Justin's understanding of Wicca

[technomage]

Greetngs,

I'm starting this thread to converse with mickiel on the nature of Wicca, but anyone is more than welcome to participate.

I have learned to do as you suggest, we can surely talk. My humble appoligies to you.

Mickiel, you never need apologize to me for an honest mistake, or for not knowing something. Believe me, as much as I may know (or may think that I know), there is far more that I do not know.

Please explain what Wiccan is or means.

From the outside, Wicca is a religion. However, at its most fundamental level, Wicca is like Christianity--both your understanding, and the "mainstream" understanding--Wicca is a relationship with the Creator.

The problem is, I could write a book about what Wicca is, and still not answer your questions. I can give you a rough academic understanding, but the fundamental truth of Wicca is something that can only be experienced. However, I do need to say this as a side-note: I'm not trying to convert you or anyone else to Wicca; my only purpose is to explain my understanding of that relationship.

Wicca is a collection of beliefs, myths, rituals, philosophy, and ethics that is designed to allow one to experience and understand their relationship to the Creator. We normally perceive the Creator as a God and Goddess, but we realize that these are (in one sense) symbols that we can understand for a Creator that we cannot fully understand.

One of the fundamental differences between Wicca and Christianity is we do not accept that there is any separation between God and man: we reject the doctrines of sin, and of hell. When we die, we rejoin the Creator ... however, most Wiccans will tell you that we are reborn, but franklly, I have my profound doubts that what makes me "me" will ever be born on this earth again.

At this point, though, unless I were to write a book, I could talk for days and never fully explain Wicca. What questions do you have, and I will do my best to answer them.

Justin

[NormATive]

...Wicca is a collection of beliefs, myths, rituals, philosophy, and ethics that is designed to allow one to experience and understand their relationship to the Creator. We normally perceive the Creator as a God and Goddess, but we realize that these are (in one sense) symbols that we can understand for a Creator that we cannot fully understand.

Heh! Sounds all too familiar. The myths of my childhood religion includes talking snakes and dead men walking!

Do you see, as I do now, that the myths were useful in ages past to comprehend things beyond contemporary knowledge? And that myth is eventually replaced by tradition that symbolically represent the "truth" hidden within the liturgy?

For example, the stories of Jesus healing lepers has a twofold meaning. One, is as a fulfillment (redaction, actually) of messianic prophecy for the followers wishing to stay within traditional Judaism. But also, for those splitting to follow Paul, it served to provide background for the growing god-man theology.

So, now that we know people don't really rise from the dead, and snakes don't tell lies, we group all of these stories into traditional little liturgies and festivals. The philosophy within the story remains, however. The gold in the dross of Christianity is that love conquers all, and we should treat our neighbour as ourself.

One of the fundamental differences between Wicca and Christianity is we do not accept that there is any separation between God and man: we reject the doctrines of sin, and of hell. When we die, we rejoin the Creator ... however, most Wiccans will tell you that we are reborn, but franklly, I have my profound doubts that what makes me "me" will ever be born on this earth again.Justin

I think that separation thing is unique to Christianity. I believe it is the essence of humankind's emergence into the modern era. Previously, the gods (and G-d) dealt communally with human creatures. With the separation theology, it became an individual striving toward G-d. Sin, hell, and damnation are on our heads - say the right words (incantations, i.e; sinner's prayer), do the right things (rituals, like baptism, sexual purity, etc...), and everything is hunky-dory.

I don't know about eternity and all, but I definitely celebrate today! In that, I am more Wiccan than Christian. But, I accept the core values of Judaism and Christianity. You know; a kind word turns away wrath, feed the hungry, heal the sick, and come to the aid of the defenseless.

I just don't buy the myths anymore. Maybe the mysticism, but not the magic. I think making it through the day with a smile at the end of it is magic enough.

How does your religion help make you a better you? Do you still believe any of the myths?

NORM

[Heathen Dawn]

Wicca is a relationship with the Creator.

Not all Wiccans believe in a Creator. I don’t think even all the first Wiccans did. Wicca is just as compatible with a creatorless pantheism (universe all there is) as with panentheism.

I’d say Wicca is a relationship with the Gods or with nature or with both.

Heh! Sounds all too familiar. The myths of my childhood religion includes talking snakes and dead men walking!

[…]

So, now that we know people don't really rise from the dead, and snakes don't tell lies, we group all of these stories into traditional little liturgies and festivals. The philosophy within the story remains, however. The gold in the dross of Christianity is that love conquers all, and we should treat our neighbour as ourself.

That would be Liberal Christianity. The trouble with liberal religion in general is that it has the juice taken out of the religion. It’s like comparing the symbolic (Protestant) view of the Eucharist with the literal (Catholic) one—the latter mindblowing, amazing, the former trite and banal.

I read a great part of the mythologies literally: Zeus really does send thunderbolts upon people. I don’t care what others think, I can’t have it any other way.

[technomage]

Do you see, as I do now, that the myths were useful in ages past to comprehend things beyond contemporary knowledge?

Ehhh... Norm, that's a drastic reification. Yes some myths are used to provide an explanation, within the specific cultural context, for phenomena and events that are beyond contemporary knowledge, but that is far from the only purpose for myths.

Myths serve many purposes (this list is not exaustive):
1: They relay normative cultural expectations within a specific cultural context--such as the story of Zipporah's "emergency circumcision" of Moses' child as a way to transmit the cultural importance of circumcision;
2: They provide cultural information for otherwise inexplicable phenomena--such as the story of Ai--literally, "Ruins"--as an explanation of "What are those ruins over there?"
3: They provide context for elements within the culture, the origin of which has been forgotten--such as the story of the one day's supply of oil lasting for eight days as an explanation of Channukha.

Were any of these events historic? Without meaning to be insulting, the only possible response is to consider such a question to be completely irrelevant. To my mind, the historicity of the events in the story is completely and utterly beside the point--the point of these myths is not to recount history, but to provide the cultural context.

And that myth is eventually replaced by tradition that symbolically represent the "truth" hidden within the liturgy?

That is certainly one possible course of events, but I do not believe it is the only one.

I think that separation thing is unique to Christianity. I believe it is the essence of humankind's emergence into the modern era. Previously, the gods (and G-d) dealt communally with human creatures. With the separation theology, it became an individual striving toward G-d. Sin, hell, and damnation are on our heads - say the right words (incantations, i.e; sinner's prayer), do the right things (rituals, like baptism, sexual purity, etc...), and everything is hunky-dory.

Hmmm.... Again, I have to disagree, historically at least. The concept of the individual striving towards God goes back at least as far as the Oriental Mystery Religions, and perhaps back to Zoroastrianism (in the orient), and back to Platonism (in Greece). In a completely secular view, it is the ideals of Hellenic Neo-Platonism and the methodology of Oriental Mystery Religions combined with the theology of a new Judaic schism (called "the Way" at first) that one will find the roots of modern Christianity.

Let us assume for a moment that the secular view is completely accurate: does that devalue Christianity? Well, those who hold to a literalist interpretation of Scripture state that it does: that view goes back to Paul, who stated that if Christ is not raised, then Christian faith is worthless. But it is a view that some Christians are accepting today.

I don't know about eternity and all, but I definitely celebrate today! In that, I am more Wiccan than Christian. But, I accept the core values of Judaism and Christianity. You know; a kind word turns away wrath, feed the hungry, heal the sick, and come to the aid of the defenseless.

On this we can agree--indeed, I feel that my practice of Wicca benefits from these core values, and I have striven to inculcate them into my practice, and my teaching.

How does your religion help make you a better you? Do you still believe any of the myths?

Um ... "Answer subject to change without notice...?" :sheepish grin:

Seriously, I both do and don't. Let's look really quick at my version of the Creation Myth (Warning: this myth is rated PG-13.)

Before Time, there was the One -- and the One was All.

And the One beheld Itself in the curved mirror of Nothingness, and loved Itself, and the one became Two -- Male and Female, separate, but still One.

And the Two (who are One) came together, and loved, and as they sang in their love Time was created, to hold the meter of the Song. And Space was created, to contain the bounds of Their Love.

And as Their song of love became cries of pleasure, of Their joy and love for each other was born all that is, spun of the very essence of the Two (who are One). The great galaxies that spin, and the stars within them; the planets and moons that revolve and turn, each in its own path; and all of Creation sang back the Love of the Two (who are One).

And of their love was born all things that live, spun -- like the Universe itself -- from the very substance of the Two (who are One).

And thus all Life was born in Love. For we are all from the One, who is Two -- created in Love, born of Love, and returning to Love.

And thus was everything made that was made.


Now, do I believe that this was the literal beginning of the Universe? In a religious context, I do, because it establishes that the Universe was created in love, and that we--as members of that Creation--are the Children of the Lord and Lady. In a scientific context, I fully accept and support mainstream scientific research ... and we'll just leave any jokes about the "Big Bang that started the universe" for a later time.... :hehe

[mickiel]

At this point, though, unless I were to write a book, I could talk for days and never fully explain Wicca. What questions do you have, and I will do my best to answer them.

Justin[/QUOTE]


Please give a breif synops on the views of Wicca in these areas;

Who will ultimately be saved?

The so called trinity.

Who created evil?

Why God created mankind in weakness first?

Since they are simular to christianity, why have they not merged with them?

Who are the leaders of Wicca? Please explain what these leaders are called. ( pastors, prophets, ...?)

Explain the particular term Wicca, break it down and explain to me where this spelling of the term came from. Does each individual letter stand for a word within itself?

Thank you for this kindness. I have never heard of Wicca before. I must say that I bear a strong dislike for christianity, if Wicca is simular, then I expect my reaction toward it to be simular. Religon is one of mankinds greatest handicaps, and sheilds from God. Yet they think it a great help.

Peace, Mickiel.

[technomage]

Who will ultimately be saved?

Mickiel, if (as most Wiccans believe) there is no sin and no hell, there is nothing to be "saved" from. In the context that I think you mean, this means that all who live will rejoin the Creator. Will there be some form of punishment for those who are evil, or reward for those who are good? I do not know: the Lord and Lady have not said anything about it to me. I do have my doubts, however.

The so called trinity.

The Lord and the Lady are my own understanding of the Creator. The Christian Trinity is their understanding of the Creator. I have no problem with that ... because if the symbol allows you to have even a measure of understanding of the Substance, then the symbol is "true"--or, at the very least, is useful.

I do believe that some symbols--"God Names," if you will--allow a generally greater understanding than others: in other words, I don't feel that a vengeful, hateful God-Name (such as Set or Loki) allows for a tremendous understanding. And I also believe that some people do better with one symbol as opposed to another: for example, I personally can gain a greater understanding with the Lord and the Lady than I was able to gain looking to the Trinity. But I have never seen a God-Name that was totally useless for gaining a measure of understanding for someone, somewhere.

Who created evil?

"Evil" is a human concept. We define certain things as evil, and with some of those things (such as murder, rape, genocide, betrayal, dishonor, and the like) I believe there is a moral element. However, with some things (like natural disaster, accident, disease and untimely death), I feel the use of the word is erroneous--certainly understandable, but fundamentally these are not "moral" circumstances.

I have a more in-depth discussion of my views of evil (http://www.geocities.com/earthstarwicca/editorials/what-is-evil.html) on my website.

Why God created mankind in weakness first?

To my mind, we are not created "in weakness." We have our human limitations; we are mortal beings, subject to age, disease, and accident; we have free will, and therefore may make of our lives what we choose to make ... or we may even strive to make our lives according to our desires and fail.

Yet we also have our strengths. We have curiosity and hope; we have intellect and intuition; we have strength and love. These are our strength, but because we also have free will, we may choose to use these gifts for good, or for evil--and remember, these are human defined terms.

I have a Teaching Myth that discusses these and other issues (http://www.geocities.com/earthstarwicca/shadows/beginnings-of-mystery.html) on my website.

Since they are simular to christianity, why have they not merged with them?

Wicca and Christianity are similar in some respects, but dissimilar in many. I've discussed this as well on the website: What Is Earthstar Wicca (http://www.geocities.com/earthstarwicca/what-is/index.html).

Who are the leaders of Wicca? Please explain what these leaders are called. ( pastors, prophets, ...?)

Well, we do have teachers and those whom we respect, but each and every Wiccan is their own "primary" clergy. There are no real "leaders," per se, and though there are notable Wiccans, I honestly can't think of too many that I would be willing to claim. This is mostly because the ones that I know of who are public figures have become that way by selling their knowledge: I feel that my knowledge can be given as a gift, but to sell it dishonors the Lorsd and Lady, who gave it to me freely.

For those Wiccans who work together as groups, the leaders of a particular group may be called the High Priest and the High Priestess ... or they might just be called by their names, depending on the traditions of that particular group.

Explain the particular term Wicca, break it down and explain to me where this spelling of the term came from. Does each individual letter stand for a word within itself?

There is some disagreement about the origin of the word Wicca. Wicca is an Anglo-Saxon word that means a witch (specifically a male witch: Anglo-Saxon for a female witch was wicce), however, Wicca as a religion dates back only to the 1940s.

Now, this is a very subjective definition: there is a more objective definition at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca) that will actually get you a wider picture of Wicca.

Justin

[NormATive]

Ehhh... Norm, that's a drastic reification. Yes some myths are used to provide an explanation, within the specific cultural context, for phenomena and events that are beyond contemporary knowledge, but that is far from the only purpose for myths.

Myths serve many purposes...Were any of these events historic? Without meaning to be insulting, the only possible response is to consider such a question to be completely irrelevant. To my mind, the historicity of the events in the story is completely and utterly beside the point--the point of these myths is not to recount history, but to provide the cultural context.

I guess I didn't 'splain myself very well. This was exactly my point. The myths don't have to reflect reality to have meaning. The myths themselves - indeed, much of the symbology in the telling itself - (many were relayed orally, btw) contain the real message.

The concept of the individual striving towards God goes back at least as far as the Oriental Mystery Religions, and perhaps back to Zoroastrianism (in the orient), and back to Platonism (in Greece).

With the possible exception of Plato, I don't see that in any ancient writings I've examined. Nearly every reference to deity is concerned with the community as a whole, not individuals. Do you have historic examples where the ancients did so? I'm even including the ancient Hebrews here, because, prior to the Second Temple era (and even beyond in my opinion), Judaism was tribally based. I don't think the individual was contemplated until the time of the Hillel school in the first century BC.


In a completely secular view, it is the ideals of Hellenic Neo-Platonism and the methodology of Oriental Mystery Religions combined with the theology of a new Judaic schism (called "the Way" at first) that one will find the roots of modern Christianity.

Agreed.

Let us assume for a moment that the secular view is completely accurate: does that devalue Christianity? Well, those who hold to a literalist interpretation of Scripture state that it does: that view goes back to Paul, who stated that if Christ is not raised, then Christian faith is worthless. But it is a view that some Christians are accepting today.

I think once you remove the resurrection from Christianity, it comes to life. THEN, it becomes a way (hence, The Way) of life rather than an orientation of belief. IMO, Paul was the worst thing to happen to the sect of Judaism that became Christianity.



Let's look really quick at my version of the Creation Myth (Warning: this myth is rated PG-13.)

Before Time, there was the One -- and the One was All.

And the One beheld Itself in the curved mirror of Nothingness, and loved Itself, and the one became Two -- Male and Female, separate, but still One.

And the Two (who are One) came together, and loved, and as they sang in their love Time was created, to hold the meter of the Song. And Space was created, to contain the bounds of Their Love.

And as Their song of love became cries of pleasure, of Their joy and love for each other was born all that is, spun of the very essence of the Two (who are One). The great galaxies that spin, and the stars within them; the planets and moons that revolve and turn, each in its own path; and all of Creation sang back the Love of the Two (who are One).

And of their love was born all things that live, spun -- like the Universe itself -- from the very substance of the Two (who are One).

And thus all Life was born in Love. For we are all from the One, who is Two -- created in Love, born of Love, and returning to Love.

And thus was everything made that was made.


Now, do I believe that this was the literal beginning of the Universe? In a religious context, I do, because it establishes that the Universe was created in love, and that we--as members of that Creation--are the Children of the Lord and Lady. In a scientific context, I fully accept and support mainstream scientific research ... and we'll just leave any jokes about the "Big Bang that started the universe" for a later time.... :hehe

That's interesting. It reminds me of the kabbalistic readings on the Shekinah of G-d. This was a male/female spirit sent by G-d to roam the earth to influence mankind for the good, and to discern evil. My memory of it is vague, because I read it in Hebrew, and my Hebrew isn't all that great. If I understood the text correctly, the Shekinah was part of the group present when G-d created the human species.

Then there is the Golem - but, that's another thread!

NORM

[mickiel]

[QUOTE=Justin

Thank you Justin. I have more curiositys but it perhaps best I examine your website first. I am sure many answers await me there. I'll join back in here later.

Mickiel.

[NormATive]

That would be Liberal Christianity. The trouble with liberal religion in general is that it has the juice taken out of the religion. It’s like comparing the symbolic (Protestant) view of the Eucharist with the literal (Catholic) one—the latter mindblowing, amazing, the former trite and banal.

I don't consider it liberal or conservative. Those labels are meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Symbolism doesn't have to be trite and banal if you believe the philosophy behind them to be true and worthy as I do. I think the symbolism (metaphor, really) of "healing" is quite profound despite the fact that I don't believe Jesus ACTUALLY miraculously healed anyone.

In my way of thinking, it is moreso. Once you learn the tricks, magic becomes rather boring.

I read a great part of the mythologies literally: Zeus really does send thunderbolts upon people. I don’t care what others think, I can’t have it any other way.

Zeus - Static Electricity. You say po-ta-TOE, I say po-TAH-toe. Either way, if you stand in it's way, you're fried!

NORM

[technomage]

[QUOTE=Justin

Thank you Justin. I have more curiositys but it perhaps best I examine your website first. I am sure many answers await me there. I'll join back in here later.

Well and good ... however, I will warn you: my website is only about 10% finished, so there are missing sections, broken links, and unanswered questions galore. Watch out for dust, construction debris, and cat-calling workmen. :wink:

Justin

[technomage]

I guess I didn't 'splain myself very well. This was exactly my point. The myths don't have to reflect reality to have meaning. The myths themselves - indeed, much of the symbology in the telling itself - (many were relayed orally, btw) contain the real message.

Ah! Yes, I misunderstood you--it sounded like you were arguing for rejection of the myths. Sorry about that.

With the possible exception of Plato, I don't see that in any ancient writings I've examined. Nearly every reference to deity is concerned with the community as a whole, not individuals. Do you have historic examples where the ancients did so?

Well, we know the Myster Schools did--Initiation was a personal interaction with the Divine, not a corporate transaction ... well, OK, not necessarily a "personal religion" the way we think of it today, but it wasn't on a tribal basis anymore. And you get some of that sense in the literature of the time: Apuleius' account of initiation into the Isis Mysteries is the best example I can think of. (If you've not read The Golden Ass by Apuleius, it's also hilariously funny, even for a 21st century reader.)

I'm even including the ancient Hebrews here, because, prior to the Second Temple era (and even beyond in my opinion), Judaism was tribally based. I don't think the individual was contemplated until the time of the Hillel school in the first century BC.

Absolutely ... and I've been meaning for weeks to research the Hillel School and see how much their teachings influenced Christianity, but I only have so many hours in my day.

I think once you remove the resurrection from Christianity, it comes to life. THEN, it becomes a way (hence, The Way) of life rather than an orientation of belief.

I can see your point ... but I also have to see the point of view of the Christians who feel they have to insist on a real, historical, physical resurrection. :shrug: We all walk by the light we have.

IMO, Paul was the worst thing to happen to the sect of Judaism that became Christianity.

Ever read Rudyard Kipling's "The Disciple (http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/prose/LimitsRenewals/disciple.html)"?

That's interesting. It reminds me of the kabbalistic readings on the Shekinah of G-d. This was a male/female spirit sent by G-d to roam the earth to influence mankind for the good, and to discern evil. My memory of it is vague, because I read it in Hebrew, and my Hebrew isn't all that great. If I understood the text correctly, the Shekinah was part of the group present when G-d created the human species.

:yes: There are similarities ... and I have practiced and studied the (Westernized) Kabbalah, so I know that the tale of the Shekinah was some influence.

Then there is the Golem - but, that's another thread!

Aigh! Let's not get TOO far off on a tangent! :wink:

Justin

[NormATive]

Well, we know the Myster Schools did--Initiation was a personal interaction with the Divine, not a corporate transaction ... well, OK, not necessarily a "personal religion" the way we think of it today, but it wasn't on a tribal basis anymore. And you get some of that sense in the literature of the time: Apuleius' account of initiation into the Isis Mysteries is the best example I can think of. (If you've not read The Golden Ass by Apuleius, it's also hilariously funny, even for a 21st century reader.)

I'm not too terribly familiar with that in any detail. I'll certainly look into it.



... and I've been meaning for weeks to research the Hillel School and see how much their teachings influenced Christianity, but I only have so many hours in my day.

I'm Jewish on my mother's side, but was raised as a Christian. When I went to study Judaism, Rebbe had me read Hillel's teachings because she thought it would be familiar to me. I remarked how similar the sayings were (ex: do not do unto your neighbour what you would not want brought on yourself), and said "Hillel must have studied the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. It was then I learned that Hillel predated Jesus by 100 years!


... but I also have to see the point of view of the Christians who feel they have to insist on a real, historical, physical resurrection. :shrug: We all walk by the light we have.



Ever read Rudyard Kipling's "The Disciple (http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/prose/LimitsRenewals/disciple.html)"?

Yes! Absolutely! Touche!


Rudyard Kipling - The Disciple

He that hath a Gospel
To loose upon Mankind,
Though he serve it utterly--
Body, soul and mind--
Though he go to Calvary
Daily for its gain--
It is His Disciple
Shall make his labour vain.

He that hath a Gospel
For all earth to own--
Though he etch it on the steel,
Or carve it on the stone--
Not to be misdoubted
Through the after-days--
It is His Disciple
Shall read it many ways.

It is His Disciple
(Ere Those Bones are dust )
Who shall change the Charter,
Who shall split the Trust--
Amplify distinctions,
Rationalize the Claim;
Preaching that the Master
Would have done the same.

It is His Disciple
Who shall tell us how
Much the Master would have scrapped
Had he lived till now--
What he would have modified
Of what he said before.
It is His Disciple
Shall do this and more....

He that hath a Gospel
Whereby Heaven is won
(Carpenter, or cameleer,
Or Maya's dreaming son ),
Many swords shell pierce Him,
Mingling blood with gall;
But His Own Disciple
Shall wound Him worst of all!



NORM

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

Wicca is a relationship with the Creator.

That is not at all what I have understood about Wicca.

An 'impersonal God'--well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads--better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap--best of all.

Isn't that third view what Wicca teaches? Sure, there are beings around, but the focus is not primarily on relating to them.

We normally perceive the Creator as a God and Goddess, but we realize that these are (in one sense) symbols that we can understand for a Creator that we cannot fully understand.

So then there cannot be a real relationship? If the images are mainly symbolic.

One of the fundamental differences between Wicca and Christianity is we do not accept that there is any separation between God and man: we reject the doctrines of sin..l.

That's pretty wild, though!

Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin--a fact as practical as potatoes. Whether or not man could be washed in miraculous waters, there was no doubt at any rate that he wanted washing. But certain religious leaders in London, not mere materialists, have begun in our day not to deny the highly disputable water, but to deny the indisputable dirt. Certain new theologians dispute original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved. Some followers of the Reverend R.J.Campbell, in their almost too fastidious spirituality, admit divine sinlessness, which they cannot see even in their dreams. But they essentially deny human sin, which they can see in the street. The strongest saints and the strongest sceptics alike took positive evil as the starting-point of their argument. If it be true (as it certainly is) that a man can feel exquisite happiness in skinning a cat, then the religious philosopher can only draw one of two deductions. He must either deny the existence of God, as all atheists do; or he must deny the present union between God and man, as all Christians do. The new theologians seem to think it a highly rationalistic solution to deny the cat.

Blessings,
Lee

[Heathen Dawn]

That is not at all what I have understood about Wicca.

An 'impersonal God'--well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads--better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap--best of all.

Isn't that third view what Wicca teaches? Sure, there are beings around, but the focus is not primarily on relating to them.

The New Age view of God? Of course there are plenty of New Age Wiccans, but they’re not all. The Gods are believed to be personal.

Modern masters of science are much impressed with the need of beginning all inquiry with a fact. The ancient masters of religion were quite equally impressed with that necessity. They began with the fact of sin--a fact as practical as potatoes.

Who did? Jews and Christians, maybe. But not all ancient masters of religion acknowledge any so-called “fact” of sin. And more: the concept of sin widely differs between Judaism and Christianity, as I noted on this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=48735).

original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.

:rofl: It’s the one part of Christian theology which has been disproved! Evolution, therefore no Adam and Eve, therefore no original sin!

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

C.S. Lewis: A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap--best of all.

Heathen Dawn: The New Age view of God? Of course there are plenty of New Age Wiccans, but they’re not all. The Gods are believed to be personal.

Yes, I know, I acknowledge that, but isn't the main point about the "life-force," or whatever you wish to call it, which is impersonal? The Gods tap it, the people tap it...

Mention of the Gods, by the way, brings up a point, have you inquired into their motives? Why are they inclined to be of assistance, I wonder? Assuming they are...

Chesterton: original sin, which is the only part of Christian theology which can really be proved.

HD: It’s the one part of Christian theology which has been disproved! Evolution, therefore no Adam and Eve, therefore no original sin!

Well, I don't want to broaden the discussion to bring in evolution, but I think Chesterton's point here was primarily about the reality of sin, not so much about original sin.

So ... must we deny the cat? Just because there is disagreement about which specific acts are evil, doesn't mean these people are also disagreeing about the reality of sin. Disproving the reality of sin, would be astonishing, indeed...

Blessings,
Lee

[Heathen Dawn]

Yes, I know, I acknowledge that, but isn't the main point about the "life-force," or whatever you wish to call it, which is impersonal?

Why is a life-force necessarily impersonal? The orthodox Protestant Christian Walter Chalmers Smith didn’t think so:

To all, life Thou givest, to both great and small;
In all life Thou livest, the true life of all;
We blossom and flourish as leaves on the tree,
And wither and perish—but naught changeth Thee.

(emphasis added)

Mention of the Gods, by the way, brings up a point, have you inquired into their motives? Why are they inclined to be of assistance, I wonder? Assuming they are...

Wha? I don’t understand the question. And no, they aren’t demons deceiving us, in case you were wondering.

but I think Chesterton's point here was primarily about the reality of sin, not so much about original sin.

The only patent reality is the reality of evil human behaviour. To call it “sin” is an extra.

[lee_merrill]

Why is a life-force necessarily impersonal? The orthodox Protestant Christian Walter Chalmers Smith didn’t think so...

I agree with Mr. Smith! But I don't think that's Wicca's view...

And no, they aren’t demons deceiving us, in case you were wondering.

What I wonder though, is on what basis you make that conclusion.

The only patent reality is the reality of evil human behaviour. To call it “sin” is an extra.

That's fine, let's just call it evil human behaviour. Do Wicca followers hold to that? I was getting the impression they did not...

Blessings,
Lee

[Heathen Dawn]

But I don't think that's Wicca's view...

“Wicca’s view”? Even you Christians, who are supposed to agree, disagree on many things; how much more so then pagans and Wiccans, who aren’t supposed to agree. I have the same personal life-force view as Smith.

What I wonder though, is on what basis you make that conclusion.

:rofl: What I wonder is on what basis the writers of the Bible make the conclusion to the contrary.

If Christians call my Gods demons, I’ll show them how the Christian God is a demon. Play foul and I’ll play foul back.

That's fine, let's just call it evil human behaviour. Do Wicca followers hold to that?

Of course they do. What human can ignore the fact of evil human behaviour? It’s the whole system that Christianity makes out of it that we reject (as do the Jews also, by the way).

[lee_merrill]

I have the same personal life-force view as Smith.

All right, though I still don't think this is standard Wicca, from what I have heard from various Wiccans.

But then I have my next question, why do you trust him/her?

What I wonder is on what basis the writers of the Bible make the conclusion to the contrary.

I have reason to believe in the authority of Scripture, and umm, I've had an encounter or two with demons. What I have experienced lines up with Scripture, demons have powers, and they are willing to tempt people.

As far as references for my God, I can point to a cross, other Gods ask for a sacrifice, I haven't heard from people who follow other Gods that they ever made a sacrifice for them.

Which indicates which God is likely to have peoples' best interest in mind.

If Christians call my Gods demons, I’ll show them how the Christian God is a demon. Play foul and I’ll play foul back.

Fine, call them spirits, the name is not important, what do you know of their purposes?

I am rather astonished, when people who would certainly insist on references and interviews even for a prospective roommate, go to channelling meetings to invite spirits into their beings without any introduction or background check whatsoever.

And if it's that easy to get this power, that sounds very much like something for nothing, only where have I heard this before? "You have just won our hourly contest! Click here to claim your prize."

And what do they need from people, isn't the power in the hands of the spirits? What do these channelers bring to the table?

What human can ignore the fact of evil human behaviour?

Well, I agree, only I thought Justin was disagreeing, and saying that was Wicca. Hello, Justin? Is this a misunderstanding on my part?

Blessings,
Lee

[Heathen Dawn]

All right, though I still don't think this is standard Wicca

And there’s no “standard Wicca” either. The closest you can get to a rigid framework of Wicca is Traditional Wicca—Gardnerian Wicca and what branched off it.

from what I have heard from various Wiccans.

That would be concensus. A concensus isn’t a standard, there’s much more room for falling out of it than from a standard.

But then I have my next question, why do you trust him/her?

From my Wicca Questions and Answers File (http://eclecticsatyr.hostultra.com/wicca-qa.htm):

Q: How do you know the Gods are not demons deceiving you?

A: They are too good and kind and loving to be demons. They have never done me the least bit of wrong. How do you know your God is not a demon deceiving you? Especially in the light of all the atrocities He either ordered or tacitly accepted (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.shtml)?

I have reason to believe in the authority of Scripture

That’s your mistake.

and umm, I've had an encounter or two with demons. What I have experienced lines up with Scripture, demons have powers, and they are willing to tempt people.

It doesn’t follow from that that my Gods are demons.

As far as references for my God, I can point to a cross, other Gods ask for a sacrifice, I haven't heard from people who follow other Gods that they ever made a sacrifice for them.

Odin sacrificed Himself to us to give us the Mysteries of His runes. He hung himself by a tree for nine days and nine nights for our sake.

Which indicates which God is likely to have peoples' best interest in mind.

Not the god who sends to eternal torment all those who fail to acknowledge his sacrifice.

Fine, call them spirits, the name is not important, what do you know of their purposes?

I am rather astonished, when people who would certainly insist on references and interviews even for a prospective roommate, go to channelling meetings to invite spirits into their beings without any introduction or background check whatsoever.

And if it's that easy to get this power, that sounds very much like something for nothing, only where have I heard this before? "You have just won our hourly contest! Click here to claim your prize."

And what do they need from people, isn't the power in the hands of the spirits? What do these channelers bring to the table?

You think I’m a spiritist? You think I contact the Gods through séances? Think again. I establish a relationship with the Gods through ritual and prayer—not much different from Christians.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

And there’s no “standard Wicca” either.

It does seem a rather fundamental point to differ on, whether the source of life is personal or not. It changes a lot if the source is personal, so hearing someone say "I follow Wicca" doesn't seem to tell me much.

[The Gods] are too good and kind and loving to be demons. They have never done me the least bit of wrong.

Well, for one thing, some Wiccans believe the Gods are not actually the source of life. Maybe these Gods deceived you, there? That's not kind…

Odin sacrificed Himself to us to give us the Mysteries of His runes. He hung himself by a tree for nine days and nine nights for our sake.

That's good to hear, and the first I had heard of this, now do you take the bad tales, too? The Norse Gods were not consistently kind, there was even some petulance and petty jealousy, as I recall, and darker stuff, lusts etc., as in the Greek and Roman myths. Like Zeus becoming a bull so he would rape women. Is that another name for Odin? These are the kind gods who have the impeccable motives?

I would also wonder about confirmation, since I think we have a myth here.

Now as myth transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens -- at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate.

And I thought you believed in Zeus, can we mix mythologies like that? Would Krishna fit as well? Is Hinduism another form of Wicca? I don't seem to be seeing any boundaries, here.

Lee: Which indicates which God is likely to have peoples' best interest in mind.

Heathen Dawn: Not the god who sends to eternal torment all those who fail to acknowledge his sacrifice.

I believe we are given reason to hope that all will know God, and be saved, through his sacrifice.

You think I’m a spiritist? You think I contact the Gods through séances? Think again. I establish a relationship with the Gods through ritual and prayer—not much different from Christians.

Well, no, obedience is the heart of a relationship with God, see Mt. 7:21-23, where obedience and relationship are clearly intertwined. Rituals and prayers can be forms of obedience, but doing God's will is how we get to know him, for then we see his power at work, he reveals himself.

And isn't the sacrifice in Wicca a rather practical business, in a sense? The life force is released, and can then be useful. Like putting coal in the furnace…

But this was supposed to be Justin's view being discussed here, maybe it's time to start another thread.

Blessings,
Lee

[Heathen Dawn]

It does seem a rather fundamental point to differ on, whether the source of life is personal or not.

Less fundamental than one could be led to believe. There are many Wiccans who believe the source of life is impersonal but the manifestations, the Goddess and the God, are personal. (Don’t ask me how that works, I don’t hold that view)

Well, for one thing, some Wiccans believe the Gods are not actually the source of life.

Which pagan does believe that the Gods are the source of life? A pagan can believe in a Creator-God who is the personal source of life, or in an impersonal force that is the source of life, or no source of life at all. But the Gods aren’t philosophical concepts, they aren’t Unmoved Movers, they aren’t abstract powers, they’re beings, personal beings. And that view has near-total universality in paganism.

That's good to hear, and the first I had heard of this, I would wonder about confirmation, though, since I think we have a myth here.

Myth ≠ Fiction. Myths are nonliteral truths. And I don’t know if Odin’s sacrifice never literally happened.

Oh, must you bring B S Lewis all the time? He isn’t the bulletproof apologist for “mere Christianity” he thought himself to be.

Incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact.

Ipse dixit.

The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens -- at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate.

Of course he would say that, since the only alternative would be to recognise Christianity as a Judaeo-Pagan hybrid.

And I thought you believed in Zeus, can we mix mythologies like that? Would Krishna fit as well? Is Hinduism another form of Wicca?

I believe in all the Gods. A theistic pagan does indeed believe in the existence of all the Gods.

I believe we are given reason to hope that all will know God, and be saved, through his sacrifice.

Some of your fellow Christians here would call that—universalism—a heresy.

Well, no, obedience is the heart of a relationship with God,

Obedience is what a dog does towards its master.

And isn't the sacrifice in Wicca a rather practical business, in a sense? The life force is released, and can then be useful. Like putting coal in the furnace…

Maybe some Wiccans think of it that way, but for me this is a travesty.

But this was supposed to be Justin's view being discussed here, maybe it's time to start another thread.

This is the Wicca/Neopaganism forum; I trust, since pagans on this board aren’t very copious, another voice from that side would be beneficial. Of course, if Justin has objections to my being on this thread, I’ll respect that.

[lee_merrill]

Which pagan does believe that the Gods are the source of life?

I took that to be the meaning of your belief that the "life-force" is personal, for then the source is personal, too.

A pagan can believe in a Creator-God who is the personal source of life, or in an impersonal force that is the source of life, or no source of life at all.

Well, it makes quite a difference, when you pray, does it not? If you're trying to go to the source, I mean, if the source is personal, your approach will be very different than if it's impersonal.

Myth ≠ Fiction. Myths are nonliteral truths. And I don’t know if Odin’s sacrifice never literally happened.

Yes, but if we use them to indicate character, then why are we snipping out all the bad parts?

I believe in all the Gods. A theistic pagan does indeed believe in the existence of all the Gods.

Jesus, too? Allah? What qualifies a God to be included in this pantheon? Again, I'm not sure where the boundaries are.

Some of your fellow Christians here would call that—universalism—a heresy.

I have been called that...

Well, I recall a story about Tantalus, and one about Sisyphus, and one about Prometheus. Wasn't Zeus (I think it was Zeus) willing for Prometheus to have his liver eaten out every day, by an eagle, forever and ever, wouldn't he have been upset, on learning of his rescue? I haven't heard of a rescue for Tantalus and Sisyphus. And Arachne, let's not forget Arachne.

So how can the pagans make away with the prize here, and claim that those they worship do not condemn people to eternal punishment?

Obedience is what a dog does towards its master.

Then there are no appropriate instances of humans obeying humans?

But this does point out a fundamental difference, if the humans acquire enough power through Wicca, then should the Gods take to their heels? I don't know why all Wiccans will always have the God's best interests in mind. Which seems to indicate that this is not only (not primarily?) about relationships, but about power, the ability to do stuff, which, it seems to me, is at the heart of Wicca.

Blessings,
Lee

[Heathen Dawn]

Well, it makes quite a difference, when you pray, does it not? If you're trying to go to the source, I mean, if the source is personal, your approach will be very different than if it's impersonal.

Those pagans who don’t believe in a Source pray to the Gods. And those pagans who believe in an impersonal Source also pray to the Gods. And even those pagans who believe in a personal Source pray to the Gods, because the Source is believed to be too abstract and remote to be worshipped, and only His/Her anthropomorphic images, the Gods and Goddesses, can be worshipped.

Yes, but if we use them to indicate character, then why are we snipping out all the bad parts?

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re referring to.

Jesus, too? Allah? What qualifies a God to be included in this pantheon? Again, I'm not sure where the boundaries are.

It needs to be anthropomorphic deities under the polytheistic view. We accept the Biblical Yahweh as a God, but only one among many, and having human form, and not being the creator of the universe. The views on Jesus vary—mostly believed to be an all-human with pagan myths attached to his life-story, but some believe he is a demigod or an avatar of some God.

Well, I recall a story about Tantalus, and one about Sisyphus, and one about Prometheus. Wasn't Zeus (I think it was Zeus) willing for Prometheus to have his liver eaten out every day, by an eagle, forever and ever, wouldn't he have been upset, on learning of his rescue? I haven't heard of a rescue for Tantalus and Sisyphus. And Arachne, let's not forget Arachne.

Prometheus is a God, not a human. And these are myths, I don’t know whether to take them literally or not.

Then there are no appropriate instances of humans obeying humans?

I mean this talk about obedience reminds me of one of the more loathesome religions on this planet—Islam. Islam is Arabic for “submission.” It is better to move beyond the stultifying idea of submission towards the Gods and root for love towards the Gods. That is the one thing that sets Christianity apart from Islam—except that, they’re identical religions.

But this does point out a fundamental difference, if the humans acquire enough power through Wicca, then should the Gods take to their heels? I don't know why all Wiccans will always have the God's best interests in mind...

And where do you get the idea that Wicca is about acquisition of power? Even those who casts spells for power do it for help in their daily lives, not for deifying themselves. Wicca isn’t a Left-Handed Path, it isn’t Satanism, it isn’t autotheism, it’s a theistic religion. And though there are quite a few New Agers in the Wiccan scene, holding that we are already divine, for the literal-theist Wiccan there is a distinction between humans and Gods.

What power has Wicca given me? I still have to work to win the bread, I still have to go the same number of years as any other university student goes through, I still have to court a girl to win her love, I still can’t turn people I dislike into toads. All I have from Wicca is a living, loving relationship with my Goddess and my God. And that’s enough.

[lee_merrill]

... these are myths, I don’t know whether to take them literally or not.

Well, you can pick and choose, but then I'm not sure we can call the result Wicca, or paganism, even. And on what basis have you concluded that the bad stories do not describe the Gods, I wonder?

It is better to move beyond the stultifying idea of submission towards the Gods and root for love towards the Gods.

Then you have more insight than the Gods? When you disagree, you follow your own opinion? And they don't mind?

And where do you get the idea that Wicca is about acquisition of power?

Then if you're drowning, and call out to your Gods, they will say they love you very much, and that's all you may expect? You don't actually expect help from them, just love and good cheer?

Blessings,
Lee

[Heathen Dawn]

Well, you can pick and choose, but then I'm not sure we can call the result Wicca, or paganism, even.

Uh, if you said “Christianity” then you might be right on the mark. Paganism is all about picking and choosing—there is great diversity in the pagan scene, all resultant of different pagans picking and choosing different things.

And on what basis have you concluded that the bad stories do not describe the Gods, I wonder?

Where did I ever say such a thing?

Then you have more insight than the Gods?

??? Quomodo sequitur? How does it follow?

When you disagree, you follow your own opinion? And they don't mind?

What part of the phrase “loving relationship with the Gods” don’t you understand? Obedience is for dogs, love is for humans.

Then if you're drowning, and call out to your Gods, they will say they love you very much, and that's all you may expect? You don't seek help, just love and good cheer?

What a … twisting of my religion! Let me ask you this: does Christianity make you a superman? Of course not, right? Does that mean you don’t call to your God for help? Of course you do. It’s the same for me as a Wiccan! I seek love and good cheer first, and if I’m in trouble, I ask the Gods for help. When I say Wicca isn’t about acquisition of power, I mean it doesn’t make me a superman.

[lee_merrill]

Hi Heathen Dawn,

Paganism is all about picking and choosing—there is great diversity in the pagan scene…

Then isn’t there a danger of losing track of reality? It almost sounds like "Believe what you want, and skip the rest." But this only works if the parts of the teaching you reject are in fact, not true, and the parts you accept, are.

Lee: on what basis have you concluded that the bad stories do not describe the Gods?

HD: Where did I ever say such a thing?

Well, do you believe that Zeus became a bull so he could rape women? I gathered that you do not, and I wonder what you based this conclusion on.

Lee: Then you have more insight than the Gods?

HD: How does it follow?

If you don’t obey them, then must we not assume you know better than they do? Or else they don’t have your best interest at heart, one of the two…

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

I checked references, and I was mistaken, Zeus did not apparently ravish women in the form of a bull, rather he did this in the form of a serpent, to two women, one of them being his mother. So we read...

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

I checked further...

The other woman was his daughter...

[mickiel]

Wicca is interesting, to say the least. I think its quite something, even still, in my view, no religon on earth holds the complette truth. Including christianity and Wiccains. I am impressed that Wicca seems to see through some of christianitys deceptions, and they are deeply rooted deceptions, not easily seen through.

In Rev. 12:9, an interesting observation of our time is made by John, at least I think it concerns our time. The whole world is deceived. Strangely simple in tis coverage of all the world, which is all inclusive of every religon. But no religon will put themselves in this statement, they exclude themselves. I do not. I believe the verse as it is written, which includes everyone, I myself am a part of the whole world, so I have no problem admitting I am deceived.

The selfish ego of religous humanity will never include themselves on this list. But the list is not partial. It is universal. Men cannot see universal things in scripture.

[technomage]

Hi Justin,

Hi, Lee,

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you: I had to take some time out to examine some personal issues.

That is not at all what I have understood about Wicca.

An 'impersonal God'--well and good. A subjective God of beauty, truth and goodness, inside our own heads--better still. A formless life-force surging through us, a vast power which we can tap--best of all.

Isn't that third view what Wicca teaches? Sure, there are beings around, but the focus is not primarily on relating to them.

That's ... well, the closest equivalent I can come up with is that's a very liberal view of Wicca, just as the writings of John Spong are a very liberal view of Christianity. The concept of a "personal Deity" has become less popular among the "Book Wiccans" (also called--with a great deal of derision--"fluff-bunnies" or "IRABs," the second of which stands for "I Read A Book"). In part, this lack of popularity was because of the initiatory nature of Wicca: the view of a "Cosmic Life-Force" that anyone can tap into is quite popular amongst those who want to be Wiccan but do not want to take the steps required for Initiation.

We normally perceive the Creator as a God and Goddess, but we realize that these are (in one sense) symbols that we can understand for a Creator that we cannot fully understand.
So then there cannot be a real relationship? If the images are mainly symbolic.

On the contrary, there can be--and is--a real and quite genuine relationship. But just as in any relationship, we are relating to certain aspects of the one being related to.

Lee, I don't know if you're married or not, but let me assume that you are, and that you have kids. I have a certain and very specific relationship with you, but my relationship is not the totality of what defines you, and you have other relationships. For instance, it would be highly inappropriate to refer to you as "Dad"--you are (in this assumption) a father, you're just not my father.

In a similar fashion, we relate to the Creator in different contexts. Many of those contexts are defined not by the nature of the Creator, but by our limitations. Psychologically, neither of us can relate to a Creator who is infinite, and have a complete understanding of the God that we are relating to--our finite minds simply cannot handle that. Culturally, you have (I assume) been taught to relate to the Creator as a tri-partate God who is defined as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Lee, these are human-cultural concepts: God certainly does not procreate (in any manner that we understand), and all three Persons of the Christian Trinity are defined as eternal, so there could not have been a time that God the Son was "born" of God the Father in time to have been the Creator.

One of the fundamental differences between Wicca and Christianity is we do not accept that there is any separation between God and man: we reject the doctrines of sin..l.
That's pretty wild, though!

Is it? G. K. Chesterson's rather colorful illustration to the side, I am not speaking of the concept of "sin" as "evil actions," and I would be the last person on this earth to reject that some actions are evil. Wiccans deny that there is any "sin-separation" between Man and God.

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

... the view of a "Cosmic Life-Force" that anyone can tap into is quite popular amongst those who want to be Wiccan but do not want to take the steps required for Initiation.

Well, I heard the life-force idea from a full-fledged (so she claimed) initiated, witch (=Wiccan, as far as I understand). Not that I'm an expert on this! But if there are personal deities who are the real sources of life, then is Mother Earth personal? I thought she wasn't, I thought this kind of exemplified the life-source idea in a kind of localized - restricted to this globe - pantheism.

On the contrary, there can be--and is--a real and quite genuine relationship. But just as in any relationship, we are relating to certain aspects of the one being related to.

Well, what I was picking up on was "these are symbols," if personality is a symbol, and not a real characteristic, then it's not a real relationship, it seems to me. Yes, people have different roles, such as father (I'm not one, actually), but that is not symbolic, it describes one type of relationship, it is not a symbol for something else.

I am not speaking of the concept of "sin" as "evil actions," and I would be the last person on this earth to reject that some actions are evil. Wiccans deny that there is any "sin-separation" between Man and God.

They don't mind if you disobey them? And persist in disobedience?

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Hi Justin,

Greetings, Lee,

Well, I heard the life-force idea from a full-fledged (so she claimed) initiated, witch (=Wiccan, as far as I understand). Not that I'm an expert on this!

Lee, if you ask twelve Wiccans what they want on a pizza, you're likely to get at least fifteen different opinions. :lol: Part of the problem is that the word "Wiccan" is used for such a broad spectrum of belief: just as everyone from the Pope to John Spong claim to be Christian, so there is a wide range of belief within Wicca. But for the core definition of Wicca, one would have to look to the writings of Gerald Gardner. He definitely felt that the Lord and Lady have the attributes of "Personhood," though he never stopped to define or consider what those attributes were.

But if there are personal deities who are the real sources of life, then is Mother Earth personal? I thought she wasn't, I thought this kind of exemplified the life-source idea in a kind of localized - restricted to this globe - pantheism.

For Wicca, by my best understanding, a more accurate word would be "panentheism"--"God in all things"--rather than pantheism--"All things are God." There are many Wiccans who are pantheistic, but again, this is a more recent accretion into Wicca than Gardner's original definition.

But there is an important distinction to be made: Wiccans do not really have a concept of heresy. The coven down the road does things differently, and sees the Gods differently? There are few Wiccans who would quibble over such, saying only that "They practice differently than we do, but their practice is also a beneficial path." Most Wiccans acknowledge that we do not have any sort of exclusive understanding of Truth (though I will admit that many of the Wiccans you meet on the Internet certainly give the impression that they do).

Well, what I was picking up on was "these are symbols," if personality is a symbol, and not a real characteristic, then it's not a real relationship, it seems to me. Yes, people have different roles, such as father (I'm not one, actually), but that is not symbolic, it describes one type of relationship, it is not a symbol for something else.

Quite true, but the name "Father" is a symbol--it's a word that stands for one who is in that kind of relationship. And even at that, the symbol is ambiguous: if my daughter addressed me as "Father," that's one meaning of the symbol; if you said "Justin is a father," that's another meaning; if a Wiccan addressed me as "Father" (in my role as High Priest, though that's certainly not the usual title), that's yet a third meaning for that one symbol.

They don't mind if you disobey them? And persist in disobedience?

It's not that They don't mind if we disobey them--They certainly do. It's that whether or not I obey the Gods, or disobey them, I am still their child: my disobedience did not destroy that relationship, any more than my obedience created it.

Justin

[Durthorin]

They don't mind if you disobey them? And persist in disobedience?

Blessings,
Lee

This brings me personally to student I'm dealing with now, she seems to believe as a carry over from her Christian upbringing that the Gods should tell her what to do. What purpose do I have? What do you want me to do? How should I do X? You know the answers give them to me. The relationship that Pagans have with their Gods is not that of servant to master, child to parent but more along the lines of younger siblings to elder sibling. Also if your a believer that each aspect of the God or Goddess in his or her way has a different agenda in your life then you have to accept that sometimes the advice you get from say Brighid will conflict from what you would get if you asked Danu what you should do.

At the same time the Gods are infinitly patient, you want to wait as I did 10-15 years to follow a path they suggested. They will wait and they will keep making the same suggestion when you ask. But iit is not "disobeying" them any more than ignoring good advice is "disobeying". An like an elder brother they tend to laugh and tell you that wouldn't it have been easier had you listened when you finially get the message.

Danu bless, Dur

[Heathen Dawn]

Well, what I was picking up on was "these are symbols," if personality is a symbol, and not a real characteristic, then it's not a real relationship, it seems to me.

Your expectation for a hard and fast and uniform theology from Wicca is a bit too high. Even Christians can’t agree whether the Eucharist is Christ literally or Christ symbolically. In paganism we have (ideally *sigh*) no concept of schism, but only of diversity.

When a pagan tells you the Gods and Goddesses are faces of the Creator, it’s not all the information you could be given. There are is a vast gradation: from atheism symbolically theistic to monotheism symbolically polytheistic to literal poly-en-henotheism (that one’s my position) to literal polytheism without henotheism, and all the shades in-between. You have to ask detailed questions to know what the individual pagan believes.

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Justin: Lee, if you ask twelve Wiccans what they want on a pizza, you're likely to get at least fifteen different opinions. … Most Wiccans acknowledge that we do not have any sort of exclusive understanding of Truth…

Heathen Dawn: You have to ask detailed questions to know what the individual pagan believes.

Well, what are the non-negotiables in Wicca, are there any?

For Wicca, by my best understanding, a more accurate word would be "panentheism"--"God in all things"--rather than pantheism--"All things are God."

Isn't panentheism more properly "all things in God," though?

Lee: They don't mind if you disobey them? And persist in disobedience?

Justin: It's that whether or not I obey the Gods, or disobey them, I am still their child: my disobedience did not destroy that relationship, any more than my obedience created it.

Certainly whatever God(s) created the world have a relationship of creator to all creation. But the type of relationship being discussed here, interaction, and relating (relationship in that sense), not everyone has, with a given deity.

Dur: The relationship that Pagans have with their Gods is not that of servant to master, child to parent but more along the lines of younger siblings to elder sibling.

Well, then if you don't follow their advice, you know more than they do, or else they don't have your best interest at heart. Or you're willing to settle for second best.

Dur: They will wait and they will keep making the same suggestion when you ask. But it is not "disobeying" them any more than ignoring good advice is "disobeying". An like an elder brother they tend to laugh and tell you that wouldn't it have been easier had you listened when you finally get the message.

This seems to be implying that when a person realizes a course is wrong, they can then stop it. Only they can't always do that, just visit your local AA chapter…

Is there power from the Wiccan deities, in that case?

Also, is this all that is required, to respond to human evil? Osama bin Laden decides he was wrong, and (assuming he can change), he turns over a new leaf. Affectionate chuckles all around, and pass the chips and salsa?

Blessings,
Lee

[Heathen Dawn]

Lee,

you’re doing nothing but comparing Wicca to Christianity, using Christianity as the standard, and consequently finding Wicca to fall short. This isn’t a productive discussion. Imagine a Catholic asking you questions to find out who the pope of Protestantism is, and then saying that if Protestantism doesn’t have a pope then it can’t be Christianity fo’ real.

[technomage]

Well, what are the non-negotiables in Wicca, are there any?

Probably just one: to understand the Mystery.

There are three broad categories of religion: Natural religions, which have a regular Mythology and liturgy of ritual, but no clearly defined, single orthodoxy; Revealed religions, which have a text (or series of texts) that contain the core teachings of the religion; and Mystery Religions, where the "core truths" are ineffable, and cannot be expressed in words, but can be experienced, usually (but not exclusively) through specific, set rituals. Now, most Wiccans practice Wicca as a Natural Religion: there's nothing morally wrong with that, but to my mind, it is an incomplete understanding ... kind of like a Christian who never advances beyond the "milk" stage.

But at it's foundation, Wicca is a Mystery Religion: the core truths and understandings of Wicca cannot be discussed, except in a very round-about and incomplete way, because these core truths cannot be expressed in words. In some senses, discussing the Mystery is ... well, not really "dangerous," but it can pose the hazard of having someone who thinks they comprehend the Mystery, but merely has a subjective, intellectual interpretation of the Mystery.

Isn't panentheism more properly "all things in God," though?

Eh.... Not from what I can see. It may just be a semantic distinction on my part, but your phrasing places the emphasis on the things, and assigns the Creator a passive role. "God in all things: shows the Creator as an active participant in Creation.

Certainly whatever God(s) created the world have a relationship of creator to all creation. But the type of relationship being discussed here, interaction, and relating (relationship in that sense), not everyone has, with a given deity.

But everyone could have that relationship. The option is open. In many senses, someone who starts practicing Wicca, and who begins to understand that Mystery, does not have a "new" relationship with the Creator: they merely become aware of the relationship that has always been there, but that they were previously unaware of.

This seems to be implying that when a person realizes a course is wrong, they can then stop it. Only they can't always do that, just visit your local AA chapter…

Is there power from the Wiccan deities, in that case?

Well, there was in my case: I fought a drug addiction for ten years, as a Christian who bounced in and out of AA and NA. It was not until I became Wiccan (and began to understand the Mystery) that I discovered how to beat that addiction.

Also, is this all that is required, to respond to human evil? Osama bin Laden decides he was wrong, and (assuming he can change), he turns over a new leaf. Affectionate chuckles all around, and pass the chips and salsa?

Even if the situation you describe were to occur, Osama bin Laden's actions have legal consequences on this earth. If he were to decide that he was wrong and eschew violence, he would still have to face those consequences.

But by the same token, Wicca is not all "sweetness and light." The Lord is also a warrior: a God of War, and the Hunt. (And in light of that, I wish those who seek Osama bin Laden good hunting.)

Justin

[Heathen Dawn]

Probably just one: to understand the Mystery.

There are three broad categories of religion: Natural religions, which have a regular Mythology and liturgy of ritual, but no clearly defined, single orthodoxy; Revealed religions, which have a text (or series of texts) that contain the core teachings of the religion; and Mystery Religions, where the "core truths" are ineffable, and cannot be expressed in words, but can be experienced, usually (but not exclusively) through specific, set rituals. Now, most Wiccans practice Wicca as a Natural Religion: there's nothing morally wrong with that, but to my mind, it is an incomplete understanding ... kind of like a Christian who never advances beyond the "milk" stage.

That sounds like Skytoucher (http://eclecticsatyr.hostultra.com/pcrossroads.htm). You ought to read my commentary on his article (http://eclecticsatyr.hostultra.com/pcr-commentary.txt) for a different, dissenting point of view.

Wicca is not all "sweetness and light."

Speak for yourself. *sigh*

The Lord is also a warrior: a God of War

Our world doesn’t need such things. We have too much of them. The world (and my country in particular) is unlivable because of them.

Notwithstanding bitter sectarian hatreds over the centuries (all too obviously still going strong), Judaism, Islam and Christianity have much in common. Despite New Testament watering down and other reformist tendencies, all three pay historic allegiance to the same violent and vindictive God of Battles […]

[Heathen Dawn]

Goodbye all. It was nice posting here, but I have a call to respond to. (Justin, see ExW for what I mean)

Blessed be.
HD

[technomage]

Goodbye all. It was nice posting here, but I have a call to respond to. (Justin, see ExW for what I mean)

Blessed be.
HD
Blessings to you, Heathen Dawn. I'll catch up with you at EW.

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

Lee: Well, what are the non-negotiables in Wicca, are there any?

Justin: Probably just one: to understand the Mystery.

Then the SETI researchers are Wiccans? Surely there must be more that defines a Wiccan, since this fits most everybody, most people will not expect to understand Everything, or think that they do, but they will also seek to understand ultimate questions, too, regardless of whether they have a text to read or not.

There may be answers in these texts, too! Have you ruled those out? And must we say searching and believing a book are mutually exclusive?

"God in all things": shows the Creator as an active participant in Creation.

Yes, but that doesn't seem to be what is being expressed in "Mother earth." The earth is not active, as a personality, in Bob's aquarium and Larry's lava lamp and everywhere else, the point being made with this expression is rather different, I think, seeming to be more along the lines of saying "we are all parts of God."

In many senses, someone who starts practicing Wicca, and who begins to understand that Mystery, does not have a "new" relationship with the Creator: they merely become aware of the relationship that has always been there, but that they were previously unaware of.

I suppose that makes me a Wiccan, then, apparently you all are universalists, of sorts. Well, I hold to that sort of conclusion too, I guess we will see which way this turns out!

But these deities have no counterparts who are against them? I have noticed that people in the occult seem to have an aversion to Jesus, if I may say so. Apparently there are other spiritual beings that are viewed as "Them" instead of "Us."

Lee: Is there power from the Wiccan deities, in that case?

Justin: I fought a drug addiction for ten years, as a Christian who bounced in and out of AA and NA. It was not until I became Wiccan (and began to understand the Mystery) that I discovered how to beat that addiction.

I agree that there is spiritual power to help in various places, and I'm glad you are not being swept up by drugs. And some would tell of deliverance from addictions by Christ. I would. Now I can't tell what may or may not have happened in your situation, though I would be interested in hearing what you understood in Wicca, that gave you deliverance.

And I would also ask, what are the motives of any given spiritual being? How have you satisfied yourself that they have your best interest at heart? Certain calves, you know, don't have to plow, and get the best meals.

Even help and deliverance doesn't tell us how this is going to turn out…

Lee: Affectionate chuckles all around, and pass the chips and salsa?

Justin: Even if the situation you describe were to occur, Osama bin Laden's actions have legal consequences on this earth.

Yes, but I'm asking about these deities, what would they practice? And most laws come from a different tradition than Wicca, as I have heard.

Justin: The Lord is also a warrior: a God of War, and the Hunt. (And in light of that, I wish those who seek Osama bin Laden good hunting.)

Certainly, yet I was inquiring more particularly of justice. Is that a concern of the Gods? A hunt may be for various reasons, and I would, in this connection, wonder if there is power in Wicca to hunt someone whom you want to hit on, for any type of reason. Like with the places where if you pay the witch doctor the proper amount, he will curse your enemy. So it's just whoever makes their request first, you or your enemy. Can this power be exercised in a bad way?

Now if that is possible, and this power comes from these deities, that has some implications…

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Hi Justin,

Hi, Lee.

Then the SETI researchers are Wiccans?

:lol: Well, I'm given to understand that there are a few Wiccan SETI teams out there, but yeah, stated baldly like that it is rather ambiguous.

Surely there must be more that defines a Wiccan, since this fits most everybody, most people will not expect to understand Everything, or think that they do, but they will also seek to understand ultimate questions, too, regardless of whether they have a text to read or not.

Absolutely. :yes: And that's why (in the paragraphs you snipped) I gave a partial exploration of what the specific Mystery I was speaking of. The problem is the Mystery is ineffable: I can talk about the specific rituals that Wiccans use to attain it, or the relationship with Jesus Christ that Christian use to attain it, or the Moksha that some Hindus speak of, or the Nirvanah of Buddhism ... but there's no real way to encompass all of the Mystery without either referring to a specific culture (which is not comprehensible to those outside of that culture), or speaking in such broad and general terms that members of all cultures are left confused. And even at that--even if I were to compile all of the various views that human beings have had since the dawn of time--I still have only an incomplete understanding of the Mystery.

There may be answers in these texts, too! Have you ruled those out? And must we say searching and believing a book are mutually exclusive?

They are not exclusive--well, sort of not. The Tanach, the New Testament, the Q'uran, and some (but not all) other religious texts specifically exclused other forms of understanding, and a literalistic interpretation of these texts procludes other forms of investigation and discovery.

But as far as answers--absolutely! Jews, Christians, Muslims, and the adherents of these other texts are (in my views) in no way restricted or prevented from understanding the Mystery. Indeed, I can definitively state that there have been far more Christians who understood the Mystery than Wiccans ... if for no other reason than because there have been far more Christians in the history of our planet.

"God in all things": shows the Creator as an active participant in Creation.
Yes, but that doesn't seem to be what is being expressed in "Mother earth." The earth is not active, as a personality, in Bob's aquarium and Larry's lava lamp and everywhere else,

And why not? Just because these are the "creations" of technology or commerce? Just because they are not "mystical" enough?

Let me illustrate with one of the exercises I have some students perform before their initiation. Suppose I have a student who is all wrapped up in the ritual tools ... their athame, wand, cup, and pentacle have become their "gods," and they cannot see the reality behind the images. One man got so wrapped up in the symbols rather than the substance that he made some really ornate altar tools--he honestly thought that his "power" came from the tools. As part of his Ordeal, I had him destroy his tools. "That which you seek, if you do not find within, you will never find it without."

It's not that the Earth is intrinsically sacred: it is sacred because of the indwelling power of God. And if you understand that Mystery, you can even see an aquarium or a lava lamp as participant in that Sacral nature.

the point being made with this expression is rather different, I think, seeming to be more along the lines of saying "we are all parts of God."

Rather the point is "God dwells in all." But again, it's a semantic difference: seemingly profound, but not terribly useful.

In many senses, someone who starts practicing Wicca, and who begins to understand that Mystery, does not have a "new" relationship with the Creator: they merely become aware of the relationship that has always been there, but that they were previously unaware of.
I suppose that makes me a Wiccan, then, apparently you all are universalists, of sorts. Well, I hold to that sort of conclusion too, I guess we will see which way this turns out!

Well, if you understand the Mystery, then you are certainly Initiated by Wiccan standards.

The distinction between "Christian" and "Wiccan" is solely and simply a man-made distinction based on the texts, rituals, and methodology of understanding the Mystery. Nothing more. It's not that you and I are speaking to different Creators--only that we speak to the Creator in different "languages," as it were.


But these deities have no counterparts who are against them? I have noticed that people in the occult seem to have an aversion to Jesus, if I may say so. Apparently there are other spiritual beings that are viewed as "Them" instead of "Us."

OK, I do need to make a distinction here. There are some occultists who have a problem with Jesus, the Church, and Christianity in general--a few of them have what they perceive to be good reasons for that hostility (persecution or the like), but most of them are hostile because they think (incorrectly) that hostility to Christ is part and parcel with a magical worldview. To my mind, this is foolish.

However, there do seem to be certain entities that are ... well, I'm not sure "hostile" is quite the correct term. There are some entities that are quite incomprehensible to humanity, and (from what I have experienced) we seem to also be incomprehensible to them. There are also some entities who seem to be hostile. They flee when met with Power, but I cannot really tell you anything about their nature, because I simply do not know.

I agree that there is spiritual power to help in various places, and I'm glad you are not being swept up by drugs. And some would tell of deliverance from addictions by Christ. I would.

Many would. And let me make clear that I do not believe that Wicca is in any way "superior" to Christianity--you've probably caught that already, but I wanted to make sure that it was explicitly stated.

Now I can't tell what may or may not have happened in your situation, though I would be interested in hearing what you understood in Wicca, that gave you deliverance.

I've got an older thread that discusses my experiences here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41231).

And I would also ask, what are the motives of any given spiritual being? How have you satisfied yourself that they have your best interest at heart?

Lee, that's a good question, and it would take--literally--several books to answer fully. Unfortunately, the best answer I can give here is that, like Paul, "I know whom I have believed."

Certain calves, you know, don't have to plow, and get the best meals.

:lol: Always a good analogy to remember!

Justin: Even if the situation you describe were to occur, Osama bin Laden's actions have legal consequences on this earth.
Yes, but I'm asking about these deities, what would they practice?

Lee, I'm honestly not sure. It is my own theory that, when we were created as souls, the whatever-it-is that is the living soul is a "spark" from the Fire that is the Creator. When we die, that spark is reabsorbed into the Creator. What happens at that point is literally unknowable.

But this is my own theory. Most Wiccans hold to a view somewhat similar to the Hindu version of samsara (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samsara), in that we are constantly reborn (even though we do not see this rebirth as something that we seek release from), and feel that karma will revisit the evils done upon the one who does evil. This is not my view.

And most laws come from a different tradition than Wicca, as I have heard.

Lee, I'm not at all sure what this sentence means--most what laws?

Certainly, yet I was inquiring more particularly of justice. Is that a concern of the Gods?

It is ... but to the very best of my understanding, Justice is pursued in this world. I have no knowledge of whether or not it is an issue after death. That will be theologically dissatisfying to many people who would prefer assurance that something nasty will happen to people who do evil things in this life, but I cannot offer any assurances that what would be theologically satisfying to these people would be true.

A hunt may be for various reasons, and I would, in this connection, wonder if there is power in Wicca to hunt someone whom you want to hit on, for any type of reason. Like with the places where if you pay the witch doctor the proper amount, he will curse your enemy. So it's just whoever makes their request first, you or your enemy. Can this power be exercised in a bad way?

It can, just as the power of fire can be used in either a good or a bad way. A full explanation of Wiccan ethics would be well beyond the room I could post (or what my hands are up to today), but a brief answer is that Wiccan religious ethics are against such an act. Of course, there are still self-professed Wiccans who do these things, just as there are self-professed Christians who act against Biblical precepts.

Now if that is possible, and this power comes from these deities, that has some implications…

Absolutely. One of those implications is that the Creator is not exclusively "good" by our human standards! The Creator loves us, and wishes us well, but the Creator is encompases traits that we understand as "evil," as well as traits that we understand as "good." This is a necessary implication of an Infinite Deity.

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

Justin: It's not that the Earth is intrinsically sacred: it is sacred because of the indwelling power of God. And if you understand that Mystery, you can even see an aquarium or a lava lamp as participant in that Sacral nature.

That's more along the lines of what I was understanding "Mother earth" as meaning, not so much that you can find God personally, so you could talk to him/her like the proverbial genie inside a bottle (and this genie happens to be inside all bottles), but that all beings are part of God's nature. So now I would ask, how does that square with God being personal?

Well, if you understand the Mystery, then you are certainly Initiated by Wiccan standards.

This Mystery is too mysterious! If it means what I mean by understanding Christianity, then we have to say again that we now simply have a special word for "a person with beliefs." I don't mind having a special word for that, but I don't think that is what Wicca means.

It's not that you and I are speaking to different Creators--only that we speak to the Creator in different "languages," as it were.

I must say I'm not understanding your dialect, though. "A Mystery" cannot be the whole sum and substance of Wicca, I shall still try for more specifics…

… but most of them are hostile because they think (incorrectly) that hostility to Christ is part and parcel with a magical worldview. To my mind, this is foolish.

Glad you're not against Jesus, per se! Now I would mention in reply (though getting off-topic), that C.S. Lewis made a point about Jesus not leaving us room to call Jesus a great moral teacher, which I think also excludes putting him in a pantheon:

“I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. ... You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not [speak of] His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

So "a god" won't do, even, Jesus made the exclusive claim, that, as you mention, you must reject. But then it won't do to have him be another deity among many, he was deceptive at the very least, if he claimed to be "The" God, and yet wasn't, so I don't see how you can be "for Jesus" in a substantial way, in a worshipful way…

There are also some entities who seem to be hostile. They flee when met with Power, but I cannot really tell you anything about their nature, because I simply do not know.

Well, then I must insist on how we can know that the Wiccan deities are not also somehow involved in this spiritual evil? Where is the sign and seal of their holiness?

I've got an older thread that discusses my experiences here.

Thanks for sharing, yes, I do even remember checking into your thread here when you posted your testimony. And I am indeed glad you are free from drugs and alcohol, and that you have a wife and family…

May I say here that giving control of our lives to God is the critical juncture of Christianity? Now it might not be possible for people to do this, and that would prove that Christianity not only didn't work, but that it was impossible.

Lee: And I would also ask, what are the motives of any given spiritual being? How have you satisfied yourself that they have your best interest at heart?

Justin: Unfortunately, the best answer I can give here is that, like Paul, "I know whom I have believed."

But I would say in response that it wasn't only Paul's experience of God that he based his knowledge on. We have evidence, I think, of God's actual judgments, in fulfilled Scriptural prophecies, which show both God's divinity (by virtue of being prophecies) and his holiness (by being judgments), in events of history. Do the Wiccan deities have similar evidence of their holiness?

Justin: … to the very best of my understanding, Justice is pursued in this world. I have no knowledge of whether or not it is an issue after death.

Then I think we may question the commitment of the Wiccan deities to justice, it seems justice is not a non-negotiable item in the agenda, and thus, holiness is not, either…

Lee; Can this power be exercised in a bad way? … Now if that is possible, and this power comes from these deities, that has some implications…

Justin: Absolutely. One of those implications is that the Creator is not exclusively "good" by our human standards! The Creator loves us, and wishes us well, but the Creator is encompases traits that we understand as "evil," as well as traits that we understand as "good."

Then we have given up holiness, in it's essential meaning, I think, and with it, the guarantee that the Wiccan deities can have a given person's best interest in mind, at all times.

This is a necessary implication of an Infinite Deity.

Not if evil is a subtraction, instead of an addition…

Blessings,
Lee

[Richbee]

Lee,

you’re doing nothing but comparing Wicca to Christianity, using Christianity as the standard, and consequently finding Wicca to fall short. This isn’t a productive discussion. Imagine a Catholic asking you questions to find out who the pope of Protestantism is, and then saying that if Protestantism doesn’t have a pope then it can’t be Christianity fo’ real.

Yes, there is an objective standard for truth as found in the Bible! Like holding a crooked stick up against a straight edge reveals the deviance from the standard for straight.

Truth can exist only if there is an objective standard by which to measure it. That objective, unchanging absolute is God.

Christians hold to an objective standard for truth - the Bible, the Holy Word of God.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Of course this is the same bible that says:
Kill all the Infidels if they dont agree with you.
That women should not speak but should remains silent.
That women should be forced to marry their rapists
That parents should kill their rebellious children.
That women should be subservient slaves to the men.
That punish women for adultery with death while the men get away scott free.
That it's okay to Lie as long as it's in the service of god.

[Undomiel]

Of course this is the same bible that says:

Kill all the Infidels if they dont agree with you.

Lots of history in there that's not represented in the statement. Alot of events that inspired it. For example, if you are aware of who the nephilim were, you are half way to understanding the events that followed, including some of the gruesome events.

That women should not speak but should remains silent.

Refering to the New Testament or Old? Many many outspoken and powerful women in the Bible. Deborah is one such example in the Old Testament. http://www.biblelife.co.uk/article.php?id=157
And in the New Testament, Priscilla acted in the role of pastor and was referred to as a fellow worker in the ministry, Phoebe was a minister to the church at Cenchrea, Lunia was considered an apostle.
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV)

That women should be forced to marry their rapists

? Enlighten me.

That parents should kill their rebellious children.

This requires context. You have to know the context of the time and their situation.

That women should be subservient slaves to the men.

? Enlighten me.

That punish women for adultery with death while the men get away scott free.

It's context again. This would take a good four hours or so, of reading, to understand because there is so much history involved.

That it's okay to Lie as long as it's in the service of god.

What's this refer to?

It might be pertinent here to note that in times past, every religion on the planet had stringent rules of one sort or another that today, we would view as horrific. For example, the Pagan king of Persia, killed his Queen because she would not appear naked before his dinner guests. Then he called for a new wife, a virgin, who was to be chosen based on her chastity and beauty. How they ever figured out whether she was a virgin or not, is beyond me, but anyway...

[technomage]

Hi Justin,

:joy:

That's more along the lines of what I was understanding "Mother earth" as meaning, not so much that you can find God personally, so you could talk to him/her like the proverbial genie inside a bottle (and this genie happens to be inside all bottles), but that all beings are part of God's nature. So now I would ask, how does that square with God being personal?

Because it's all the same Creator. Does not the Gospel of Thomas attribute Jesus as saying "Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there." Yes, you perhaps do not accept GoThom as authentic or authoritative, but the principle remains: no matter where you search, the Creator is there.

Yet if you only find the Creator in things that are external to you, then you do not understand the Mystery.

Once, having been asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, Jesus replied, “The kingdom of God does not come with your careful observation, nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘There it is,’ because the kingdom of God is within you.”

That's one of the most profound statements in your scriptures, Lee. That verse doesn't say the Kingdom will be within you someday, or that the Kingdom would be given to some and not to others: for crying out loud, he wasn't even talking to the disciples when he said this--he was talking to the Pharisees, which were among his worst enemies! It says "The kingdom is within you right now!"

This Mystery is too mysterious! If it means what I mean by understanding Christianity, then we have to say again that we now simply have a special word for "a person with beliefs." I don't mind having a special word for that, but I don't think that is what Wicca means.

No, understanding the Mystery is not simply to have beliefs. The author of James said:

You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that-and shudder.

Having beliefs means that you believe in God ... up there in heaven, somewhere. Understanding the Mystery means that you know the Creator, for the Creator is within you, and you are aware of "His" presence.

I must say I'm not understanding your dialect, though. "A Mystery" cannot be the whole sum and substance of Wicca, I shall still try for more specifics…

Not "A Mystery," Lee ... "THE Mystery." Lee, the Mystery is every single question you've ever had about God--every time you've felt God's love, or wondered at His silence, or cried at His Sacrifice, or trembled before His presence. The Mystery is every single time you've raged against those things that anger God. The Mystery is each time you've humbled yourself before God.

And yes ... I've expressed the Mystery in Christian terminology ... for me, there have been other examples, other experiences, but the analogy remains the same. The Mystery is not mere belief, but a living relationship with God.

So "a god" won't do, even, Jesus made the exclusive claim, that, as you mention, you must reject. But then it won't do to have him be another deity among many, he was deceptive at the very least, if he claimed to be "The" God, and yet wasn't, so I don't see how you can be "for Jesus" in a substantial way, in a worshipful way…

Lee, the only way that I can accept Lewis' Trillema is to accept that the Bible passages that quote Him are accurate. I do not.

Well, then I must insist on how we can know that the Wiccan deities are not also somehow involved in this spiritual evil? Where is the sign and seal of their holiness?

"Holiness?" Lee, what is Holiness? Is it the Hebrew concept of "set apart?" Is it the Greek concept of "acceptable to God?" Is it the Christian concept of "Theologically right?" All of these are human concepts, Lee! Why do you insist that the Creator conforms to your standards of "holiness?"

Is the birth of a child holy? I don't know your opinion, Lee, but in my beliefs, it's one of the most sacred events that occurs on this earth: the advent of a new life on this earth. Yet that child can grow up to be (in Christian parlance) a saint or a sinner ... does that future potential degrade the holiness of their birth and life?

May I say here that giving control of our lives to God is the critical juncture of Christianity? Now it might not be possible for people to do this, and that would prove that Christianity not only didn't work, but that it was impossible.

Lee, I don't know if it's "impossible"--I do know that as long as I yielded control of my life, I could not kick the drugs. Frankly, I have grave difficulties imagining that God would insist on my obedience to His will at the expense of my sobriety, but I will also gladly state that this could be a deficit in my own understanding.

I'm going to have to continue this tomorrow ... my hands are giving out, it's late here, and I'm in the process of falling out even as we speak. :zzz:

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Of course this is the same bible that says:
Kill all the Infidels if they dont agree with you.
That women should not speak but should remains silent.
That women should be forced to marry their rapists
That parents should kill their rebellious children.
That women should be subservient slaves to the men.
That punish women for adultery with death while the men get away scott free.
That it's okay to Lie as long as it's in the service of god.

As Undomiel said, some of these are false, some of these are disputable, and all (most probably) are being discussed now in the Apologetics forum, where I would be glad to continue addressing these concerns.

But the point I was trying to make was that God, saying he is acting in justice, also predicts and carries out judgments. Now we may dispute whether God's justice is really just. My conclusion here, though, is that justice is a firm commitment, with the God of Scripture.

Blessings,
Lee

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Kill all the Infidels if they dont agree with you.

Lots of history in there that's not represented in the statement. Alot of events that inspired it. For example, if you are aware of who the nephilim were, you are half way to understanding the events that followed, including some of the gruesome events.
The nephellim were supposedly wiped out by the Noaic Flood and the Angels responsible were imprisoned for all eternity (Book of Jude) so that they would not have sex with other women.
Unless of course your god was snoozing on the Job and some got out of their prison in the Abyss.


That women should not speak but should remains silent.

Refering to the New Testament or Old? Many many outspoken and powerful women in the Bible. Deborah is one such example in the Old Testament. http://www.biblelife.co.uk/article.php?id=157
And in the New Testament, Priscilla acted in the role of pastor and was referred to as a fellow worker in the ministry, Phoebe was a minister to the church at Cenchrea, Lunia was considered an apostle.
Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV) Both Old and new testament, Paul told the church that He would not allow a woman to preach or teach, and that they should stay silent in church.And Priscilla acted as a Pastor's wife Not Pastor, She was Subservient to her husband Aquila. As to your "Borg" (All cultures being assimilated) Scripture, There are too many denominations and too many groupings within christianity for that to be entirely accurate.

That women should be forced to marry their rapists

? Enlighten me. Levitical Law made an allowance for the rapist to Marry His victim to avoid stoning for both he and the woman, that the father could allow the rapist to marry his daughter to avoid the shame of Not being a virgin by force. (Deuteronomy 22: 28 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.) Yep real Justice there.

That parents should kill their rebellious children.

This requires context. You have to know the context of the time and their situation. please tell me what circumstance aside from self defense woud justify the murder of a child or teenager? Just because the child is very strong willed that means he should die?

That women should be subservient slaves to the men.

? Enlighten me.Ephesians 5: 22-23 essentially that the wives are to live as slaves to their husbands and have no will or opinions of their own. 22Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

That punish women for adultery with death while the men get away scott free.

It's context again. This would take a good four hours or so, of reading, to understand because there is so much history involved. again in what context is injustice permissable? In what context is it okay for a man to not be punished and allowed to escpe scott free while the woman is left "Holding the bag" as it were?

That it's okay to Lie as long as it's in the service of god.

What's this refer to? Oh let's see, The Midwives who lied to Pharoah, Jesus who lied to his disciples after the ressurection (He was pretending to go elsewhere).

It might be pertinent here to note that in times past, every religion on the planet had stringent rules of one sort or another that today, we would view as horrific. For example, the Pagan king of Persia, killed his Queen because she would not appear naked before his dinner guests. Then he called for a new wife, a virgin, who was to be chosen based on her chastity and beauty. How they ever figured out whether she was a virgin or not, is beyond me, but anyway...Dude this is the story in Esther, who even your own scholars still argue aas to whether or not the book hould be in the cannon. If you are going to talk about examples of pagans then Use actual Pagan sources...Using your own book to talk about us is like Using Nazi propaganda to talk about the Jews.

[technomage]

Hi Justin,

Me, and my coffee, greet you, Lee.... :coffee:

But I would say in response that it wasn't only Paul's experience of God that he based his knowledge on. We have evidence, I think, of God's actual judgments, in fulfilled Scriptural prophecies, which show both God's divinity (by virtue of being prophecies) and his holiness (by being judgments), in events of history.

There are ... well, some serious problems with the text from which these judgements and prophecies. There are many points where the claimed events in the Bible do not seem to match up with history or science. Yet I do not wish to get into an in-depth critique of the doctrine of Infallability at this point in time

Do the Wiccan deities have similar evidence of their holiness?

Certainly not on such a scale as the Judeo-Christian claims in the Bible. However, again I must ask--what is holiness? Is it an attribute that is necessarily related to God, or is it a human distinction dealing with how we relate to the Divine?

Then I think we may question the commitment of the Wiccan deities to justice, it seems justice is not a non-negotiable item in the agenda, and thus, holiness is not, either…

Then we have given up holiness, in it's essential meaning, I think, and with it, the guarantee that the Wiccan deities can have a given person's best interest in mind, at all times.

Lee, justice, holiness, and benevolence are not necessarily mutually dependant, unless you adhere to the Divine Command Theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_command_theory) of ethics: DCT has some serious problems, but we don't really have time to cover that here.

Not if evil is a subtraction, instead of an addition…

Yet what if the attributes the creator has that we may characterise as "evil" are, indeed, only categorized thus because of human misunderstanding?

Lee, is death evil? Some Christians would say yes ... but life, without death to balance it, would rapidly produce misery on a scale never seen on this planet. Is entropy evil? Some might say yes ... but entropy is part of the process by which potential becomes actualized. Without entropy, life would be impossible ... yet since life entails entropy, life requires death.

Few of us want to contemplate death and entropy too closely: death means that we are mortal, and each of us will eventually face a time when we must die. Entropy means that not only us as individuals, but the whole universe will eventually die. Yet without entropy and death--attributes of our niverse as created by the Creator--life would be possible. Under those circumstances, there are some who will say "The Creator has made evil with good..." yet without these "evils," no good would be possible.

Justin

[technomage]

Using your own book to talk about us is like Using Nazi propaganda to talk about the Jews.

Cu, that's needlessly offensive, not to mention really poor logic. As I explained before, you cannot measure a religion by its failures only--else you would have to condemn all of Paganism for the actions of some.

If you wish to start a new thread with your views on the Bible, you're more than welcome to, but this thread is about Wicca, not anti-Christian polemics. I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from continuing this topic in this specific thread.

Thank you,

Justin

[Undomiel]

The nephellim were supposedly wiped out by the Noaic Flood and the Angels responsible were imprisoned for all eternity (Book of Jude) so that they would not have sex with other women.
Unless of course your god was snoozing on the Job and some got out of their prison in the Abyss.

I don't want you to feel as if I'm attacking you. I'm not. I'm just providing you with my understanding on the subject. Believe me, I've looked into all this as I'm a woman and didn't become a christian till I was an adult. If you read the scriptures in questions, you'll see it says, "also after that". Which means that although the original nephilim and sons of God were destroyed or imprisoned, this did not stop the continuation of the practice AFTER the flood. There's an entire line of nephilim in later books of the bible to cement that point, such as the gibborim, the rephaim, and so on.


Both Old and new testament, Paul told the church that He would not allow a woman to preach or teach, and that they should stay silent in church.And Priscilla acted as a Pastor's wife Not Pastor, She was Subservient to her husband Aquila. As to your "Borg" (All cultures being assimilated) Scripture, There are too many denominations and too many groupings within christianity for that to be entirely accurate.

That's not what Paul meant. He was giving advice to the hebrew christian churches that had incorporated the practice of separating the men from the women in the church, into the newly formed christian churches. Wives were calling down to their husbands during the service, creating confusion. It was a solution to the situation. Priscilla did not act as a Pastor's wife, Priscilla was a Pastor in her own right. She was subservient to her husband only in as much as he was subservient to her and to the Lord. The husband has much more responsibility before God because of his position as leader of the "home". This had nothing to do with actually preaching the Gospel. Preaching the Gospel was an equal opportunity event.

Levitical Law made an allowance for the rapist to Marry His victim to avoid stoning for both he and the woman, that the father could allow the rapist to marry his daughter to avoid the shame of Not being a virgin by force. (Deuteronomy 22: 28 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. [c] He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.) Yep real Justice there.

I agree, not a nice practice, and I imagine once they cloistered themselves entirely, if the rapist was not a hebrew, the situation and punishment was much worse than mentioned above. As I mentioned in the other thread, the laws of the various religious groups back then, were much harsher than they are today (because the climate was much harsher as well. there were no police. no supreme court. no voting booths. people survived the best they could, which frequently inspired extreme measures)

please tell me what circumstance aside from self defense woud justify the murder of a child or teenager? Just because the child is very strong willed that means he should die?

This harkens back to the nephilim and their creation by the fallen sons of God, the Fallen Angels. This practice did not stop, in fact, it began anew after the Flood. The difference was, the line of humans had a chance to flourish again before it was once again a problem, AND they knew what to do to avoid the same problem. The nephilim were not resurrectable, and in fact, they are the demons. They cannot be resurrected into their bodies, and therefore try to possess other living things. This practice is what ufologists refer to as a "Walk-In" and what christians and jews refer to as "Demonic Possession," and what the show Stargate SG-1, symbollizes as "Goa'uld Possession".

You and I are looking back at history from an unique perspective. We were not there, and have no clue of the extent of interaction between the angelic beings, both fallen and holy, with the ancient peoples. We only see it from our special vantage point, which is primarily one of non-belief in the supernatural because obvious, outright interaction appears curtailed. This will change in the future.

The hebrews were required to deliver human DNA to the advent of Christ. That was their responsibility, and thusly why they became so cloistered and "racist" in a sense. It really wasn't a matter of race, so much as a matter of survival, as they were up against "principalities and powers, spiritual wickedness in high places", who's intent was to circumvent the continuation of human life in this dimension or any other. We were designed to be resurrectable into our own bodies but nephilim cannot be resurrected into their bodies. I personally believe this is being continued today in the form of UFO abductions and implantation, but that's another topic.

The sin of rebellion, was not just a sin against the soul of the individual or against their parents, but against God, and was characterized in THEIR time, by the infiltration of their genetic line by the DNA of the sons of God, et.al, the Fallen Angels (and what some believe to be Alien DNA). The reason it was characterized in this way was due mainly to the fact it was often true, and with enough frequency to warrant some type of safeguard be put in place to keep their society functioning and flourishing with as few problems as possible.

For example, one of Noah's descendants was Nimrod, who by the sin of rebellion against God, had re-introduced the crimes of Sumer that were the cause of the flood in the first place. There's a ton load of interesting history here that you would probably find VERY interesting.


Dude this is the story in Esther, who even your own scholars still argue aas to whether or not the book hould be in the cannon. If you are going to talk about examples of pagans then Use actual Pagan sources...Using your own book to talk about us is like Using Nazi propaganda to talk about the Jews.

Okay. I'd prefer not to bring up a bunch of stuff in history, because frankly I'm sure you're as aware of it as I am, but this one word should suffice - "Colliseum".

[Undomiel]

Cu, that's needlessly offensive, not to mention really poor logic. As I explained before, you cannot measure a religion by its failures only--else you would have to condemn all of Paganism for the actions of some.

If you wish to start a new thread with your views on the Bible, you're more than welcome to, but this thread is about Wicca, not anti-Christian polemics. I would greatly appreciate it if you would refrain from continuing this topic in this specific thread.

Thank you,

Justin

Oh, sorry, Justin, you must've posted while I was responding.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

The roman Colliseum was nto just used for christians but for Celts, Vikings, Hindus , Jews, and Slaves. Dont assume the christians were the only victims of Roman "Barbarism", Infact the romans only persecuted christians on and off for a period of Four centuries, Once constantine The christian emperor took the throne, He started a wave of persecution that has lasted over 16 centuries (Off and on but fairly consistant)
As to your assertion about the Nephellim, While I am not one to debate which Myth is better than another. Theologically, that is Hogwash, According to Jude the Angels were imprisioned there for they could not Contrinue the practice.

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Justin,
The fundie view of the bible makes it very clear that as far as it was concerned we are EVIL. Destined for the lake of fire, and the enemies of YHWH.
That in terms of how the fundementalist interpretation of the bible sees us, We are the bad guys.
It's the same kind of villification that Hitler used to justify the slaughter of the jewish people. Now that that is said I am not accusing the WHOLE religion, I am accusing the fundementalist view point. I am addressing the Undomiels assertions about the nephellim and the statements she has made about the bible.

[Undomiel]

Justin,
The fundie view of the bible makes it very clear that as far as it was concerned we are EVIL. Destined for the lake of fire, and the enemies of YHWH.
That in terms of how the fundementalist interpretation of the bible sees us, We are the bad guys.
It's the same kind of villification that Hitler used to justify the slaughter of the jewish people. Now that that is said I am not accusing the WHOLE religion, I am accusing the fundementalist view point. I am addressing the Undomiels assertions about the nephellim and the statements she has made about the bible.

I'm refraining from responding out of respect for Justin's wishes. If you'd like to discuss this further, I'd be more than happy to in another thread more suited to the subject, unless Justin recants his prior decision?

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Go ahead and do so with another thread...

[Cu Mhorrigan]

The issue of Holiness Is something I would like to look at for a moment.
The word from which Holiness derrives (The latin word Sanctus) is used to denote "Other" or "seperate from the mundane and to be used for spiritual and religious purposes." A Holy thing like say a spoon is something specifically set apart for religious ueage. (To scoop incense, to snort sacred Drugs, to stir the sacred wine, etc.). The word also can be interpreted to mean "Alien" which means that a "Holy God" is a god different than all others, Much like Zeus, or Odin, and others.
Each god was "Holy" in their own right because they are each seperate individuals. each god had their own Divine purpose (Zeus rules the gods, Aphrodite ruled erotic love, Hera ruled marraige, My personal Goddess Morrigan is a war goddess, and a goddess of prophecy and sexuality.)

[Undomiel]

Go ahead and do so with another thread...

i think his other thread about a Wiccan's perspective on Christianity would probably work for this topic, unless Justin prefers we not discuss it there either.

[technomage]

i think his other thread about a Wiccan's perspective on Christianity would probably work for this topic, unless Justin prefers we not discuss it there either.

Over there's absolutely no problem: it may get a bit confused, since we're already speaking of other topics there, but hey, a little confusion never hurt anyone. :wink:

Justin

[Richbee]

Justin,
The fundie view of the bible makes it very clear that as far as it was concerned we are EVIL. Destined for the lake of fire, and the enemies of YHWH.
That in terms of how the fundementalist interpretation of the bible sees us, We are the bad guys.
It's the same kind of villification that Hitler used to justify the slaughter of the jewish people. Now that that is said I am not accusing the WHOLE religion, I am accusing the fundementalist view point. I am addressing the Undomiels assertions about the nephellim and the statements she has made about the bible.

What about fundy Goddess fans? Are you ready to stand up and defend the Godess against the Anti-Goddess forces?

[Richbee]

Greetngs,

I'm starting this thread to converse with mickiel on the nature of Wicca, but anyone is more than welcome to participate.

Consider my thread, an off shoot, even if belatedly.

From the outside, Wicca is a religion. However, at its most fundamental level, Wicca is like Christianity--both your understanding, and the "mainstream" understanding--Wicca is a relationship with the Creator.

Oh, getting personal, huh?

:kiss:

The problem is, I could write a book about what Wicca is, and still not answer your questions. I can give you a rough academic understanding, but the fundamental truth of Wicca is something that can only be experienced. However, I do need to say this as a side-note: I'm not trying to convert you or anyone else to Wicca; my only purpose is to explain my understanding of that relationship.

Truth?

What is Truth?

Wicca is a collection of beliefs, myths, rituals, philosophy, and ethics that is designed to allow one to experience and understand their relationship to the Creator. We normally perceive the Creator as a God and Goddess, but we realize that these are (in one sense) symbols that we can understand for a Creator that we cannot fully understand.

One of the fundamental differences between Wicca and Christianity is we do not accept that there is any separation between God and man: we reject the doctrines of sin, and of hell. When we die, we rejoin the Creator ... however, most Wiccans will tell you that we are reborn, but franklly, I have my profound doubts that what makes me "me" will ever be born on this earth again.

At this point, though, unless I were to write a book, I could talk for days and never fully explain Wicca. What questions do you have, and I will do my best to answer them.

Justin

Origin?

Note, the Middle English word for Witch, and used round the time of Shakespeare was, or at least IMO, not the same as: Wica, or Wiccan.

Not really sure what witches beleived, as there never was an average "witch", and that of course, makes the silly business of prosecuting Witches tricky.

What the heck did they think they were doing during the burning days? Was any victim actually a real(TM) Witch?

[Cu Mhorrigan]

We do it all the time, When ever Non pagan Monotheists decide to evangelise us or harrass us or do something rather unfriendly towards us.
We just dont make a big stink about it. (Unless we have to).
As to the Fundie wiccans/pagans, While they are a nuisance, Paganism is diverse enough as a religious system that we can laugh them out of the debates or worse off tell them to **Bug** Off.

[technomage]

Truth?

What is Truth?

Truth is what actually exists. It is not necessarily what we believe exists (our beliefs can be wrong), or even what we think exists (we can be working on incorrect or inaccurate information). Truth is what is.

Origin?

Sometime between 1949 and 1954. Gerald Gardner cribbing notes from Romantic-era concepts of history and folklore, combined with some Eastern philosophy and a ritual structure nicked largely from Western Ceremonial Magic (yes, yes, including Crowley). See Hutton's Triumph of the Moon for a much greater level of details, but that's the basics.

Note, the Middle English word for Witch, and used round the time of Shakespeare was, or at least IMO, not the same as: Wica, or Wiccan.

Look back to the Anglo-Saxon. (PS: Middle English was the time of Chaucer, not Shakespeare.)

What the heck did they think they were doing during the burning days? Was any victim actually a real™ Witch?

Broadly speaking ... probably not. Of the 40,000-60,000 people executed as "witches" in late Medieval and Renaissance Europe, my best guess is that less than 10% ever practiced any form of witchcraft, and that most of them who practiced something thought of themselves as "Christians." (Yes, by your definition it's a heresy at best, but that's what they thought.)

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Justin: Me, and my coffee, greet you, Lee…

This may take some time to compose a proper greeting to some coffee…

"Give us this day our daily grind?"

Lee: not so much that … this genie happens to be inside all bottles), but that all beings are part of God's nature. So now I would ask, how does that square with God being personal?

Justin: Because it's all the same Creator. … the principle remains: no matter where you search, the Creator is there.

Yes, but you haven't included the other concept in your statement, I just don't see how the two concepts can be combined. Now this might be called a mystery, but that I think may indicate a problem via the dashboard, and a need to look under the hood.

Justin: … he was talking to the Pharisees, which were among his worst enemies! It says "The kingdom is within you right now!"

Well, this could be "in your midst" (NAS, ESV), or this may be speaking of where God's kingdom resides, in people's hearts, yet still this might not apply to the Pharisees right then, for Jesus and John said the kingdom had drawn near (Mark 1:15 et. al.), which could not be true if the kingdom of God was always and only everywhere, and in all people.

No, understanding the Mystery is not simply to have beliefs. … Understanding the Mystery means that you know the Creator, for the Creator is within you, and you are aware of "His" presence.

Thanks for the clarification, I would still say Wicca is more distinctive that this, though.

Not "A Mystery," Lee ... "THE Mystery." Lee, the Mystery is every single question you've ever had about God--every time you've felt God's love, or wondered at His silence…

But these are the questions, I am inquiring into the answers. To say that the answers to the Mystery are mysterious is what I'm trying to head off here!

Lee, the only way that I can accept Lewis' Trillema is to accept that the Bible passages that quote Him are accurate. I do not.

That makes it rather difficult to speak of belief in Jesus, then.

Justin: I must ask--what is holiness? Is it an attribute that is necessarily related to God, or is it a human distinction dealing with how we relate to the Divine?

Certainly events such as a birth have holiness about them, but not in the sense I mean here, I mean a commitment to doing right, an unwavering commitment to justice.

Cu: The word from which Holiness derives (The latin word Sanctus) is used to denote "Other" or "separate from the mundane and to be used for spiritual and religious purposes." A Holy thing like say a spoon is something specifically set apart for religious usage.

Certainly holiness carries the sense of "set apart," but it means purity, too, and a right motive, even the very temple sacrifices could be considered unholy in Israel:

Hosea 9:4 They will not pour out wine offerings to the Lord, nor will their sacrifices please him. Such sacrifices will be to them like the bread of mourners; all who eat them will be unclean.

See also Haggai 2:11-14, and Isaiah 66:3...

Justin: One of those implications is that the Creator is not exclusively "good" by our human standards! The Creator loves us, and wishes us well, but the Creator encompasses traits that we understand as "evil," as well as traits that we understand as "good."

Lee: Then we have given up holiness, in it's essential meaning, I think, and with it, the guarantee that the Wiccan deities can have a given person's best interest in mind, at all times.

Justin: Yet what if the attributes the creator has that we may characterise as "evil" are, indeed, only categorized thus because of human misunderstanding?

But when you say "an infinite being" must encompass what we think of as evil, this seems to imply all evil, and then all our understanding of evil is incorrect, but I don't think it is.

Justin: Lee, is death evil? … life, without death to balance it, would rapidly produce misery on a scale never seen on this planet. Under those circumstances, there are some who will say "The Creator has made evil with good..." yet without these "evils," no good would be possible.

But I am more specifically referring to unqualified evil, certainly death and entropy can be bad in certain ways and good in others, bad at some times and good at others. But rape? Cannibalism? Does God encompass those evils? Have we misunderstood here, and they are not really evil?

Blessings,
Lee

[Richbee]

Truth is what actually exists. It is not necessarily what we believe exists (our beliefs can be wrong), or even what we think exists (we can be working on incorrect or inaccurate information). Truth is what is.

Are there hard facts in Religion? The History of Religion? Philosophy of Religion?

Sometime between 1949 and 1954. Gerald Gardner cribbing notes from Romantic-era concepts of history and folklore, combined with some Eastern philosophy and a ritual structure nicked largely from Western Ceremonial Magic (yes, yes, including Crowley). See Hutton's Triumph of the Moon for a much greater level of details, but that's the basics.

Yeah, some Theosophy thrown in?

Yes, due to time and space constraints, I skipped over Hutton over on the C.S. Lewis thread. Crowley?

:egad:

Look back to the Anglo-Saxon. (PS: Middle English was the time of Chaucer, not Shakespeare.)

Ah, interesting, I just dug up:

Quote:

Witchcraft, (Wicca) has its roots in the Nordic tribes , such as the Saxons , Angles and the Scandinavian tribes, the Vikings. The word viking is derived from wicca, where "w" is pronouced as "v" in Norse or German. The nordic gods such as Odin (Scandinavian), Wotan, Wodan (German or Anglo-Saxon) were Gods of war and mayhem and in times of hardship, the Nordic and German tribes sacrificed children to appease the Gods.

Much of early English was Saxon, or Germanic, so this might make sense?

Broadly speaking ... probably not. Of the 40,000-60,000 people executed as "witches" in late Medieval and Renaissance Europe, my best guess is that less than 10% ever practiced any form of witchcraft, and that most of them who practiced something thought of themselves as "Christians." (Yes, by your definition it's a heresy at best, but that's what they thought.)

Justin

:yipee:

We totally agree on this. I have read extensively on this, and the reality IS, these poor folks had no clue what an average "witch" was.

Now, casting spells or curses was against the Law, and when trouble broke out between neighbors and bad things happended fires, or heart attacks, the people could, and sometimes did charge "witchcraft". This might have been to seetle old scores.

Or, among mid-wives, or a kind of country nurse. If bad things happened, what we might call malpractice, or bad medicine, thaen you could charge Witch! My Father, or my husband died suddenly, and the a witch must have cursed him! He fell dead like a stone falling out of mid air! Witch I tell you! Which witch? THe nearest one to the dead man!? Sure. Why not, it's magik, that was. :doh:

[Cu Mhorrigan]

Certainly holiness carries the sense of "set apart," but it means purity, too, and a right motive, even the very temple sacrifices could be considered unholy in Israel:

Hosea 9:4 They will not pour out wine offerings to the Lord, nor will their sacrifices please him. Such sacrifices will be to them like the bread of mourners; all who eat them will be unclean.

See also Haggai 2:11-14, and Isaiah 66:3...


Lee the idea of Purity is still from the word Sanctus.
To set something apart for the gods required you to send the best you have to offer.
It was also to mean that in giving the thing it was to be consecrated for use.

Each God also had His own peculiarities as to what was to be sacrificed and when and how, these rituals were intended to put into mind just the kind of god the worshipper was dealing with.

[Richbee]

Hi everyone,



This may take some time to compose a proper greeting to some coffee…

"Give us this day our daily grind?"

Blessings,

Lee

A Black brew good to the last drop? A witches brew?

[technomage]

This may take some time to compose a proper greeting to some coffee…

"Give us this day our daily grind?"

"Mr Coffee is my shepherd...?" Nah, doesn't scan....

Yes, but you haven't included the other concept in your statement, I just don't see how the two concepts can be combined. Now this might be called a mystery, but that I think may indicate a problem via the dashboard, and a need to look under the hood.

The reason it's called a Mystery is because the only way it can be understood is by experiencing it first-hand. Me telling you about my experience may make someone desire to also have that experience (just as a Christian telling their testimony of getting saved may motivate others to get saved), but to have me explain my experience to you does no help in understanding.

And ... well, to be blunt, you and I use different terms to understand and speak about our experiences. The things that I say may or may not be comprehensible to you.

Well, this could be "in your midst" (NAS, ESV), or this may be speaking of where God's kingdom resides, in people's hearts, yet still this might not apply to the Pharisees right then, for Jesus and John said the kingdom had drawn near (Mark 1:15 et. al.), which could not be true if the kingdom of God was always and only everywhere, and in all people.

Thanks for the clarification, I would still say Wicca is more distinctive that this, though.

To be specifically Wiccan entails using the rituals and mythos that Wiccans use--best quickie information source for that is the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca) on Wicca. Sorry, I didn't clue that you were looking for the distinction.

But these are the questions, I am inquiring into the answers. To say that the answers to the Mystery are mysterious is what I'm trying to head off here!

Ah, but Lee, that's the point: the religion can provide the questions, but not the answers. If you want the answers, then you answer those questions--based on your experiences. You can go through Christianity, or Wicca, or whatever you choose ... the answers may be extremely similar, or wildly divergent. There are only two rules:
1: Your experience is subjective, not objective;
2: You might be wrong ... it's a risk, but it's an unavoidable risk. You take just as much risk by not asking the questions in the first place.

That makes it rather difficult to speak of belief in Jesus, then.

Well, I'm fairly well persuaded that there was a historical Jesus--the shorter Josephus reference (not the Testamonium) and Paul's authentic letters convince me that something was going on. However, because of the prevalence of Christianity, the doctrine has become separated from the history: at this point, if Jesus had never existed and the Gospels were entirely fictional, yet no definitive proof of that fictional status survived, it would make no difference to Christianity.

Certainly events such as a birth have holiness about them, but not in the sense I mean here, I mean a commitment to doing right, an unwavering commitment to justice.

That's not the way the Hebrews or early Christians understood the word "Holy"--it had nothing to do with justice specifically. Yes, God was just, but the traits were only mutually dependant on the fact that God was God.(And we're back to DCT Ethics again.)

Certainly holiness carries the sense of "set apart," but it means purity, too, and a right motive, even the very temple sacrifices could be considered unholy in Israel:

No, the Hebrew sense of "holy" was solely the idea of "dedicated" or "set apart." Holiness had nothing to do with purity or "right motive," else the trashcans of the Temple (which would be ritually unclean) would not also be holy. (see Zech 14:20)

But when you say "an infinite being" must encompass what we think of as evil, this seems to imply all evil, and then all our understanding of evil is incorrect, but I don't think it is.

Lee, even your Bible says it: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made." However, I've got to finish tomorrow.

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

Cu: To set something apart for the gods required you to send the best you have to offer. It was also to mean that in giving the thing it was to be consecrated for use.

Yes, but to the Hebrews at least, holiness meant more than that.

Haggai 2:14 Then Haggai said, "'So it is with this people and this nation in my sight,' declares the Lord. 'Whatever they do and whatever they offer there is defiled.'"

Whether it was the best they had, or not, and whether it was set apart or not for special use.

Lee: Yes, but you haven't included the other concept [of Mother earth] in your statement…

Justin: The things that I say may or may not be comprehensible to you.

Well, I understand (somewhat) what people mean by a personal deity. And if I ask to have this reconciled with Mother earth, as Wicca seems to teach it, and am told there is no inconsistency, and it's mysterious, then I think the red light on the dashboard remains. You can say it's a decorative bulb, I shall tend to think otherwise, I think it indicates an inconsistency.

Justin: Wiccan entails using the rituals and mythos that Wiccans use…

No, I'm not asking what Wiccans do in ceremonies, I'm asking what they believe. Surely these beliefs are more distinctive than "being aware of 'His' presence, knowing the Creator within you."

Justin: If you want the answers, then you answer those questions--based on your experiences.

I take it you never consult a map while driving, then? Or ask for the menu at a restaurant?

"Oh, bring me some lobster mayonnaise."

To his indescribable astonishment, the man only said "Certainly, sir!" and went away, apparently to get it.

Justin: Your experience is subjective, not objective.

Then I have only subjectively read your last post? Certainly facts are not the most important elements in the universe, even facts about God, but I think we can know them, nonetheless.

Lee: That makes it rather difficult to speak of belief in Jesus, then.

Justin: … because of the prevalence of Christianity, the doctrine has become separated from the history …

Do you know that, objectively, may I ask?

Lee: I mean a commitment to doing right, an unwavering commitment to justice.

Justin: That's not the way the Hebrews or early Christians understood the word "Holy"--it had nothing to do with justice specifically.

It sure did! And they surely did…

Isaiah 5:16 But the Lord Almighty will be exalted by his justice, and the holy God will show himself holy by his righteousness.

Holy … by his righteousness.

1 Peter 1:14-16 As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."

Which also has a clear implication that holiness is not just about being set apart, but it is (even primarily) about moral purity, about doing right, which certainly includes justice.

Justin: Holiness had nothing to do with purity or "right motive," else the trashcans of the Temple (which would be ritually unclean) would not also be holy. (see Zech 14:20)

Zechariah 14:21 And all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them.

I don't think they would take trash cans for this! So this must mean every clean pot, every pot you could use to cook in. Now it is your turn to explain the verses I have mentioned!

Lee: But when you say "an infinite being" must encompass what we think of as evil, this seems to imply all evil, and then all our understanding of evil is incorrect, but I don't think it is.

Justin: Lee, even your Bible says it: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made."

Let's say you are correct here! Then how can there be any guarantee that the deities will always have your best interest at heart? Surely doing you harm must be something you would consider evil, and these deities must contain that.

But again, evil is a subtraction, a man who does evil becomes less, not greater, and subtractions cannot be created, they are not objects you can measure and weigh, you don't turn out the lights by adding six pounds of darkness…

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

Well, I understand (somewhat) what people mean by a personal deity. And if I ask to have this reconciled with Mother earth, as Wicca seems to teach it, and am told there is no inconsistency, and it's mysterious, then I think the red light on the dashboard remains. You can say it's a decorative bulb, I shall tend to think otherwise, I think it indicates an inconsistency.

Waitaminit, Lee! I agreed that there were some Wiccans who felt that "Mother Earth" was, indeed, nonpersonal, but I also made the distinction that this was the more liberal view. Surely you've met self-professed Christians who see Jesus not as God, but as some form of moral teacher? There is a similar movement within Wicca--the only difference between the two is that even though I, personally, disagree with the view that the Gods are an impersonal force, I have neither the authority nor the desire to "disfellowship" those who hold that belief.

No, I'm not asking what Wiccans do in ceremonies, I'm asking what they believe.

Um, Lee, that's part of what the word "Mythos" means. :wink: Seriously, the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wicca) has a section on beliefs and prqactices.

Justin: If you want the answers, then you answer those questions--based on your experiences.
I take it you never consult a map while driving, then? Or ask for the menu at a restaurant?

No possible analogy, Lee--for the landscape of Mystery, maps are one to a customer, and you draw the map as you go.

Justin: Your experience is subjective, not objective.
Then I have only subjectively read your last post?

That's cutting the frog-hair mighty fine, Lee. :lol:

Seriously, of course anyone who can read English can go back and read my post--in that sense, of course, it can be read objectively. In that sense, to quote the old cliche, the words speak for themselves. The problem with that cliche is that it's false ... the words do not speak for themselves. The words of my post just lie there: it is the person who reads those words who takes them in, interprets them, and applies meaning as best they can. It's the interpretation of those words that is subjective.

In the same manner, your scriptures may make objective statements, but they are read subjectively. There is not one person on this earth who has ever read the Bible who has not applied their own subjective understanding to the words there--indeed, it is impossible to do so. We are all locked into our own subjective worldviews, and our worldview necessarily affects the way we understand what we read, what we see, and how we react to these inputs.

Certainly facts are not the most important elements in the universe, even facts about God, but I think we can know them, nonetheless.

Can we? Then how can there be so many interpretations of one book? How can such radically different interpretations be drawn from the same passages? Oh, to be sure, there may be large passages where most people agree--people with similar worldviews are going to come up with similar interpretations--but if it was possible to objectively know God through His book, then things would necessarily be a lot different.

Lee, it is not possible to objectively know the Creator. It is only possible to have experiences--from mystical experiences to reading the Bible to unconsidered childhood training to everything in between--and to interpret these experiences subjectively.

Justin: … because of the prevalence of Christianity, the doctrine has become separated from the history …
Do you know that, objectively, may I ask?

Good question. Is subjective knowledge inferior to objective knowledge? Lee, if objective knowledge is impossible on an issue, then subjective knowledge is the only tool that we can work with. You will agree with me that subjective knowledge is not perfect--theoretically speaking, belief and fact should never contradict each other, but with subjective knowledge there's too much of an opportunity for belief (part of our worldview) to cause us to reject facts that are not in accord with our beliefs.

Nevertheless, on this specific issue (the historicity of the Gospel accounts) yes, I do believe it is possible for our knowledge--even though subjective--to be accurate to the facts. In my opinion, there is not enough evidence to absolutely state that the Gospels are a mythologized account, but there is enough evidence to cause serious doubt.

Justin: That's not the way the Hebrews or early Christians understood the word "Holy"--it had nothing to do with justice specifically.
It sure did! And they surely did…

Isaiah 5:16 But the Lord Almighty will be exalted by his justice, and the holy God will show himself holy by his righteousness.

Holy … by his righteousness.[/quote]

Lee, look at the verse in context: this was an imprecative passage against the materialism of Judah, where Isaiah condemned Judah for seeking material wealth (at the expense of their neighbors) instead of justice. Isaiah is saying that in condemning this activity, Isaiah asserts that God is "set apart" from the injustice of Judah. In this case, the passage means "There is a distinction between Judah and God, for God seeks Justice and righteousness: Judah does not, and God condemns them for it."

1 Peter 1:14-16 As obedient children, do not conform to the evil desires you had when you lived in ignorance. But just as he who called you is holy, so be holy in all you do; for it is written: "Be holy, because I am holy."

Again, the author of Peter is making a distinction between his views of "saved behavior" and "unsaved behavior."

Which also has a clear implication that holiness is not just about being set apart, but it is (even primarily) about moral purity, about doing right, which certainly includes justice.

Within Judeo-Christian religion, it certainly is--because all through your Bible, it is asserted that those who follow other Gods or who disobey God (or, in the NT, all mankind) are intrinsically evil. The theme here is "Set yourself apart from your evil." It's a cultural thing ... but it has no basic reflection on the actual word "Holy" in Hebrew or Greek.

The Hebrew word qadesh means one thing: set apart or dedicated to a purpose. For YHVH Himself, the OT asserts that God is "set apart" from the world, while the NT asserts the same for Jesus (of course the NT uses Greek--in this case, the world is hagioi, but the meaning is similar).

Zechariah 14:21 And all who come to sacrifice will take some of the pots and cook in them.

I don't think they would take trash cans for this! So this must mean every clean pot, every pot you could use to cook in.

Sorry--"Trash cans" comes from the Living Bible, which I thought had a good translation of the passage. I've checked, and you're indeed correct: the two words for "pot" are the same, and mean a cooking pot. That's what I get for thinking. :silly:

Justin: Lee, even your Bible says it: "All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made."
Let's say you are correct here! Then how can there be any guarantee that the deities will always have your best interest at heart? Surely doing you harm must be something you would consider evil, and these deities must contain that.

If I follow your logic to the end, then I'm forced to the position that when God punished Israel, He was doing evil--for is not punishment "doing harm?" Yet you assert that God had Israel's best interests at heart...?

But again, evil is a subtraction, a man who does evil becomes less, not greater, and subtractions cannot be created, they are not objects you can measure and weigh, you don't turn out the lights by adding six pounds of darkness…

I also frequently use the analogy of light, and darkness as the absence of light. However, I've started a new thread discussing my views of evil (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50976): I do not see evil as a subtraction of good. Evil and good are conscious choices that we make. But with your indulgence, we'll split the consideration of the nature of evil off to that thread.

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

I agreed that there were some Wiccans who felt that "Mother Earth" was, indeed, nonpersonal, but I also made the distinction that this was the more liberal view.

But then I thought you were implying that earth, as viewed in this way, was indeed impersonal: "It's not that the Earth is intrinsically sacred: it is sacred because of the indwelling power of God. And if you understand that Mystery, you can even see an aquarium or a lava lamp as participant in that Sacral nature."

But I assume you don't talk to your lava lamp! Or to the earth as a whole, either. And thus the (it seems to me) inconsistency. Now on the web site you mentioned, I find statements such as these:

Most Wiccans worship two deities… some others practice a form of polytheism…
There are different thoughts in Wicca regarding the Elements…
Many Wiccans also believe that no magic can be performed on any other person without that person's direct permission…

So maybe it will only be possible to discuss your views of Wicca, which (as it turns out) is the purpose of this thread.

Justin: Surely you've met self-professed Christians who see Jesus not as God, but as some form of moral teacher? There is a similar movement within Wicca--the only difference between the two is that even though I, personally, disagree with the view that the Gods are an impersonal force, I have neither the authority nor the desire to "disfellowship" those who hold that belief.

Well, I do hold that people who don't worship Jesus, are not Christians, that's required, in my book (meaning the Bible).

Justin: for the landscape of Mystery, maps are one to a customer, and you draw the map as you go.

Is that an objective truth? May I not say that is a subjective view of your own?

Justin: In the same manner, your scriptures may make objective statements, but they are read subjectively.

By you, it would seem, but perhaps not by me.

Justin: There is not one person on this earth who has ever read the Bible who has not applied their own subjective understanding to the words there--indeed, it is impossible to do so.

Certainly! I have a subjective view of my head, and I also have a head. Joe can have a subjective view of his relationship with Bill Fitzmeyer, and yet there is also a real Bill Fitzmeyer, about whom things can really be true, and really be seen, and really be said.

Justin: We are all locked into our own subjective worldviews…

I hope we can change our views, though, and even bring them into more correspondence with reality.

Lee: Certainly facts are not the most important elements in the universe, even facts about God, but I think we can know them, nonetheless.

Justin: Then how can there be so many interpretations of one book? How can such radically different interpretations be drawn from the same passages?

Then how can there be so many people who think they are Napoleon? People disagreeing doesn't mean there is no possibility of being wrong, and if people can indeed be wrong, this doesn't prove you can't be right. Mere disagreement doesn't eliminate the possibility of truth we can know. Especially if one of the statements about people, in a book claiming truth, is that people are like sheep, that we all have gone astray.

Justin: Lee, it is not possible to objectively know the Creator. It is only possible to have experiences…

Again I would ask if you consider this an objective truth, about the Creator. If you know this objectively about him/her.

Justin: … if objective knowledge is impossible on an issue, then subjective knowledge is the only tool that we can work with.

Yes, I disagree with the premise, though. Apparently you do, too! In making (evidently) objective statements such as "the doctrine [of Christianity] has become separated from the history."

Isaiah 5:16 But the Lord Almighty will be exalted by his justice, and the holy God will show himself holy by his righteousness.

Justin: Isaiah is saying that in condemning this activity, Isaiah asserts that God is "set apart" from the injustice of Judah. In this case, the passage means "There is a distinction between Judah and God, for God seeks Justice and righteousness: Judah does not, and God condemns them for it."

That might be part of the point here, but surely that is not all of it. The implication I find here is certainly incidental to the main point, yet it is still there, "holy by his righteousness" does indeed imply that holiness, in the view presented here, is more than just being distinct, or set apart.

Justin: The Hebrew word qadesh means one thing: set apart or dedicated to a purpose. For YHVH Himself, the OT asserts that God is "set apart" from the world, while the NT asserts the same for Jesus (of course the NT uses Greek--in this case, the world is hagioi, but the meaning is similar).

I have to ask again, is this an objective fact in the area of religion that you are arguing for here? Or is it instead, that this verse seems spicy? I agree that the word includes "set apart," but that is not all the meaning, as shown in the references to holiness which gives the reason for ascribing holiness, as mentioned previously.

Lee: How can there be any guarantee that the deities will always have your best interest at heart? Surely doing you harm must be something you would consider evil, and these deities must contain that.

Justin: If I follow your logic to the end, then I'm forced to the position that when God punished Israel, He was doing evil--for is not punishment "doing harm?" Yet you assert that God had Israel's best interests at heart...?

Not all punishment does harm, though, surely parents can punish children for their benefit. No, I meant damaging you, harm in that sense, not pain, but harm, which might even be by means of pleasant sensations! Do your Gods include that? It seems you are saying that they do.

Blessings,
Lee

[lee_merrill]

And if I may say so, Justin, I think you may well indeed have an aversion to Jesus, as people involved in the occult do seem to have, given that the Jesus you may have accepted, is not the person as described in Scripture.


If I say I accept Wicca, only not the way Wiccans teach it, if I find the way Wiccans teach it unacceptable, then I think you could reply that I have an aversion to Wicca.

You have, I think, an aversion to my Jesus, as I have (I will admit) an aversion to the Wiccan deities, to their powers and personalities...

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

But then I thought you were implying that earth, as viewed in this way, was indeed impersonal: "It's not that the Earth is intrinsically sacred: it is sacred because of the indwelling power of God. And if you understand that Mystery, you can even see an aquarium or a lava lamp as participant in that Sacral nature."

But I assume you don't talk to your lava lamp! Or to the earth as a whole, either. And thus the (it seems to me) inconsistency.

No, you're quite correct that I normally don't talk to my lava lamp: I don't even own one. :lol: But there is a very fundamental level on which I could. To my view, this would be a very immature faith--rather like a "milk Christian"--but just as a "milk Christian" is a true Christian, someone talking to their lava lamp has the potential of a very basic understanding of the power of the Creator who indwells and transcends the lava lamp.

But to my mind, that "potential" is rather haphazard: while someone could do so, it is not as likely that they would do so. This is why, though I must acknowledge that some Wiccans speak of Mother Earth, or of a vague, non-personalized force, this is an incomplete and immature view.

Now on the web site you mentioned, I find statements such as these:

Most Wiccans worship two deities… some others practice a form of polytheism…
There are different thoughts in Wicca regarding the Elements…
Many Wiccans also believe that no magic can be performed on any other person without that person's direct permission…

So maybe it will only be possible to discuss your views of Wicca, which (as it turns out) is the purpose of this thread.

:yes: My views are idiosyncratic. They are (for the most part) close to the Traditionalist views (the conservative end of the Wiccan spectrum), but are not completely Traditionalist. However, do remember--while it is generally agreed that there are definite limits of what Wicca is and what it isn't, there is little agreement on where those limits lie.

And as a side note: the material on Traditionalist Wicca is much harder to access on the Internet, or in any published text source in general. Wicca has a tradition of Secrecy, which is much more prevalent in the Traditional and Traditionalist communities.

Is that an objective truth? May I not say that is a subjective view of your own?

Good question--though I found it amusing in the extreme that you repeated the question so many times. Lee, I promise that I would have still answered it had you only mentioned it once. :wink:

The observation that objective knowledge is difficult (perhaps nearly impossible) for an individual to attain is a philosophical statement, based on subjective knowledge, observation, and logic. If you like, we can discuss it, but we'd probably better split that discussion off into a separate thread.

Justin: In the same manner, your scriptures may make objective statements, but they are read subjectively.
By you, it would seem, but perhaps not by me.

Do you apply your own interpretation to what you read? Do the words percolate through your beliefs (part of your worldview), and are thus "filtered" by your perceptions? Do you ever have a less-than-complete understanding of every word that you read in every single passage: or of the phrasing of the words when taken as groups (semantic and syntactic reading)? Lee, if you answer "yes" to any of those questions, then you read the Bible subjectively: you filter what you are reading based on your beliefs and knowledge.

Lee: Certainly facts are not the most important elements in the universe, even facts about God, but I think we can know them, nonetheless.

Justin: Then how can there be so many interpretations of one book? How can such radically different interpretations be drawn from the same passages?
Then how can there be so many people who think they are Napoleon?

Do you associate people who disagree with your interpretation of the Scripture with delusion?

Especially if one of the statements about people, in a book claiming truth, is that people are like sheep, that we all have gone astray.

Well, I believe that Isaiah 53:6 was speaking of a moral context, not an epistemic one.

Justin: Isaiah is saying that in condemning this activity, Isaiah asserts that God is "set apart" from the injustice of Judah. In this case, the passage means "There is a distinction between Judah and God, for God seeks Justice and righteousness: Judah does not, and God condemns them for it."
That might be part of the point here, but surely that is not all of it.

Why not? Is justice a necessarily prerequisite of holiness? Is each and every thing that is cited as "holy" also just? Of course not ... or we're right back to the cooking pots!

Not all punishment does harm, though, surely parents can punish children for their benefit.

Yes, parents can ... I guess we can call that "remedial punishment," because it has the best interest of the one being punished at heart. But that does not explain what we could call "punative punishment," such as the plagues against Egypt--or even the doctrine of Hell.

Justin

[technomage]

And if I may say so, Justin, I think you may well indeed have an aversion to Jesus, as people involved in the occult do seem to have, given that the Jesus you may have accepted, is not the person as described in Scripture.

If I say I accept Wicca, only not the way Wiccans teach it, if I find the way Wiccans teach it unacceptable, then I think you could reply that I have an aversion to Wicca.

You have, I think, an aversion to my Jesus, as I have (I will admit) an aversion to the Wiccan deities, to their powers and personalities...

Lee, I will not comment on your presumptuousness, save to say that most Wiccans would take the accusation that they had an "aversion to Jesus" as a grave insult. No, I do not take offense, but I would caution you to reflect carefully before using that phrasing with others.

Having said that ... Lee, it is not that I am averse to Jesus. I am averse to being told that I "must" trust the Bible, a book which (as a whole) has been established as historically untrustworthy. I am truly averse to being told that if I do not believe that Jesus was exactly as depicted in the Bible--a work of men, not of any God--that I will go to "hell." I am extremely averse to being told that this book that is historically inaccurate is historically authoritative. And I am totally and completely averse to being told that the Bible must be accepted as literally true ... except for those portions that some church authority has said should be interpreted in a different manner.

If the Carpenter's Son were to sign onto this forum today, I would have little doubt that he would be horrified at most (if not all) of the statements made in His name. Lee, if I ever again follow Jesus, it will be Jesus, the Jewish Carpenter's Son ... not Jesus the Icon of the Church.

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

I'll have to work on your other post tomorrow, but I thought I would respond to your last post here, now.

Lee, it is not that I am averse to Jesus. I am averse to being told that I "must" trust the Bible..., a book which (as a whole) has been established as historically untrustworthy. I am truly averse to being told that if I do not believe that Jesus was exactly as depicted in the Bible--a work of men, not of any God--that I will go to "hell." I am extremely averse to being told that this book that is historically inaccurate is historically authoritative. And I am totally and completely averse to being told that the Bible must be accepted as literally true ... except for those portions that some church authority has said should be interpreted in a different manner.

But Jesus, as depicted in the Bible, said that Scripture is supernaturally true, and that hell is real, and mentioned Biblical accounts that are contested (such as Jonah and Noah) as if they were quite historical. And this thus relates to what I was trying to say previously. Jesus, as the Bible depicts him, is the one I believe in, and this personality seems to cause an adverse reaction, in people involved in the occult, as in what you have said.

If the Carpenter's Son were to sign onto this forum today, I would have little doubt that he would be horrified at most (if not all) of the statements made in His name.

I expect many statements made in his name he would indeed reject, yet not the statements about him coming from Scripture.

Lee, if I ever again follow Jesus, it will be Jesus, the Jewish Carpenter's Son ... not Jesus the Icon of the Church.

And I have no desire to follow an icon either, but rather the Carpenter's son, the Son of God...

Blessings,
Lee

[technomage]

I'll have to work on your other post tomorrow, but I thought I would respond to your last post here, now.

Well, I look forward to your response, but I also know I've given you a plateful to work with. :wink:

But Jesus, as depicted in the Bible, said, or implied, all these things, and this is exactly what I was trying to say previously. Jesus, as the Bible depicts him, is the one I believe in, and this personality causes recoil, it seems, in people involved in the occult. That is all I meant.

The problem with these claims is that they are premised on the Bible being an accurate depiction. What happens if it's not, Lee? That's probably the most fundamental question I've made in the entire discussion: if you want, we can split that part of the discussion off into a separate thread.

Justin

[lee_merrill]

Hi Justin,

And the last post will be first, and the first post will be last…

Justin: The problem with these claims is that they are premised on the Bible being an accurate depiction. What happens if it's not, Lee?

Well, if I say "I accept Buddhism, only not the way Buddhists believe it," then can't we say I don't accept Buddhism? Saying "I'm fine with Jesus, only not the way Christians believe" is, I think, to do the same sort of thing.

Now if the Bible is not an accurate depiction of Jesus, then I'm outta here, that's what happens if it's not true, as far as I am concerned.

1 Corinthians 15:19,32,20 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die." But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead…

Justin: … for the landscape of Mystery, maps are one to a customer, and you draw the map as you go.

Lee: Is that an objective truth? May I not say that is a subjective view of your own?

Justin: The observation that objective knowledge is difficult (perhaps nearly impossible) for an individual to attain is a philosophical statement, based on subjective knowledge, observation, and logic. If you like, we can discuss it, but we'd probably better split that discussion off into a separate thread.

That would be fine, I will suggest picking this up over in Greg Koukl's "Stand to Reason" forum, assuming that would be appropriate, given that this topic is underway over there…

Justin: Then how can there be so many interpretations of one book?

Lee: Then how can there be so many people who think they are Napoleon?

Justin: Do you associate people who disagree with your interpretation of the Scripture with delusion?

No, I just mean that different interpretations do not remove the possibility of real truth. We can really know we are not Napoleon. Objectively! Really. Even though our thoughts about ourselves are filtered through our perspective, and our experience.

Lee: Especially if one of the statements about people, in a book claiming truth, is that people are like sheep, that we all have gone astray.

Justin: Well, I believe that Isaiah 53:6 was speaking of a moral context, not an epistemic one.

Can we not go astray epistemically? We can turn to our own way in that area, too, I think, which would also be morally wrong, to the extent that we were refusing any knowledge that we should accept.

"Are there no sins of the intellect?" (C.S. Lewis)

Justin: Is justice a necessarily prerequisite of holiness? Is each and every thing that is cited as "holy" also just?

No, pots are not just, I agree. But "holy" pots are pure, in a sense, and not just set apart, which I would take to be the pot's version of a commitment to justice! No compromise, in other words, clean … holy, for garbage cans, though set apart, are not holy.

Hebrews 7:26 Such a high priest meets our need-- one who is holy, blameless, pure, set apart from sinners, exalted above the heavens.

Lee: Not all punishment does harm, though…

Justin: But that does not explain what we could call "punitive punishment," such as the plagues against Egypt--or even the doctrine of Hell.

I believe God may well save everybody, though! Which could then place even these events in the category of God having their best interest at heart…

Exodus 8:28 Pharaoh said, "... Now pray for me."

But--I must ask again--do the Wiccan deities have such a commitment? It seems, indeed, they do not...

Blessings,
Lee

[Richbee]

But--I must ask again--do the Wiccan deities have such a commitment? It seems, indeed, they do not...

Blessings,

Lee

How can you posit "deities"?

Justin would never surrender to a demi-god "deity".

Wiccan is about Man as god, self worship, or worship of self.

“I will now disprove the existence of all gods. If there were gods, how could I bear not to be a god? Consequently, there are no gods.”

[Durthorin]

How can you posit "deities"?

Justin would never surrender to a demi-god "deity".

Wiccan is about Man as god, self worship, or worship of self.

“I will now disprove the existence of all gods. If there were gods, how could I bear not to be a god? Consequently, there are no gods.”

That may be your impression, Rich. But its hardly true. We see our Gods as uniqie from us as you see yours. Nietzsche is hardly a poster boy for Pagan beliefs.

Danu Bless, Dur

[Richbee]

That may be your impression, Rich. But its hardly true. We see our Gods as uniqie from us as you see yours.

Unique?

Transcendent?

Outside of Time - Space?

How do you know this?

Nietzsche is hardly a poster boy for Pagan beliefs.

Danu Bless, Dur

I do appreciate that, I mean the guy was the grand son of Christian Pastors and the Son of same.

However, what did he write about Greek gods?

Nietzsche's first book, was:

“The Birth of Tragedy from the Spirit of Music,”

...single-handedly revolutionized the accepted view of the ancient Greeks as all “sweetness and light,” reason and order. For Nietzsche, the tragic poets were the great Greeks, and the philosophers, starting with Socrates, were the small ones, pale and passionless. All the Western world had followed Socrates and his rationalism and moralism, and had denied the other, darker side of man, the tragic side.

Nietzsche instead exalted tragedy, chaos, disorder and irrationality, symbolized by the god Dionysus, god of growth and drunken orgies.

He claimed that Socrates had turned the world instead to the worship of Apollo, god of the sun, light, order and reason.

But the fate of Nietzsche's god Dionysus was soon to overtake Nietzsche himself; as Dionysus was literally torn apart by the Titans, supernatural monsters of the underworld, Nietzsche's mind was to be cracked asunder by his own inner Titans.

[Durthorin]

Unique?

Transcendent?

Outside of Time - Space?

How do you know this?


Well, I speak with my Gods, doesn't your God speak to you? As for the History of the Celtic Gods, I refer you to "Myths and Legends of the Celtic Race" by Thomas Rolleston..



I do appreciate that, I mean the guy was the grand son of Christian Pastors and the Son of same.

However, what did he write about Greek gods?

Nietzsche instead exalted tragedy, chaos, disorder and irrationality, **symbolized** by the god Dionysus, god of growth and drunken orgies.

Its a very literary passage, but it hardly says that he followed the Hellenic Gods. He used them as symbols of Chaos vs order.. Not so?

[Richbee]

Well, I speak with my Gods, doesn't your God speak to you? As for the History of the Celtic Gods, I refer you to "Myths and Legends of the Celtic Race" by Thomas Rolleston..




Its a very literary passage, but it hardly says that he followed the Hellenic Gods. He used them as symbols of Chaos vs order.. Not so?

Thanks.

Yes, he no doubt fashioned these gods after his own desires, and he did drink much booze, although no Ladies really liked him.

Poor little guy, but then some of only aspire to orgy fame or infamy!?