sure Hope So, I'd Like To Go]

Hey yeah.

Peace,
Eric

[Durthorin]

Okay, now that the cloud of unknowing has passed over. Let me try that again:

Hi Durthorin,

You wrote, "You see the only actual reports are essentially biblical," and quoted the following, 'Jesus was born somewhere in Galilee in the time of the Emperor Augustus, of a humble family, which included half a dozen or more children besides himself.". He adds elsewhere "there is no reason to suppose he was not executed"
Are you aware that this is a very light version?

Peace,
Eric

Actually its the factual version without special pleadings which the minimal facts approach sort of requires. While it is "light" I believe it makes the point of the sparse data. None which validates the resurrection.

Blessed Be, Dur

[headheart]

Actually its the factual version without special pleadings which the minimal facts approach sort of requires. While it is "light" I believe it makes the point of the sparse data. None which validates the resurrection.

Blessed Be, Dur

Hi Durthorin,
Thanks for replying.

Looking back at your quote I noticed that you have copied it word for word from Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. Am I to conclude from this that either you have not yet read/perhaps have once read "Jesus" by C. Guignebert, translated by S. H. Hooke (University of London), University Books, New York, 1956, p132 long ago and are thus either relying exclusively upon this source for your information or have made a careful and balanced evaluation of a wide cross-section of information in this regard?

If so would be willing to disclose which books you have read in this regard and what conclusions you came to as a result?

Peace,
Eric.

[headheart]

My dear Wiccan friends.

I have been and am researching Wicca and after posting this post to this forum, I think my disgust for certain Christian fundamentalists just reached and all time high: Is Wicca is an evil, demonic power thirsty faith. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith) = No, I'd say that the Christians on this forum need to look to themselves before casting any more of their gall stones.

If there was ever a reason not to be a Christian I would say that this is it. I am shocked and disgusted that such a thing is still happening in our time.

Peace,
Eric

[MaxVel]

You're very weird, Eric.

I can't see anything so objectionable in this thread that Adrift posted for you to react the way you have in Apologetics. You come across as the one with anger and hostility issues, bro.

[Sparko]

My dear Wiccan friends.

I have been and am researching Wicca and after posting this post to this forum, I think my disgust for certain Christian fundamentalists just reached and all time high: Is Wicca is an evil, demonic power thirsty faith. (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150877-Wicca-is-an-evil-demonic-power-thirsty-faith) = No, I'd say that the Christians on this forum need to look to themselves before casting any more of their gall stones.

If there was ever a reason not to be a Christian I would say that this is it. I am shocked and disgusted that such a thing is still happening in our time.

Peace,
Eric

Burn the witch!!!

:mob:

[Bill the Cat]

If there was ever a reason not to be a Christian I would say that this is it. I am shocked and disgusted that such a thing is still happening in our time.

Peace,
Eric

What does the debatable behavior of a small group of people have to do with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection? Anyone who becomes/remains a Christian because of anything other than Christ is a fool.

[headheart]

Burn the witch!!!

:mob:

Ah___ the old court jester is never far behind.

Peace,
Eric

[Sparko]

Ah___ the old court jester is never far behind.

Peace,
Eric

How dare you mock me? Don't you have any respect for others? I could never be a wiccan if it has people like you supporting it!

[headheart]

You're very weird, Eric.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulnQKyefe-c
Cruel, Crazy, Beautiful World - Johnny Clegg & Savuka

Sticks 'n stones ....

[headheart]

What does the debatable behavior of a small group of people have to do with Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection? Anyone who becomes/remains a Christian because of anything other than Christ is a fool.

Let's just say that I'm coming to the end of the line. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqhdRs4jyA)

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

How dare you mock me? Don't you have any respect for others? I could never be a wiccan if it has people like you supporting it!

Daresay you've earned a reputation of being a bit of blowhard (gross understatement) and who will ever forget your mind numbing exchanges with Glenn Peoples.

76155

My guess is that you girls are so embarrassed by your behavior here that you're going to try and get this one to go down out of sight in the Psychiatric Ward, where you Christian nutters spend most of your time exchanging sporting grunts and sweaty peeps and one another derrieres.

headheart.

[Sparko]

Daresay you've earned a reputation of being a bit of blowhard (gross understatement) and who will ever forget your mind numbing exchanges with Glenn Peoples.

76155

My guess is that you girls are so embarrassed by your behavior here that you're going to try and get this one to go down out of sight in the Psychiatric Ward, where you Christian nutters spend most of your time exchanging sporting grunts and sweaty peeps and one another derrieres.

headheart.

Glenn and I are friends and can debate and disagree with each other without that interfering in our friendship or as fellow Christians.

And you calling someone else a "nutter" is pretty ironic. My guess is that you would make a good example for one of those "this is your brain... this is your brain on drugs" commercials, Eric. You should lay off the pot.

[headheart]

Glenn and I are friends and can debate and disagree with each other without that interfering in our friendship or as fellow Christians.

And you calling someone else a "nutter" is pretty ironic. My guess is that you would make a good example for one of those "this is your brain... this is your brain on drugs" commercials, Eric. You should lay off the pot.

I've been clean since 1992, but what would that matter to you, you're just like the rest of the jugglers and clowns here except that you imagine yourself to be some sort of superior jester/troll magnet. Yet in truth, you're the biggest troll of the pack. Woof!

Peace,
Eric

[Sparko]

I've been clean since 1992, but what would that matter to you, you're just like the rest of the jugglers and clowns here except that you imagine yourself to be some sort of superior jester/troll magnet. Yet in truth, you're the biggest troll of the pack. Woof!

Peace,
Eric

eeeyup.

[Bill the Cat]

Let's just say that I'm coming to the end of the line. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwqhdRs4jyA)

Peace,
Eric

I love that song! Sad that Roy passed before the video was made...

But what are you implying? That you are just about to abandon Christ because of someone other than Christ?

[headheart]

I love that song! But what are you implying? That you are just about to abandon Christ because of someone other than Christ?

That it's nice to sing and celebrate one's adventures with Tom, Dick and Harry and whoever can make it to studio.

Running Down A Dream (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5tF_-AkU6U) - Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers (Documentary) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0965382/)


Peace,
Eric.

[Bill the Cat]

That it's nice to sing and celebrate one's adventures with Tom, Dick and Harry and whoever can make it to studio.

Running Down A Dream (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5tF_-AkU6U) - Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers (Documentary) (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0965382/)


Peace,
Eric.

Well, that's true. I do miss the era of the super groups. Now, there are so few real artists like Tom Petty, Bob Dylan, Roy Orbison, and the gang...

[Durthorin]

Hi Durthorin,
Thanks for replying.

Looking back at your quote I noticed that you have copied it word for word from Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia. Am I to conclude from this that either you have not yet read/perhaps have once read "Jesus" by C. Guignebert, translated by S. H. Hooke (University of London), University Books, New York, 1956, p132 long ago and are thus either relying exclusively upon this source for your information or have made a careful and balanced evaluation of a wide cross-section of information in this regard?

If so would be willing to disclose which books you have read in this regard and what conclusions you came to as a result?

Peace,
Eric.

Truth be told I needed a quote to make a point, I have not given serious study to Christianity in 25 years, since I became a Pagan. What I have noted is not the discovery of new data per say but a desire to look at that data in a way that allows the data to reach a conclusion which they wish in this case. IE using the minimal facts approach.

Blessed be, Dur

[headheart]

Truth be told I needed a quote to make a point, I have not given serious study to Christianity in 25 years, since I became a Pagan. What I have noted is not the discovery of new data per say but a desire to look at that data in a way that allows the data to reach a conclusion which they wish in this case. IE using the minimal facts approach.

Blessed be, Dur

Oh, okay.

Do you find that Dr. Gary Habermas' approach to this is after such a fashion? I've covered some of his material on this forum and found though it was not well received he seemed to have a fairly even handed approach to how he did this.

For starters, what are your thoughts about Cornelius Tactitus, who was best known for two books - The Annals and The Histories. ?

Peace,
Eric

[EmberFyre]

@ Bill the Cat:
wow.... believe it or not, no matter how many times you say that, it any which number of ways, it DOES NOT make it any more true for Wiccans.... OR the rest of humanity.

[Bill the Cat]

@ Bill the Cat:
wow.... believe it or not, no matter how many times you say that, it any which number of ways, it DOES NOT make it any more true for Wiccans.... OR the rest of humanity.

Um, what are you talking about. A quote from me would be nice. I'm not a mind reader, ya know?

[Epoetker]

Wicca is based, it seems, mainly on old wives' tales.

And since old wives can be evil, demonic, and power-thirsty in the extreme, especially when their social power prevents people from calling them on their fantasies, I could see it happening. ("Sweet old lady" is usually a contradiction in terms.)

Though obviously Wicca's nowhere near as bad about empowering old women as, say Islam, where they have the eyes on every street, the ears of every sheikh, and the life of every young maiden held one accusation away from death.

(Islam mainly stones whores; it does not, generally speaking, burn witches.)

[Catholicity]

Wicca is based, it seems, mainly on old wives' tales.

And since old wives can be evil, demonic, and power-thirsty in the extreme, especially when their social power prevents people from calling them on their fantasies, I could see it happening. ("Sweet old lady" is usually a contradiction in terms.)

Though obviously Wicca's nowhere near as bad about empowering old women as, say Islam, where they have the eyes on every street, the ears of every sheikh, and the life of every young maiden held one accusation away from death.

(Islam mainly stones whores; it does not, generally speaking, burn witches.)
You are an ignorant foolish child

[headheart]

Debates over the origin of Wicca (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca) @ Wikipedia:

Witchcraft From The Inside: Origins of the Fastest Growing Religious Movement in America (http://www.amazon.com/Witchcraft-Inside-Origins-Religious-Movement/dp/1567181015)(3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Llewellyn Publications by Buckland, Raymond (1 September 2002) [1971].
The Triumph of the Moon: A History of Modern Pagan Witchcraft. (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Triumph-Moon-History-Modern-Witchcraft/dp/0192854496) Oxford University Press.by Hutton, Ronald (1999).
Goddess Unmasked. (http://www.amazon.com/Goddess-Unmasked-Neopagan-Feminist-Spirituality/dp/1890626201) Dallas: Spence. by Davis, Philip G (1998).
"Recent Developments in the Study of The Great European Witch Hunt". The Pomegranate (5) (http://www.kersplebedeb.com/mystuff/feminist/gibbons_witch.html) by Gibbons, Jenny (August 1998).
Witches and Neighbors. (http://www.amazon.com/Witches-Neighbors-Cultural-European-Witchcraft/dp/0140144382) Penguin by Briggs, Robin (1998). .