Wiccan Views of Deity

[technomage]

This thread is mainly to clarify some questions Crusader had on Wiccan views of Deity, but I also wanted to open it as a general topic.

So, Justin, as a Wiccan could you clarify what gods you actually worship. Also, do you believe at all in the Trinitarian Christian God?
My main purpose with this forum is to have a place to explain Wiccan beliefs (and Neo-Pagan beliefs, in as much as I can) to Christians who wished to know about them, and perhaps to debate those beliefs. It is not my intent to "proseletyze," and I do want to make clear that anyone who comes to me publically or privately from this forum to learn Wicca will get a one-word answer: "No."

That being said, this is going to take a bit of background information. First and foremost, there is no such thing as a Wiccan Pope or any such equivalent; there is no unified "Wiccan doctrine" or "confession of faith"; there is no "Wiccan chatechism." So there can be a wide degree of difference between one Wiccan's beliefs and the next one's. (In other words, if you ask a dozen Wiccans what they want on a pizza, you may get as many as fifteen answers, or more!) I can give you a definite idea of my own beliefs, but I can only give generalities for Wicca as a whole.

Technically speaking, Wiccans are Monotheists. We believe in a sole, infinite Source for all of Creation--we can call this source "Primal God." Functionally speaking, however, Wiccans are [u]duotheistic[/i]: most Wiccans conceive of Deity as Two, archetypal Male and Female. The reason for this distinction is one of concept: Wiccans believe that "Primal God" is infinite--therefore containing all "possibilities"--but is undifferentiated. As an infinite and undifferentiated Being, nothing definite can be said about the Primal God: as an example, this Primal God is neither Light nor Darkness, Life nor Death, Good nor Evil, because Primal God contains all of these possibilities ... not to mention every other possibility, whether or not we, as human beings, can imagine it.

The Lord and Lady--the "archetypal" Male and Female"--are a Wiccan concept to try and reach some form of understanding of Primal God. This concept is of human origin, as are the myths, legends, and learning that we have from These beings--yet in another way, these Beings are not simply myths, but very, very real. the Lord and Lady become subjectively real, because Primal God can work through these concepts. In the same way, most Wiccans will tell you that YHVH is the Judaic concept, and the Trinity is the Christian concept, as adapted from Judaism.

These "concepts"--frequently called "God Names"--are cultural, in that each culture seems to develop their own concept, and concepts change over time as the culture changes. Sometimes those chages are dramatic and massive--such as the transition from Judaic Monotheism to Christian Trinitarianism: sometimes these changes are subtle, but even the subtlest change can have profund consequences--such as the "homoousia/homoiousia" conflict of the late 3rd and early 4th centuries.

As to what God I worship: I worship the Creator, Primal God. There is little I can actually know or understand about God, so at best, I worship Primal God as "the Unknown God." This is because of the frailty of my own flesh: to the best of my understanding, Primal God is certainly worthy of worship (by any human judgement), but I honestly could not tell you if Primal God desires or demands worship.

-----

Christian views of Wiccan theology

* Most Christians feel that our views of "Primal God/God Names" is a form of idolatry. Having to set up some form of "human concept," then worship that concept, would technically qualify as idolatry--as the "human concept" is a created thing, rather than the Creator.
* Many Christians feel that the "Lord and Lady" concepts that WIccans experience are either delusion, or demons impersonating the Wiccan Gods.
* There are some Christians who feel that, we, much like the Athenians whom Paul spoke too, are simply fallen people who are doing the best that we can with what we have. These Christians see our worship as misguided and wrong, but who feel that--by being properly introduced to genuine Christianity, and brought into a relationship with Jesus Christ--we can be saved.
* There are--thankfully--only a very few Christians who believe that as Wiccans, we have forever cast away any hope of salvation. This type of belief tends to be more prevalent in the "Extreme Charismatic" and "Spiritual Warfare" crowd, but is not universally accepted even there.

* Additionally, there are--again, fortunately--relatively few Christians who believe that Wiccans practice any number of perverse and evil rites, ranging from cursing Christians and trying to disrupt and destroy churches, to acts of animal and human sacrifice or ritual abuse. This urban legend basically started in the 1970s, peaking in the 1990s, but seems to be on the wane in all but the most reactionary of churches. These tales are false: I will, if necessary, respond to specific accusations or accusers in a separate thread. (And no, I don't mean "accusers" as in someone here--I'll be dealing with the sources of these rumors, and with the facts to dispell the rumors.)

Wicca definitely falls under the category of "witch" mentioned in Ex. 20--indeed, modern Hebrew Wiccans use the same Hebrew word to describe themselves that is used in this passage. Wicca also falls into the list of those who "will not inherit the Kingdom" in Galatians (can't remember the exact reference right now), though I know of no modern group of Wiccans who use that term (Greek Wiccans use another term).

So in that sense--yes, I do believe in the Christian trinity, but not in any sense that you would recognize or accept. I do worship the Creator, but most Christians are going to believe that I am deceived when I make that statement.

As a final note: this is a "whirlwind tour" of Wiccan theology. Books could be written, and it is a complex subject, but most (perhaps 80% or more, at a very rough guess) Wiccans have only a rudamentary knowledge of the topic.

Justin

[Sparko]

My question to you is WHY do you believe in this primal God?

How was s/he revealed to the Wiccan? Where do you get your "doctrine" and "rituals"? How do you know about your God/dess and how do you know what s/he wants from you?

As I see it, Christians believe God revealed himself to mankind (Adam, Moses, Abraham) and gave them laws and information in the form of Prophesies and Scripture. To show it was really true, he gave the original writers and believers signs and miracles. Today we have the bible as God's revealed word. So we have a basis for our belief.

But Wiccan seems to be made up from whole cloth about 50 years ago. Neopagans really do not have any basis for their beliefs whatsoever as far as I can tell. They just believe cuz they wish it were true, with no authorative text or revelation from their god/dess?

[technomage]

My question to you is WHY do you believe in this primal God?
John, I believe in this Primal God because I have experienced ... Him? Her? :shrug: I'll stick with standard English and say "Him." And if I were to try to describe the experience, I'd either sound like Ezekiel on a bad trip, or a candidate for serious medication and a "love-yourself" jacket.

How was s/he revealed to the Wiccan? Where do you get your "doctrine" and "rituals"? How do you know about your God/dess and how do you know what s/he wants from you?

As I see it, Christians believe God revealed himself to mankind (Adam, Moses, Abraham) and gave them laws and information in the form of Prophesies and Scripture. To show it was really true, he gave the original writers and believers signs and miracles. Today we have the bible as God's revealed word. So we have a basis for our belief.
:yes: That's the common inferrence. However, let me make a hypothetical comparison. The original writers assert that they had certain signs and miracles to verify that they spoke for God. And I would have difficulty accepting that these signs and miracles are "not for the Christian era," because they have the same (or similar) claims of signs and miracles in the New Testament Gospels and the book of Acts. Where are those signs and miracles now?

I'm not actually looking for an answer to that question ... I would like you to think about it, however, because you're basically asking me to take some writer's word that certain events happen, and that those events prove your theology, when the original audience that the putative writers spoke to frequently didn't believe, even with eye-witness access to the signs and miracles.

So on the one hand, I have a book of (remember, I take a secular "Historical-Critical" view, if not quite skeptical view of the Bible) less-than-universally accepted historicity. On the other hand, I have my own subjective experiences ... which, while I certainly understand is subjective and therefore fallable, is at least something that I can put my "hands on," so to speak.

But Wiccan seems to be made up from whole cloth about 50 years ago. Neopagans really do not have any basis for their beliefs whatsoever as far as I can tell. They just believe cuz they wish it were true, with no authorative text or revelation from their god/dess?
Authoritative text ... no. But what revelation can be more authoritative than the word of God?

John, part of the purpose of a "Wiccan Initiation" is to put the Initiate in a spiritual state where they are able to listen to the voice of God. It's not a comfortable experience ... frankly, I know, first hand, why when the angels come to visit in the Scriptures, they say "Fear not!" And if the ministers and servants of God are majestic and terrible of countenance, then how much more awesome is My God?

:no: I'm not explaining this very well. Some of that is the hour, and some of that is that we have some nasty weather on the way in, and I'm on some fairl serious pain meds, so I'm not at my clearest. Let me try again tomorrow, but it will help me if (if you have time) you'll take a moment to point out the parts that are clear, and the parts that are confusing. Though truth to tell, at this point if any of it makes sense, I'd be surprised. :dizzy:

[Jawa Man]

Would it be accurate to call Primal God a "Binity"?

[technomage]

Hmmm. That one took a moment to catch. :teeth:

I really don't think so, because Primal God is the "actual" status. The "Dual" Lord and Lady is a human construct, just as (no insult intended) the Christian Trinity.

[Jawa Man]

No insult taken.

So it's our human way of trying to understand the divine? So would the Primal God have all qualities in it? That sounds a lot like Hinduism. That would also explain why the Primal God is described as Lord and Lady, kind of like Ying and Yang.

[Krusader]

This thread is mainly to clarify some questions Crusader had on Wiccan views of Deity, but I also wanted to open it as a general topic.


My main purpose with this forum is to have a place to explain Wiccan beliefs (and Neo-Pagan beliefs, in as much as I can) to Christians who wished to know about them, and perhaps to debate those beliefs. It is not my intent to "proseletyze," and I do want to make clear that anyone who comes to me publically or privately from this forum to learn Wicca will get a one-word answer: "No."

That being said, this is going to take a bit of background information. First and foremost, there is no such thing as a Wiccan Pope or any such equivalent; there is no unified "Wiccan doctrine" or "confession of faith"; there is no "Wiccan chatechism." So there can be a wide degree of difference between one Wiccan's beliefs and the next one's. (In other words, if you ask a dozen Wiccans what they want on a pizza, you may get as many as fifteen answers, or more!) I can give you a definite idea of my own beliefs, but I can only give generalities for Wicca as a whole.

Technically speaking, Wiccans are Monotheists. We believe in a sole, infinite Source for all of Creation--we can call this source "Primal God." Functionally speaking, however, Wiccans are [u]duotheistic[/i]: most Wiccans conceive of Deity as Two, archetypal Male and Female. The reason for this distinction is one of concept: Wiccans believe that "Primal God" is infinite--therefore containing all "possibilities"--but is undifferentiated. As an infinite and undifferentiated Being, nothing definite can be said about the Primal God: as an example, this Primal God is neither Light nor Darkness, Life nor Death, Good nor Evil, because Primal God contains all of these possibilities ... not to mention every other possibility, whether or not we, as human beings, can imagine it.

The Lord and Lady--the "archetypal" Male and Female"--are a Wiccan concept to try and reach some form of understanding of Primal God. This concept is of human origin, as are the myths, legends, and learning that we have from These beings--yet in another way, these Beings are not simply myths, but very, very real. the Lord and Lady become subjectively real, because Primal God can work through these concepts. In the same way, most Wiccans will tell you that YHVH is the Judaic concept, and the Trinity is the Christian concept, as adapted from Judaism.

These "concepts"--frequently called "God Names"--are cultural, in that each culture seems to develop their own concept, and concepts change over time as the culture changes. Sometimes those chages are dramatic and massive--such as the transition from Judaic Monotheism to Christian Trinitarianism: sometimes these changes are subtle, but even the subtlest change can have profund consequences--such as the "homoousia/homoiousia" conflict of the late 3rd and early 4th centuries.

As to what God I worship: I worship the Creator, Primal God. There is little I can actually know or understand about God, so at best, I worship Primal God as "the Unknown God." This is because of the frailty of my own flesh: to the best of my understanding, Primal God is certainly worthy of worship (by any human judgement), but I honestly could not tell you if Primal God desires or demands worship.

-----

Christian views of Wiccan theology

* Most Christians feel that our views of "Primal God/God Names" is a form of idolatry. Having to set up some form of "human concept," then worship that concept, would technically qualify as idolatry--as the "human concept" is a created thing, rather than the Creator.
* Many Christians feel that the "Lord and Lady" concepts that WIccans experience are either delusion, or demons impersonating the Wiccan Gods.
* There are some Christians who feel that, we, much like the Athenians whom Paul spoke too, are simply fallen people who are doing the best that we can with what we have. These Christians see our worship as misguided and wrong, but who feel that--by being properly introduced to genuine Christianity, and brought into a relationship with Jesus Christ--we can be saved.
* There are--thankfully--only a very few Christians who believe that as Wiccans, we have forever cast away any hope of salvation. This type of belief tends to be more prevalent in the "Extreme Charismatic" and "Spiritual Warfare" crowd, but is not universally accepted even there.

* Additionally, there are--again, fortunately--relatively few Christians who believe that Wiccans practice any number of perverse and evil rites, ranging from cursing Christians and trying to disrupt and destroy churches, to acts of animal and human sacrifice or ritual abuse. This urban legend basically started in the 1970s, peaking in the 1990s, but seems to be on the wane in all but the most reactionary of churches. These tales are false: I will, if necessary, respond to specific accusations or accusers in a separate thread. (And no, I don't mean "accusers" as in someone here--I'll be dealing with the sources of these rumors, and with the facts to dispell the rumors.)

Wicca definitely falls under the category of "witch" mentioned in Ex. 20--indeed, modern Hebrew Wiccans use the same Hebrew word to describe themselves that is used in this passage. Wicca also falls into the list of those who "will not inherit the Kingdom" in Galatians (can't remember the exact reference right now), though I know of no modern group of Wiccans who use that term (Greek Wiccans use another term).

So in that sense--yes, I do believe in the Christian trinity, but not in any sense that you would recognize or accept. I do worship the Creator, but most Christians are going to believe that I am deceived when I make that statement.

As a final note: this is a "whirlwind tour" of Wiccan theology. Books could be written, and it is a complex subject, but most (perhaps 80% or more, at a very rough guess) Wiccans have only a rudamentary knowledge of the topic.

Justin
Thanks for that explanation. From what you said, it would appear that you do not worship the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as understood by Christians. Of course, you are free to worship whomever you wish.

When you say that "Christians" do not feel that you have apostasized, I'm assuming you mean ultra-liberal Christians. Certainly any Christians I know, and I know quite a few Justin, would consider that any individual who has left the Lord Jesus to worship some type of Primal god manifesting as some male and female entities, and who no longer relies on faith in the Blood of Jesus Christ as the means of salvation, to be apostate......especially when they start proclaiming witchcraft, which you do.

I am not a charismatic Christian nor a spiritual warfare type - just a simple evangelical believer - but I think I speak for most when I say that it is my prayer that the Holy Spirit will work in your heart unto repentance.

[technomage]

Um, I don't recall ever claiming that Christians do not state that I am apostate in their views. I don't know where you understood that I was making that claim, but I'm quite aware of Christian doctrine on my status.

For the rest, I thank you for your prayers.

Do you see any glaring inaccuracies in my analysis of Christian views of Wicca?

[Richbee]

Um, I don't recall ever claiming that Christians do not state that I am apostate in their views. I don't know where you understood that I was making that claim, but I'm quite aware of Christian doctrine on my status.

For the rest, I thank you for your prayers.

Do you see any glaring inaccuracies in my analysis of Christian views of Wicca?

Naw, Justin, you're just a bacl slider, and in time, you'll realize that Jesus loves you, and in facted loved you so much, he suffered on the cross your ALL your sins - past, present and future.

No pagan or Neopagan would lay down his life for his friends.

[Durthorin]

No pagan or Neopagan would lay down his life for his friends.
You might want to reexamine that statement. I'd say any Pagan law Enforcment officer and there are a number would be vastly offended. Since they go to work willing to do it for perfect strangers.

Brighid Bless, Dur

[C. D. Ward]

You might want to reexamine that statement. I'd say any Pagan law Enforcment officer and there are a number would be vastly offended. Since they go to work willing to do it for perfect strangers.As would the many members of our armed forces who are wiccans/pagans (including my brother-in-law). :brood:

[Durthorin]

As would the many members of our armed forces who are wiccans/pagans (including my brother-in-law). :brood:
Yes.. forgot about that. May your brother in law be blessed and be safe..

Brighid Bless, Dur

[Krusader]

This thread is mainly to clarify some questions Crusader had on Wiccan views of Deity, but I also wanted to open it as a general topic.


My main purpose with this forum is to have a place to explain Wiccan beliefs (and Neo-Pagan beliefs, in as much as I can) to Christians who wished to know about them, and perhaps to debate those beliefs. It is not my intent to "proseletyze," and I do want to make clear that anyone who comes to me publically or privately from this forum to learn Wicca will get a one-word answer: "No."

That being said, this is going to take a bit of background information. First and foremost, there is no such thing as a Wiccan Pope or any such equivalent; there is no unified "Wiccan doctrine" or "confession of faith"; there is no "Wiccan chatechism." So there can be a wide degree of difference between one Wiccan's beliefs and the next one's. (In other words, if you ask a dozen Wiccans what they want on a pizza, you may get as many as fifteen answers, or more!) I can give you a definite idea of my own beliefs, but I can only give generalities for Wicca as a whole.

Technically speaking, Wiccans are Monotheists. We believe in a sole, infinite Source for all of Creation--we can call this source "Primal God." Functionally speaking, however, Wiccans are [u]duotheistic[/i]: most Wiccans conceive of Deity as Two, archetypal Male and Female. The reason for this distinction is one of concept: Wiccans believe that "Primal God" is infinite--therefore containing all "possibilities"--but is undifferentiated. As an infinite and undifferentiated Being, nothing definite can be said about the Primal God: as an example, this Primal God is neither Light nor Darkness, Life nor Death, Good nor Evil, because Primal God contains all of these possibilities ... not to mention every other possibility, whether or not we, as human beings, can imagine it.

The Lord and Lady--the "archetypal" Male and Female"--are a Wiccan concept to try and reach some form of understanding of Primal God. This concept is of human origin, as are the myths, legends, and learning that we have from These beings--yet in another way, these Beings are not simply myths, but very, very real. the Lord and Lady become subjectively real, because Primal God can work through these concepts. In the same way, most Wiccans will tell you that YHVH is the Judaic concept, and the Trinity is the Christian concept, as adapted from Judaism.

These "concepts"--frequently called "God Names"--are cultural, in that each culture seems to develop their own concept, and concepts change over time as the culture changes. Sometimes those chages are dramatic and massive--such as the transition from Judaic Monotheism to Christian Trinitarianism: sometimes these changes are subtle, but even the subtlest change can have profund consequences--such as the "homoousia/homoiousia" conflict of the late 3rd and early 4th centuries.

As to what God I worship: I worship the Creator, Primal God. There is little I can actually know or understand about God, so at best, I worship Primal God as "the Unknown God." This is because of the frailty of my own flesh: to the best of my understanding, Primal God is certainly worthy of worship (by any human judgement), but I honestly could not tell you if Primal God desires or demands worship.

-----

Christian views of Wiccan theology

* Most Christians feel that our views of "Primal God/God Names" is a form of idolatry. Having to set up some form of "human concept," then worship that concept, would technically qualify as idolatry--as the "human concept" is a created thing, rather than the Creator.
* Many Christians feel that the "Lord and Lady" concepts that WIccans experience are either delusion, or demons impersonating the Wiccan Gods.
* There are some Christians who feel that, we, much like the Athenians whom Paul spoke too, are simply fallen people who are doing the best that we can with what we have. These Christians see our worship as misguided and wrong, but who feel that--by being properly introduced to genuine Christianity, and brought into a relationship with Jesus Christ--we can be saved.
* There are--thankfully--only a very few Christians who believe that as Wiccans, we have forever cast away any hope of salvation. This type of belief tends to be more prevalent in the "Extreme Charismatic" and "Spiritual Warfare" crowd, but is not universally accepted even there.

* Additionally, there are--again, fortunately--relatively few Christians who believe that Wiccans practice any number of perverse and evil rites, ranging from cursing Christians and trying to disrupt and destroy churches, to acts of animal and human sacrifice or ritual abuse. This urban legend basically started in the 1970s, peaking in the 1990s, but seems to be on the wane in all but the most reactionary of churches. These tales are false: I will, if necessary, respond to specific accusations or accusers in a separate thread. (And no, I don't mean "accusers" as in someone here--I'll be dealing with the sources of these rumors, and with the facts to dispell the rumors.)

Wicca definitely falls under the category of "witch" mentioned in Ex. 20--indeed, modern Hebrew Wiccans use the same Hebrew word to describe themselves that is used in this passage. Wicca also falls into the list of those who "will not inherit the Kingdom" in Galatians (can't remember the exact reference right now), though I know of no modern group of Wiccans who use that term (Greek Wiccans use another term).

So in that sense--yes, I do believe in the Christian trinity, but not in any sense that you would recognize or accept. I do worship the Creator, but most Christians are going to believe that I am deceived when I make that statement.

As a final note: this is a "whirlwind tour" of Wiccan theology. Books could be written, and it is a complex subject, but most (perhaps 80% or more, at a very rough guess) Wiccans have only a rudamentary knowledge of the topic.

Justin
Hate to disagree with you Justin, but witches do practice animal sacrifice, at least out here in the southwest. They are called curanderos, and use animal sacrifices to remove curses, the evil eye, etc.

While out on an archeological survey, my husband and I noticed our dogs digging frantically in the sand. They uncovered several bodies of domestic dogs, wrapped in blankets, who had been eviscerated. Buried along with them were occult objects and linen bags full of chicken bones.

Moderate wiccans may not want to claim the curanderos as comrades, but let me assure you that any Mexican will tell you curanderos ARE witches.

[technomage]

Hate to disagree with you Justin, but witches do practice animal sacrifice, at least out here in the southwest. They are called curanderos, and use animal sacrifices to remove curses, the evil eye, etc.

While out on an archeological survey, my husband and I noticed our dogs digging frantically in the sand. They uncovered several bodies of domestic dogs, wrapped in blankets, who had been eviscerated. Buried along with them were occult objects and linen bags full of chicken bones.

Moderate wiccans may not want to claim the curanderos as comrades, but let me assure you that any Mexican will tell you curanderos ARE witches.
They may very well be witches ... they are not Wiccans, and this is a necessary distinction. In our view, Wicca is a specific religion. Witchcraft is a broad term covering a multitude of cultural practices involving various forms of folk magic. The two terms are not synonymous--indeed, one can easily be a Wiccan and never practice witch-craft. Gardner (et al) tried to use the words synonymously, but even he recognized that there were forms of witchcraft that did not fit into Wicca.

Though I do thank you for bringing this up: it's a necessary clarification that, left unspoken, could lead to a great deal of confusion.

Justin

[Eyeheart Pumpkin]

They may very well be witches ... they are not Wiccans, and this is a necessary distinction.
Yes. Wicca is to witchcraft, as Methodist is to Christian, as square is to rectangle. Even that is an oversimplification, as "witchcraft," per se, seems to be defined by practices more than beliefs and attitudes, and there are plenty of Wiccans who have no involvement in many of the practices commonly associated with witchcraft, and some who have no involvement with ANY of those practices, yet they are still Wiccans since those practices are not part of the definition of a Wiccan.

[Thedonhopeless]

How does one know if the experience they have in these states are actually from god?

There has to be some sort of written revalations about or from god, to know what they are experiencing is truly him/her.

[technomage]

How does one know if the experience they have in these states are actually from god?
I guess the same way Paul did, or the Prophets--though I certainly don't claim to be a Wiccan prophet or apostle. "That which leads you to embrace the good, and eschew the evil, is from God." The Wiccan Lord and Lady helped me kick a fairly serious drug habit, not to mention gave my wife and I a daughter. I've seen the power of God in my life.

Now by the same token, if I call something God that is not the Creator, I'm in the wrong ... but I have to believe that we all work by the light we have, so to speak. I have several ... well, not "objections," but "difficulties" with Christian doctrine: more fundamentally, I have never seen that kind of power from Jesus Christ. I have from the Lord and the Lady.

There has to be some sort of written revalations about or from god, to know what they are experiencing is truly him/her.
But then in turn, you're left with the question of "How does one know if the written revelation is from God?"

See, that's the problem: I'm rather of the opinion that all "written revelation" is from the hand of man, and not necessarily from God--and that definitely includes the things that I've written while "inspired." The very process of revelation is so personal and so idiosyncratic that it cannot be translated without being "processed," if you will, through the human vehicle.

Justin

[Durthorin]

How does one know if the experience they have in these states are actually from god?

There has to be some sort of written revalations about or from god, to know what they are experiencing is truly him/her.
So if we write it down its true? <blink>

Brighid Bless, Dur

[Thedonhopeless]

No not if we write it down its true..The writing revaltion I brought up was just an example really to ask how you know the traits of the god you interact with..here is another example, if you do good, how do you know you are truly doing good in the eyes of your god? stuff like that...but

I see Justins point here, he says he feels god and the effect god has on his life.

which leaves me to one more question if you will Justin, I remember I believe you said you were christian at one time, also in your response to me you said you could not see any power from Jesus, but you can from you current god. The question is, why would your current god care if you think of him/her/it as a christian god, long as you are contacting them? You say there is no written revaltions, or any such things, so there can't be a history of this god, based on the fallible witness of men, so you cannot know that this god would even care to be called anything, jesus, kali, zues..ect ect..or even what this god likes/dislikes ect ect

Basically, im not debating the exsistance of your god, only the ability for you to know their will.

Oh and what is your thoughts on those people who do have experience with jesus and they say he has power? If you didn't see any, and say no he has no power, then go to the more appropriate god, but they have experience with Jesus and they stay, how does their experience differ from your's with your new god? meaning, you concluded Jesus as a god didnt exist, or the biblical god cause of lack of experience ect..can they both exsist? obviously you have experience with your new god, and so do christians with jesus..how do you reconcile this?

I dont mean to put you on the spot with all these questions, truly I am interested, for as i always say i am a seeker of the truth, and only the truth...so any and all input from everywhere i liek to gather, and fellowship with my common man, in betet rhopes to attain that truth. :smile:

[technomage]

No not if we write it down its true..The writing revaltion I brought up was just an example really to ask how you know the traits of the god you interact with..here is another example, if you do good, how do you know you are truly doing good in the eyes of your god? stuff like that...but
Well ... I guess that's where it gets back to "working with the light you have."

OK, let's take a case in point. Jay Sekulow (of the American Center for Law and Justice) and Fred Phelps (of the "God Hates Fags" church in Topeka, Kansas) both oppose gay marriage. Now, I support gay marriage, so I am in disagreement with both of them: yet I have a vastly greater amount of respect for Sekulow. Phelps completely perverts the Scriptures to come up with a twisted and hateful way of presenting the same message that Sekulow presents in a calm, loving manner.

Phelps has turned his back on the "light" that he has available to him: Sekulow is working within that light. Now, I am also working within what light I have--which is why I disagree with both on this particular issue (and disagree with Phelps on darn near anything). None of us has a "perfect" understanding of the mind of God: Sekulow and Phelps both believe that the Bible reveals some truth about God, but even they will not say that it reveals all truth ... just "all the truth that we need for now."

According to the "light" I have available, both Sekulow and Phelps are in error regarding the mind of God, but Phelps is guilty of not even obeying what he claims to believe.

which leaves me to one more question if you will Justin, I remember I believe you said you were christian at one time, also in your response to me you said you could not see any power from Jesus, but you can from you current god. The question is, why would your current god care if you think of him/her/it as a christian god, long as you are contacting them?
God would not care. To the best of my understanding, God does not care if you call Him Jesus, or Allah, or Thor, or Juno, or Pele, or Aradia ... God only cares that you call!

But to me ... it would make a grave difference, but that difference is only due to my own limitations. I cannot, in my mind, separate Jesus from the Bible. I cannot separate the historical claims of Bible, some of which have been called into serious question, from the "truth claims" of the faith, and even though I know that "salvation" is not based on believing in a six-day creation, because of my own limitations I cannot reconcile the two.

Justin

[Thedonhopeless]

Ok, I have a better grasp on where you coem from. Thanks for the explanations. You personally didn't find any experience with Jesus, even though your god may not mind such things, because of your own doubts within connecting jesus to the bible...causing perhaps a false and ingenuine communication with your real god. this may also explain how other peopel do have experience with jesus as god, because no such doubts exsist, and so that does not hold back their communion with god, if we look at god as your god.

Thanks again, you have been greatly patient with me, I appreciate it. :smile:

[steamer]

God only cares that you call!


Why does he care that you call?

[technomage]

Why does he care that you call?
Heck, I don't know why He cares that we call! He didn't tell me, that's for sure! :wink:

And I can't definitively tell you that God wants us to "call," or if so, how absolute that desire is. It is possible that I was projecting my own emotional status on my experience. It is possible that I was misinterpreting what I perceived. It is even possible that I was perceiving a hallucination.

But at this point, about all I have to go on are my own experiences, and logic. When I am in such a status that I can perceive God, I perceive love, concern of a type that I can best analogize as "parental," and a desire for communion. I know my experiences are genuine. I've considered the possibility that I'm either hallucinating (something I rather doubt, but can only test to a very limited degree) or not properly understanding what I perceive (I'm actually quite sure that I don't fully understand the experiences, but I feel I do have some understanding). At this point, the only thing I have left is Occam's Razor ... I just hope it's not too dull to cut the confusion.

Justin

[steamer]

But at this point, about all I have to go on are my own experiences, and logic. When I am in such a status that I can perceive God, I perceive love, concern of a type that I can best analogize as "parental," and a desire for communion. I know my experiences are genuine. I've considered the possibility that I'm either hallucinating (something I rather doubt, but can only test to a very limited degree) or not properly understanding what I perceive (I'm actually quite sure that I don't fully understand the experiences, but I feel I do have some understanding). At this point, the only thing I have left is Occam's Razor ... I just hope it's not too dull to cut the confusion.
Lately my theory of theist has evolved to include the idea that all gods are imperceptable (as they would be if they were imaginary). That the sum-total of attributes which allows them to slip across the imagined/perceived ideas boundary is that they usually have the attributes of being invisible, non-tactile and otherwise undetectable by the senses.

I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying when you say that you perceive god, but it sounds like you are describing feelings that you have had when communing with this entity. Occasionally I commune with my late wife. I still love her. She no longer exists. My current experiences and feelings about her are genuine, but they are based on my memories of her. She has become a mental entity and it is that which I now commune.

I do not see that it is necessary that a mental entity needs to ever have had an actual existence to provide real and genuine feelings. I don't think its indicative of any mental disorder either and doesn't need to be labeled as a hullicination anymore than mental constructs such as justice or patriotism require. Both justice and patriotism provide very real emotional stimuli. Unlike gods though they do not have the attributes that they they cannot actually be made real. Imperfect, but still recognizable as such.

So, is this perception you describe something that would make me change my opinion that your deity is something other than a mental entity?

[technomage]

So, is this perception you describe something that would make me change my opinion that your deity is something other than a mental entity?
:shrug: I'm not certain, but I rather have my doubts. I do have anecdotal evidence that can be interpreted as "Deity having effects on the tangible world," but it's anecdotal, and it's interpretational, so I certainly couldn't argue the logic if you or any other skeptic rejecting my assertions.

For the rest, however ... does having an entity that is invisible/intangible automatically exclude that entity existing (outside of being a "mental entity")? I realize that such an entity would violate Occam's Razor, but we both know that's not necessarily the last word.

Justin

[steamer]

For the rest, however ... does having an entity that is invisible/intangible automatically exclude that entity existing (outside of being a "mental entity")? I realize that such an entity would violate Occam's Razor, but we both know that's not necessarily the last word.

It's not impossible that there are invisible entities, but if whatever you are doing works for you why add that extra layer of complexity and doubt? Although I tend to think of these things as the result of confirmation bias, I don't see anything wrong with holding a mental entity composed of the best ideas one has about the nature of being. You say some power may be responsible for whatever results you have, but isn't the simplest notion that the power is you?

[Heathen Dawn]

why add that extra layer of complexity

Why not?

Although I tend to think of these things as the result of confirmation bias, I don't see anything wrong with holding a mental entity composed of the best ideas one has about the nature of being. You say some power may be responsible for whatever results you have, but isn't the simplest notion that the power is you?

Some people are satisfied with a metaphorical view of Deity, but others are not. I’m a literal polytheist and regard literal belief in the Gods as a core part of my spiritual life. I have a living relationship with my Goddess and my God, and that would not be possible if They were just metaphors or powers within me. They must be external and objective realities. I won’t settle for a metaphorical view of the Gods any more than a Catholic will settle for a symbolic view of the Eucharist.

[technomage]

They must be external and objective realities.
Hi, HD! Haven't seen you 'round lately.

It's not impossible that there are invisible entities, but if whatever you are doing works for you why add that extra layer of complexity and doubt? Although I tend to think of these things as the result of confirmation bias, I don't see anything wrong with holding a mental entity composed of the best ideas one has about the nature of being. You say some power may be responsible for whatever results you have, but isn't the simplest notion that the power is you?
Hmmm... If these "mental entities" always agreed with me, or confirmed my views, or if their knowledge was limited to my own, then yes, I could agree. But Heathen Dawn brings up a very good point, even if it's spoken of in the form of a "belief" statement: the limitations that would be required for the Gods to be a "mental entity" are exceeded ... on a regular basis.

Now I need to clarify that this is something that I can only illustrate anecdotally, not systematically or scientifically. I have seen examples in my own relationship with the Gods of the following:
* The Gods have certain actions that they approve of, and certain ones that they do not. Their standards are not, necessarily, mine, and I have definitely gotten some "Don't do that!"-style warnings from the Gods.
* The Gods seem to have their own point of view, perspective, and opinions: I say "seem to have" because I do not fully understand much of the experience when I am in communion with them. However, while I do not have full understanding, I can definitely tell you that there have been times when I wanted to do one thing, and they wanted me to do something altogether different--and not necessarily in what I perceived as being in my best interest at the time.
* The Gods have knowledge that I do not have, and have occasionally shared that knowledge with me. Well, OK, let me phrase that a bit differently: what I perceived while in communion with the Gods has occasionally given me insight into situations that I had no knowledge about.

That's as dry and clinical a description as I can get ... and yeah, I know, you probably know no more than you did before I started. :lol: Heck, Steamer, it's difficult enough to explain these experiences with someone whose beliefs agree with yours--it's almost impossible to discuss them with someone who doesn't share your beliefs. :shrug: :smile:

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Say Wiccan,



How was your time Bob Jones University?

[technomage]

Hi, Pythagoras,

How was your time Bob Jones University?
Not bad ... the academic subjects were not terribly challenging until I got to Greek (that was rough :wink:), but truth to tell, when I got to BJU, I really didn't have the self-discipline to be in a university. The behavioral expectations were ... more strict than I was used to.

But this is a huge jump in subjects ... we were speaking of Wiccan views of Deity. Would you like to join that conversation, or shall we split this one off to another thread ... say, in the Rec Room?

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Hi, Pythagoras,


Not bad ... the academic subjects were not terribly challenging until I got to Greek (that was rough :wink:), but truth to tell, when I got to BJU, I really didn't have the self-discipline to be in a university. The behavioral expectations were ... more strict than I was used to.

But this is a huge jump in subjects ... we were speaking of Wiccan views of Deity. Would you like to join that conversation, or shall we split this one off to another thread ... say, in the Rec Room?

Justin
Sorry for barging in like that...... It is a huge jump from the main topic. Maybe we should split this one off......

I just thought maybe their anti-Catholic biase turned you off. Bush got into alot of trouble visiting BJU some years back. And John Ashcroft(the Karaokee loving, Jeezus invoking, former Attorney General) got a standing ovation at heir auditorium . Were yuo there when he spoke?


Respond at the Rec. Room , if you wish.

[steamer]

Hmmm... If these "mental entities" always agreed with me, or confirmed my views, or if their knowledge was limited to my own, then yes, I could agree. But Heathen Dawn brings up a very good point, even if it's spoken of in the form of a "belief" statement: the limitations that would be required for the Gods to be a "mental entity" are exceeded ... on a regular basis.
Patriotism is a kind of mental entity. Sometime it could demand that I give my life for my country. This is definately not something in my own best interest, but I might be compelled to do it anyway. Mental entities only exist as non-perceived ideas. If it is a true dichotomy, then all non-perceived ideas are imagined ones.


Now I need to clarify that this is something that I can only illustrate anecdotally, not systematically or scientifically. I have seen examples in my own relationship with the Gods of the following:
* The Gods have certain actions that they approve of, and certain ones that they do not. Their standards are not, necessarily, mine, and I have definitely gotten some "Don't do that!"-style warnings from the Gods.
Could you describe one of your "don't do that!" warnings from the gods? How did the gods direct you to do one thing and not another? A friend of mine once told me that her life told her if her decision was correct. Her way of divining knowledge was completely subjective as to what it was her life told her.


* The Gods seem to have their own point of view, perspective, and opinions: I say "seem to have" because I do not fully understand much of the experience when I am in communion with them. However, while I do not have full understanding, I can definitely tell you that there have been times when I wanted to do one thing, and they wanted me to do something altogether different--and not necessarily in what I perceived as being in my best interest at the time.
If you agree that patriotism is a kind of mental entity then you can see that it may not necessairly always have you act in your own best interest.


* The Gods have knowledge that I do not have, and have occasionally shared that knowledge with me. Well, OK, let me phrase that a bit differently: what I perceived while in communion with the Gods has occasionally given me insight into situations that I had no knowledge about.
The gods gave you insights into a situation you knew nothing about or you had no knowledge of the insight? Personally I don't have the first clue how the brain thinks up new ideas or develops new insight, so it would be difficult for me to tell whether the insight wasn't internal but I assume that it is.


That's as dry and clinical a description as I can get ... and yeah, I know, you probably know no more than you did before I started. :lol: Heck, Steamer, it's difficult enough to explain these experiences with someone whose beliefs agree with yours--it's almost impossible to discuss them with someone who doesn't share your beliefs.
Could you direct me to a legitimate Wiccan website? I'd google it myself but I don't know which ones might not be representative of your view of Wicca.

[Heathen Dawn]

Patriotism is a kind of mental entity. Sometime it could demand that I give my life for my country. This is definately not something in my own best interest, but I might be compelled to do it anyway. Mental entities only exist as non-perceived ideas. If it is a true dichotomy, then all non-perceived ideas are imagined ones.

Have you ever had a personal relationship with patriotism? Have you had a conversation with it? Have you seen it face to face? I’ve had all of these with the Gods. They are Persons, not ideas. Persons have to be literally real. (unless you want to fall into Matrix-like solipsism, in which you don’t know if even you are real!)

Could you direct me to a legitimate Wiccan website?

What’s a legitimate Wiccan website? What makes one legitimate?

[Pythagoras]

Hi Heathen

What does the pentagram within a circle mean to you?

Does it symbolize the Deification of man within infinity by any chance, in your conception? Or something else.

Thanks,

[steamer]

Have you ever had a personal relationship with patriotism? Have you had a conversation with it? Have you seen it face to face? I’ve had all of these with the Gods. They are Persons, not ideas. Persons have to be literally real. (unless you want to fall into Matrix-like solipsism, in which you don’t know if even you are real!)
I've had deep feelings about it, I've been moved emotionally by it. Does that make a persona? No.

Can I imagine a god? Yes. Can I imagine having a face to face conversation with it? Yes. Did you perceive this god with your eyes? or your minds eye? Just because I can imagine a god and converse with it doesn't mean it exists as a perceivable idea, it means I can imagine it.


What’s a legitimate Wiccan website? What makes one legitimate?
My understanding is that they are ranked in fluff-bunnies. I'd prefer one with less fluffyness.

[Heathen Dawn]

What does the pentagram within a circle mean to you?

The five points symbolise the five elements: Fire, Water, Earth, Air, and on top of them all Spirit (akasha).

Does it symbolize the Deification of man within infinity by any chance, in your conception?

No, perish the thought! I disbelieve completely in any possibility of humans becoming Gods (except for rare cases, demigods, like Hercules, and even they did not deify themselves, but were granted immortality by the Gods). That is hubris and it’s a grave sin. Humans are humans and Gods are Gods, and that’s the way things are going to stay.

Can I imagine having a face to face conversation with it? Yes.

No. Such a thing cannot be imagined. You feel as if you’re talking to another person.

Did you perceive this god with your eyes? or your minds eye?

I saw Them. It doesn’t matter how. I have more reason to believe in Their existence than in yours, for I have seen Them and not you.

My understanding is that they are ranked in fluff-bunnies. I'd prefer one with less fluffyness.

Ah. What a trend this dastardly anti-fluffbunny (http://eclecticsatyr.hostultra.com/aafbb.htm) movement (http://eclecticsatyr.hostultra.com/afb101.htm) has started! But people should note that the non-fluffy sites are not necessarily the best. They are usually very scholarly, but this is on expense of spirituality—they tend to be hard-nosed and sceptical. Fluffbunny sites, for all their faults, are more spirit-filled.

[steamer]

No. Such a thing cannot be imagined. You feel as if you’re talking to another person.
Feelings are also internally generated.


I saw Them. It doesn’t matter how. I have more reason to believe in Their existence than in yours, for I have seen Them and not you.
It does matter how you saw them if they were perceived then they exist as perceived ideas, like my car, otherwise they were imagined. If they were imagined then they need not exist anywhere else.


Ah. What a trend this dastardly anti-fluffbunny (http://eclecticsatyr.hostultra.com/aafbb.htm) movement (http://eclecticsatyr.hostultra.com/afb101.htm) has started! But people should note that the non-fluffy sites are not necessarily the best. They are usually very scholarly, but this is on expense of spirituality—they tend to be hard-nosed and sceptical. Fluffbunny sites, for all their faults, are more spirit-filled.
I followed some of the links from the site you mentioned. Thanks.

[Heathen Dawn]

Feelings are also internally generated.

I meant “feel” in the sense of being convinced that it is so. It is unmistakable.

It does matter how you saw them if they were perceived then they exist as perceived ideas, like my car, otherwise they were imagined. If they were imagined then they need not exist anywhere else.

Why should I carry the burden of proof? If you wish to convince me that my relationship with my Lady and Lord is imaginary, then you prove it! The burden of proof is not on the positive claimant as atheists so conveniently have it; rather, it is on the one who wishes to convert the other to his point of view.

I followed some of the links from the site you mentioned. Thanks.

The links in my previous post are to articles on my website, of my authorship.

[steamer]

I meant “feel” in the sense of being convinced that it is so. It is unmistakable.
I don't see that there is a difference as that feeling too is internally generated.


Why should I carry the burden of proof? If you wish to convince me that my relationship with my Lady and Lord is imaginary, then you prove it! The burden of proof is not on the positive claimant as atheists so conveniently have it; rather, it is on the one who wishes to convert the other to his point of view.
I'm not trying to convert you. I'm trying to understand an experience that we do not share. I understand it might be like telling a blind person what purple looks like, but my own experience doesn't have any perceivable beings in it that only a few people or just myself am able to perceive. I can on the other hand imagine beings and converse with them if I like. That I do understand.

[Undomiel]

I had an interesting experience one day, while visiting a mIRC channel with a friend (who happened to be a canadian wiccan). He was interested in the channel because it claimed to be a "Wiccan" chat gathering. His curiosity piqued, he ventured in. Sadly, for him, and surprisingly, for me, these Wiccans were not the least bit interested in his presence. I remained quiet and listened in on the conversation as it went from bad to worse. This was essentially the gist of it:

Canadian Wiccan: Hi, just thought I'd drop in and see what my fellow wiccans were up to.

Wiccans already there: Oh, hi. Hello. Yo. Greetings. Merry meet. (etc)

One Wiccan in particular: So where are you from?

Canadian Wiccan: Canada.

Silence prevails for at least half a minute.

Then all the Wiccans who were already there began talking, seemingly, at once. They were British Wiccans and wanted nothing whatsoever to do with Americanized Wiccans, who were just spin-offs from the latest tv show about witches. Of course, this offended the Canadian fellow greatly, as he had entered the room with a sense of awe and a willingness to learn from other Wiccans. I was dumbfounded, completely taken aback that the place this guy lived would have any bearing on his capacity to be a worthy "Wiccan." But if you heard it from their perspective, only British Wiccans were true Wiccans. Ah just another slice of being human. Sadly, they were just as tough on christians, who they claim are prejudiced hypocrites. My Canadian friend spent the better part of an hour arguing with them, until finally, he left, discouraged and angry. I actually felt sorry for him.

The moral of this story is, it's rough all over where people are concerned. We do the best we can, but sometimes, that's just not enough and it's in those moments where it would behoove us to listen to that still small voice -- especially if the message is grounded in love. Of course, we all know love is multi-faceted, and can be just as staunch about wrongdoing as it is worshipful about kindness, faith, hope, and charity. But never let it be said that a person is automatically bad because of where they live, what color they are, what sex they are, what religion they are. Religion was one of the things Jesus spent alot of time complaining about, because it's more like a machine than a human event. People are individuals, and we as christians, wiccans, and etc, must learn to treat each other as individuals.

As far as Heathen Dawn's comments on his God and Goddess, I'd like to add that I happen to believe he has actually had those experiences. I cannot guarantee where they derive from, but I do not doubt him.

[Heathen Dawn]

I'm not trying to convert you. I'm trying to understand an experience that we do not share.

This deserves lengthy comment. It is possible for every human, with no exception, to gain an understanding of the theistic experience, not only on the academic level, but on the personal level of experiencing it. The experience of the Divine is open to all. As I say in my article Allahu Mahabbah (http://eclecticsatyr.hostultra.com/mahabbah.htm):

But this point is crucial: it is possible for every human to see God. Every one. It may often take work, and it may involve some trial and error before finding Gods who consent to reveal Themselves before you, but it cannot fail. There are so many Gods to try, there must be at least two Gods who respond. Different people have different ways of raising their sensitivity. Some need ritual, some need prayer, some need immersion in green nature. And the Gods are to be approached in trust, not in a scientific way, not in setting Them tests. The seeker must be ready to accept revelation as is, not, for example, to go to a psychiatric check upon hearing Their voices in his or her head. But there is no unfairness involved. There is no human who is barred access to the Divine, no human whose attempts will not bear fruit in the end.

But you see, excessive scepticism and mistrust is a barrier to this experience. If you test the Gods—again, the sin of hubris!—then They will not reveal Themselves to you. You must come to Them on Their own terms, not on yours. The seeker shall find, but he has to seek truly, with a trusting heart, not with scepticism, not with cold-eyed scientific scrutiny, not in mistrust. You must take your high standards of evidence off their throne and come to the Gods as Their petitioner. This does not mean grovelling before Them, nor making yourself Their slave, but this does mean recognition that They are higher than you.

Skepsis leads to apistis. Faith and trust opens the door to the Transcendent.

Nor do the Gods need any worshippers.

[Heathen Dawn]

As far as Heathen Dawn's comments on her God and Goddess, I'd like to add that I happen to believe she has actually had those experiences. I cannot guarantee where they derive from, but I do not doubt her.

Thank you. Heathen Dawn is a he, by the way.

(edited to add) Note on my previous post: it is not proselytising, nor intended as such; for the most part, it can be interpreted as an invitation to theism in general, and even here I have no interest (as I said, the Gods don’t need it). It is not an invitation to paganism; the theistic experience is available through Christianity as well (though not Islam, which has an impersonal god).

[Undomiel]

Thank you. Heathen Dawn is a he, by the way.

Ah, I will fix it.

[technomage]

Patriotism is a kind of mental entity. Sometime it could demand that I give my life for my country. This is definately not something in my own best interest, but I might be compelled to do it anyway. Mental entities only exist as non-perceived ideas.
True enough.

If it is a true dichotomy, then all non-perceived ideas are imagined ones.
That's the crux of the issue. Unfortunately, it's a statement that cannot be falsified in a scientific context, so science does us no good.

Then we're left with philosophy ... but you know as well as I do that a person's philosophy depends entirely on the foundation it's built on. Part of teh foundation of my philosophy is that the Gods have a discrete existence, even though we are not capable of perceiving them directly. Part of yours is that the Gods are "mental entities," having no existence outside of the thoughts of the person who experiences them.

Both philosophical foundations are valid. Neither is verifiable. Law of exclusivity says they can't both be true (though they could both be false), but we have no way to objectively establish one over the other.

But heck, we can still have fun arguing about it. :lol:

Could you describe one of your "don't do that!" warnings from the gods? How did the gods direct you to do one thing and not another? A friend of mine once told me that her life told her if her decision was correct. Her way of divining knowledge was completely subjective as to what it was her life told her.
I could ... but like your friend, my "method" is entirely subjective. (If you still want to know, I'll go into it.)

The gods gave you insights into a situation you knew nothing about or you had no knowledge of the insight?
Sorry, I didn't phrase that very clearly, did I.

The Gods have, from time to time, given me knowledge of an external situation that I had no knowledge of. In one particular case, knowledge of a pregnancy (at about a week)--not completely out of the realm of scientific possibility, but definitely odd. (I knew before she did.)

And I have to admit, that could be confirmation bias ... it's not something I can do at will.

Could you direct me to a legitimate Wiccan website? I'd google it myself but I don't know which ones might not be representative of your view of Wicca.
I can--but they may or may not consider me to be a "legitimate Wiccan." :lol:

Witch's Voice (http://www.witchvox.com/): One of the "usual suspects" when discussing Wicca and related paths. While they are a great source of information, they make little distinction between "Traditionalist Wicca" and "Eclectic Wicca" in their informational pages.

Brigadoon (http://users.cwnet.com/season/): One of the most open Traditional Wiccan websites on the Internet.

And in case you're interested....

Earthstar Wicca (http://www.geocities.com/earthstarwicca/): I especially reccomend the "What Is Wicca" and the "Wiccan Apologetics" links. Those are the most complete parts: unfortunately, the Apologetics area is not complete, but I'm working on it. Other than those two sections, the place is under serious construction: watch out for falling beams, floors that are not secure, and cat-calling construction workers. :lol:

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Heathen,



Thanks for the reply.


The five points symbolise the five elements: Fire, Water, Earth, Air, and on top of them all Spirit (akasha).
This seems sort of simplistic doesn't it? --Something I could pick up from a Chinese horoscope book. Is that all to your religion?


No, perish the thought! I disbelieve completely in any possibility of humans becoming Gods (except for rare cases, demigods, like Hercules, and even they did not deify themselves, but were granted immortality by the Gods).
Who are these Gods you talk of?

Doesn't your Gardenerian second degree initiation call forth the inverted cross? -- A need for the witch to learn to face darkness within ? What's this darkness within ? .

[Heathen Dawn]

This seems sort of simplistic doesn't it? --Something I could pick up from a Chinese horoscope book.

What exactly were you expecting? The secrets of the universe?

Is that all to your religion?

No, that’s all there is to the pentagram. That’s what you asked about.

Actually there’s more if you want to know:

http://www.witchvox.com/basics/pentacle.html

Who are these Gods you talk of?

Supernatural spirits, holy powers, anthropomorphic images of the Divine.

Doesn't your Gardenerian second degree initiation call forth the inverted cross?

I’m neither Gardnerian nor initiated.

A need for the witch to learn to face darkness within ? What's this darkness within ?.

I have no idea. Many pagans harp on about the necessity of “embracing the Dark Side,” but I’m not one of those, and they can all take a walk. I’m a white-lighter, mine is a path of sweetness and light.

[Pythagoras]

Hi Heathen,

No, that’s all there is to the pentagram.
Not quite.

Actually there’s more if you want to know:
That's better.

Supernatural spirits, holy powers,
Christians call these the Fallen Angels.


anthropomorphic images of the Divine.
This is how an anthropologist would see it.

I’m neither Gardnerian nor initiated.
so you're a free witch of sorts.



I have no idea. Many pagans harp on about the necessity of “embracing the Dark Side,” but I’m not one of those, and they can all take a walk. I’m a white-lighter, mine is a path of sweetness and light

Sure you are,..'a white lighter'.Reminds me of the self-satisfied Ostrich which dug it's head in hole leaving the rest of it's body exposed. The prowling lions don't care; to them an Ostric is an Ostrich, no matter it's conviction.


For even the Satan transforms himself into an angel of light.-- Lucifer, 'the light Bearer.'

Good Luck,

[Heathen Dawn]

Not quite.

If you know, then why did you ask me? Where you TESTING me?!

Christians call these the Fallen Angels.

The Christians are mistaken.

This is how an anthropologist would see it.

Yes, but not just anthropologists.

so you're a free witch of sorts.

Eclectic Wiccan, I call myself.

Sure you are,..'a white lighter'.Reminds me of the self-satisfied Ostrich which dug it's head in hole leaving the rest of it's body exposed. The prowling lions don't care; to them an Ostric is an Ostrich, no matter it's conviction.

For you, my friend, I happen to have just written a response, coïncidentally, even before reading your post:

http://eclecticsatyr.hostultra.com/whitelight.txt

But I don’t come here to be personally insulted. Welcome to my Ignore List.

[Pythagoras]

Heathen,


If you know, then why did you ask me? Where you TESTING me?!
I never ask a question to which I don't already hold the answer. But that's just me.

The Christians are mistaken.
Ok.

Yes, but not just anthropologists.
And 'white-lighters' like you, I suppose.

Eclectic Wiccan, I call myself.
In other words, you're a mumbo-jumbo Witch.


But I don’t come here to be personally insulted. Welcome to my Ignore List

Pity, you consider candour to be insulting....Remember Heather, I eat souffle after lunch.

No offense intended,

[steamer]

For even the Satan transforms himself into an angel of light.-- Lucifer, 'the light Bearer.'
Then how do you know he hasn't disguised himself as Yahweh of the bible? There are no stories about Lucifer worse than the ones about Yahweh, ie destroying the world, tormenting masses of former humans for eternity, etc.

I don't see anything at all evil in the idea of the lord and lady. In comparison, Yahweh is much more Lucifer-like than these.

[Pythagoras]

Steamer,

Then how do you know he hasn't disguised himself as Yahweh of the bible?
That's an excellent question Steamer. Ultimately each man has to judge for himself whether Yahwh of the Bible is for real or atrick of Lucifer.


are no stories about Lucifer worse than the ones about Yahweh, ie destroying the world, tormenting masses of former humans for eternity, etc


Worse is subjective, isn't it?

.Those who trust in Yahwh say God graciously renewed the world through the flood to prevent something worse from occuring (--to deny evil from overwhelming the Earth.)

. Those whome God condemns to hell are so confined to prevent them from doing something worse (--to prevent them from corrupting the Saints in heaven.)


I don't see anything at all evil in the idea of the lord and lady

Not even child sacrifice which was offered to Asthorath by the Ancients?

In comparison, Yahweh is much more Lucifer-like than these
The definition of lucifer-like is subjective, isn't it?

[technomage]

This seems sort of simplistic doesn't it? --Something I could pick up from a Chinese horoscope book. Is that all to your religion?
Certainly not ... but that is the symbolism of the pentagram, which is what you asked about.

Doesn't your Gardenerian second degree initiation call forth the inverted cross?
No, actually, it doesn't. :teeth:

Justin

[Heathen Dawn]

I know the type—a student of the occult, a Ceremonial Magician. Reminds me of MachineGod on Christian Forums. I don’t know which I more loathe, Ceremonial Magicians or Reconstructionist Pagans. The former say Wicca isn’t magical enough, the latter say Wicca isn’t pagan enough. Well, that’s your own tough luck, Wicca exists on its own terms, not to please its critics.

[technomage]

Hi, HD,

I know the type—a student of the occult, a Ceremonial Magician. Reminds me of MachineGod on Christian Forums. I don’t know which I more loathe, Ceremonial Magicians or Reconstructionist Pagans. The former say Wicca isn’t magical enough, the latter say Wicca isn’t pagan enough. Well, that’s your own tough luck, Wicca exists on its own terms, not to please its critics.
Nah, Pythagoras is sort-of Christian, and completely opposed to occultism. Indeed, he's also opposed to Trinitarian Christianity ... he claims that the Christian Trinity is descended from a putative "Babylonian Trinity," a la Alexander Hislop. I've had dealings with him before--he can be a bit abrasive, but he's not a bad egg.

Justin

[Heathen Dawn]

Nah, Pythagoras is sort-of Christian, and completely opposed to occultism. Indeed, he's also opposed to Trinitarian Christianity ... he claims that the Christian Trinity is descended from a putative "Babylonian Trinity," a la Alexander Hislop.

OK, thanks.

I've had dealings with him before--he can be a bit abrasive, but he's not a bad egg.

I don’t know. I know he’s compared me to an ostrich burying its head in the sand. Half the reason my website exists is as a platform for me to defend the legitimacy of my path.

[technomage]

I don’t know. I know he’s compared me to an ostrich burying its head in the sand. Half the reason my website exists is as a platform for me to defend the legitimacy of my path.
Ah, don't worry about that. Py seems to be of the opinion that if you don't agree with his historical theories, you're either deceived or attempting to deceive someone else. It's a potential weakness of a pre-suppositional view of history--something that we're all subject to.

By the same token, he has done some far-ranging and intensive studies of comparative religion: I disagree with his assumptions (and therefore with many of his conclusions), but the amount of work is respectable, within those areas that his preconceptions do not interfere. That may sound like I'm giving him faint praise, but it's as good as any of us can ask for.

Justin

[Heathen Dawn]

That’s OK. I was sure he was one of those anti-fluffbunnies chiding me for the white-light path. I can’t stand anti-fluffbunnies. Now that you say those things, it’s clear he’s a different kind of animal.

[Pythagoras]

Evening Wiccan,

Thanks for the back-handed accolade(s). I guess a compliment is a compliment.... Anyway,



No, actually, it doesn't. :teeth:

Justin
Sure about that?


http://www.ecauldron.com/pentagram.php (http://www.ecauldron.com/pentagram.php)







"In the 1940's Gerald Gardner adopted the pentagram with two points upward as the sigil of second degree initiation in the newly emergent, neo-pagan rituals of witchcraft, later to become known as Wicca. The one-point upward pentagram together with the upright triangle symbolized third degree initiation."

[technomage]

Sure about that?
Quite sure--this was your original question:

Doesn't your Gardenerian second degree initiation call forth the inverted cross?
There is no inverted cross in a Gard 2* initiation. :teeth:

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Wiccan,



Now you're annoying me.

Quite sure--this was your original question:


There is no inverted cross in a Gard 2* initiation. :teeth:

JustinTry this then:

http://members.aol.com/westgrove2/ (http://members.aol.com/westgrove2/)



In the 1940s Gerald Gardner adopted the inverted pentagram as a symbol of second degree initiation and represents the need of a witch to learn to face the darkness within so that it cannot rise and take control. If a witch is wearing a pentagram inverted it means s/he is undergoing a period of deep introspection and self discovery; that she is entering the underworld to confront her fears and conquer them.



Your next tact will be to play games of semantics.

[technomage]

Your next tact will be to play games of semantics.
Nope. I directly answered your question. "Cross" does not equal "Pentagram." Now, if you had asked "Is the symbol of an inverted pentagram invoked during the Gardnerian Second," my answer would have been (and still is) an unequivocable "Yes." Indeed, the Inverted Pentagram is the primary symbol for 2* in most Wiccan Traditions.

Does the Inverted Pentagram have a specific meaning? Absolutely--and the meaning is different from the meaning of the Upright Pentagram. But if you want to discuss that, then you need to ask ... that one's not a freebie.

Justin

[Pythagoras]

Wiccan,


I double checked my old post.I did write cross! Funny, I meant to write pentagram and was thinking pentagram all along.

OK point taken....

commentatory: Wiccan gets a lucky left hook, Pythagoras hits the ground. Standing Eight count. ....

[technomage]

Nah, don't be so hard on yourself, Py! We've all done it. I call something like that a "braino" ... kind of like a typo with your head. :thumb:

Justin