Ask a Wiccan! [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

technomage

September 21st 2005, 03:40 PM

That being said, I also believe that Christianity touches history in verifiable ways so that in addition to the subjective relationship aspects there is also an empirical component.

That's the claim. My major problem with that claim is that the Old Testament seems to be radically anhistorical--to be sure, the closer to the Babylonian Captivity a certain event is, the greater correlation to archaeology and history, but even then, it's not accurate. The New Testament, on the other hand, is fairly accurate--yet even here, there are historical and even geographical gaffes.

Apologists often use an "evidence based" cirriculum, wherein I am asked to evaluate the subjective claims in light of the objective and verifiable claims. Having done so, I find that the verifiable claims are of varying accuracy--some are correct, some are incorrect, just like any other human-written history book of that time period.

Those apologists disagree when I say "Because the Bible is not accurate in all of the verifiable claims, I do not feel it is trustworthy for the unverifiable claims." Those same apologists would be horrified if I took, say Herodotus or Homer as "spiritually authoritative," simply because there is a degree of verifiability to the texts. And ... well, truth to tell, some (but not all) of those apologists make some very disingenuous, or even dishonest, attempts to "explain away" the various historical issues.

While on one hand I'm critical of atheists for rejecting half of the truth detection techniques -- I'm wondering if one may be critical of Wiccans for rejecting the opposite set of truth detection techniques.

I think you can see above that we use both objective and subjective methods of "truth detection."

As a side note: if you actually want a historical study of the origins of Wicca, I don't feel any better book on the subject has come out than Ronald Hutton's "Triumph of the Moon." It should be available in your local public library system. Dr. Hutton's a professor of history at the University of Bristol.

In short, where is the historical evidence that back up Wiccan truth claims?

Well ... how far back do you expect we should go? Wicca has only been around since the 1950s--though, truth to tell, some Wiccans have been pretending that Wicca is an "ancient religion" since Gardner first published.

We don't have the antiquity of Christianity. But that's not really relevant: Christianity was, at one time, a "New Religious Movement."

Is your faith entirely subjective?

Yes and no. Most people who go through the initiatory sequence will have similar, frequently identical, experiences. In that sense, if it is not "objective," it is at least archetypical. However, it must also be pointed out that there are a lot of "Wiccans" who claim the name, but have not gone through the actual ritual sequence, or have done so in an ineffective manner. The experiences of these "Wiccans" is quite subjective.

Does Wicca have an empty tomb? (figuratively speaking)

There is no equivalent. But MG ... it must also be pointed out that Christians do not have an "empty tomb" either.

As Christians, you do have faith in the empty tomb ... but the tomb (empty or not) is not objective. Arguments between Christians on what the Resurrection meant, what it consisted of, and the actual (or metaphoric) status of that resurrection have gone back to the First Century of the Christian era.

technomage

September 21st 2005, 03:50 PM

What is Priesthood in Wicca?

I can go into some details on that ... but there are others that, because of my oaths, are intended to be secret. And no, there's nothing inimicable in that statement--no sacrifices, ritual abuse, or sex orgies. :hehe: But while there is a long list of things that I can discuss, there are some things I cannot.

Basically, any Initiated Wiccan is a Priest or Priestess. Interpretations on the role of the Initiates as Priests differ from Tradition to Tradition (a "Tradition" within Wicca is similar to a Denomination within Christianity), but generally speaking, we are called to serve--to serve the Gods, to serve Humanity, and to serve our fellow Wiccans. In my Tradition, that order is quite deliberate: it's rather equivalent to "Love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself."

How we serve the Gods goes into more detail than is probably appropriate for the forum--again, nothing inimicable in that statement, but I don't think the mods would want a detailed description of Wiccan religious ritual here on the forum.

How we serve Humanity ... well, very much like anyone else does. A lot of Wiccans participate in volunteer and charitable work. In my Tradition, it's a requirement of Initiation--and not just writing a check to a charitable organization, either. We want our students to get off their butts and actually do something.

And for serving our fellow Wiccans--that's not dissimilar to how a Church congregation helps each other. Emotional support, advice and counselling, even the occasional chewing out if your friend is screwing up.

JardinPrayer

September 21st 2005, 03:59 PM

technomage

September 21st 2005, 04:05 PM

More years ago than I am willing to acknowledge, I was deeply interested in Wicca. I read stuff by Sybil Leek and thought Wicca got its start well before Christianity with European "witch doctors," or herbal medicine women during the dark ages. How'd I get so mixed up?

Well, I don't know how you personally got so mixed up ... but starting with Gerald Gardner, the claim was made that Wicca was the "Ancient Religion." Unfortunately, Gardner meant it mystically (not to mention tongue-in-cheek), but a lot of the other authors meant it literally. Heck, in one of her books Starhawk claims that Wicca goes back 35,000 years! :lolo:

There's also the fact that hearkening back to a "Golden Age" is darn near universal within every culture--most people seem to think that life today is too complex, and that our ancestors had it much better than we did. That "hearkening back to a Golden Age" was part and parcel of the popularity of Wicca in the late 60s and the 70s, and of the resurgence in the mid-90s after the "Satanic Panic."

Krusader

September 21st 2005, 05:35 PM

:sigh: Yes, I'm getting on the bandwagon.

Here's the place to ask me questions--either me specifically, or Wiccans in general. I'm not going to set any conditions about having to answer a question in return, though I don't guarantee that I won't ask one.

These questions can be frivolous or serious. Just stick by Campus Decorum. :wink:

What do you believe about Jesus Christ - Who do you say He is?

technomage

September 21st 2005, 05:51 PM

What do you believe about Jesus Christ - Who do you say He is?

To the best of my understanding, there was a Jesus of Nazareth--excuse me, Yehoshua ha'Notzri--a historical apocalyptic preacher. However, we know very little about him as a person--who he was, what he said, and what he did during his life has become subsumed to the doctrinal writings of the NT authors and their spiritual descendants.

The current Christology that has developed around Jesus is so far divorced from the hisotry that Yehoshua himself would not recognize it. Christology is a doctrine: the Gospels that we have (both canonical and non-canonical) that concern the life of Jesus are at least the third stage of the development of that doctrine.
* Jesus makes statement A
* Oral tradition tells of statement A, but tells it in a modified form, which we will notate as B
* Various Gospel writes set down into text their understanding of the doctrinal significance of B--said doctrinal writing to be called C.
* The writers did have certain historical facts to work with--but since none of them met Jesus in person, they had to rely on oral tradition for these facts, as well as for Jesus' statements. We can call this additional material D.
* The Gospel writers may (or may not) also add other tales, to illustrate other doctrinal points. We will call this E.

We know that these oral traditions were not perfectly preserved, because of the occasionally subtle, occasionally dramatic differences in the Gospel acounts.

Crusader, when I speak of "Hesus of Nazareth," I speak of a man who was an apocalyptic preacher. When I speak of "Jesus Christ," I refer to the combined writings and doctrinal teachings of Christianity. The two are separate entities--and indeed, I'm quite persuaded that Jesus of Nazareth would be completely dismayed by Jesus Christ.

Which do you want to know about--my views of Jesus of Nazareth, or of Jesus Christ?

Krusader

September 21st 2005, 05:54 PM

To the best of my understanding, there was a Jesus of Nazareth--excuse me, Yehoshua ha'Notzri--a historical apocalyptic preacher. However, we know very little about him as a person--who he was, what he said, and what he did during his life has become subsumed to the doctrinal writings of the NT authors and their spiritual descendants.

The current Christology that has developed around Jesus is so far divorced from the hisotry that Yehoshua himself would not recognize it. Christology is a doctrine: the Gospels that we have (both canonical and non-canonical) that concern the life of Jesus are at least the third stage of the development of that doctrine.
* Jesus makes statement A
* Oral tradition tells of statement A, but tells it in a modified form, which we will notate as B
* Various Gospel writes set down into text their understanding of the doctrinal significance of B--said doctrinal writing to be called C.
* The writers did have certain historical facts to work with--but since none of them met Jesus in person, they had to rely on oral tradition for these facts, as well as for Jesus' statements. We can call this additional material D.
* The Gospel writers may (or may not) also add other tales, to illustrate other doctrinal points. We will call this E.

We know that these oral traditions were not perfectly preserved, because of the occasionally subtle, occasionally dramatic differences in the Gospel acounts.

Crusader, when I speak of "Hesus of Nazareth," I speak of a man who was an apocalyptic preacher. When I speak of "Jesus Christ," I refer to the combined writings and doctrinal teachings of Christianity. The two are separate entities--and indeed, I'm quite persuaded that Jesus of Nazareth would be completely dismayed by Jesus Christ.

Which do you want to know about--my views of Jesus of Nazareth, or of Jesus Christ?

You don't really need to answer further, because as you know I would have to tell you that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I think you pretty much explained where you stand.

technomage

September 21st 2005, 05:56 PM

You don't really need to answer further, because as you know I would have to tell you that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. I think you pretty much explained where you stand.

OK. Thanks for participating--and please feel welcome to ask any more questions that occur to you.

Ryokan

September 21st 2005, 05:59 PM

The Lord and the Lady, actual, supernatural omni-beings, or human constructs to represent the "ultimate reality"?

technomage

September 21st 2005, 06:05 PM

The Lord and the Lady, actual, supernatural omni-beings, or human constructs to represent the "ultimate reality"?

Um ... yes?

Seriously ... I don't know. It seems self-evident to me that if there is a God, such an entity is beyond our understanding. Therefore, we all have "God-concepts"--the "God of our understanding." In that sense, because God is beyond our understanding, those God-concepts are wrong, by definition. But it seems to me that, in an effort to overcome our lack of understanding, God has chosen to work through the various "God-concepts" that people develop.

In my case, my "God-Concept" is the Wiccan Lord and Lady. I know from the start that my concept is technically wrong ... but the Creator has graciously allowed me some measure of insight. Admittedly, that may very well be like saying that the slowest kid in the class is "improving," but I'll take what I can get.

Timothy Leary

September 21st 2005, 06:24 PM

Purple, Orange, or Black?

technomage

September 21st 2005, 06:28 PM

Purple, Orange, or Black?

Puce. :teeth:

JardinPrayer

September 21st 2005, 07:07 PM

Are you a pet owner?

technomage

September 21st 2005, 07:10 PM

Are you a pet owner?

Um ... no. Though several pets share this house (five cats, five dogs, three birds, and a sugar glider, and a fish), I can definitely state that I am not a pet owner. The ownership goes the other direction. :teeth:

And now if you'll excuse me, I can hear one of my masters meowing for my attention. :aye:

D. Medvedev Fan

September 21st 2005, 10:26 PM

Why would you follow such a new religion?

technomage

September 21st 2005, 10:38 PM

Why would you follow such a new religion?

Why would you buy a new car, as opposed to an old one?

It's not that simple, of course. I didn't convert to Wicca because it was "new"--to tell the truth, the relative age of the religion didn't really have anything to do with it. Mundanely, I converted to Wicca at first simply because I though I could possibly get off the drugs--something I had been hooked on for ten years.

But more fundamentally, I converted to Wicca because I thought there was a possibility that I could actually have something that I never really had in Christianity--a relationship with the Creator that made sense. For me, Christianity made sense ... but there were parts of it that just didn't work with other parts of my life. I could be a Christian ... or I could study the stars. I could be a Christian ... or I could understand dinosaurs. I could be a Christian ... or I could live life as it was intended to be lived.

However, that was the insight of a very immature Wiccan. Now I know enough about Wicca (and Christianity) to know that being Christian is not truly incompatable with science, or with 20th century culture. It seemed like that to me, but that was the fault of my upbringing, and of the fact that while I am more-or-less comfident that I was saved, I never understood that salvation. I never truly comprehended that there was anything to be saved from.

yxboom

September 21st 2005, 10:42 PM

what level warlock are you?

technomage

September 21st 2005, 10:47 PM

what level warlock are you?

Depends on whether you're asking in D&D or Runequest. :lol: However, since I know both languages, I think I can translate.

:wiz1:

As a serious note (though you may already know this)--the term "Warlock" actually means "Oathbreaker" in Wicca--somewhere worse than calling a Christian an apostate. It's NOT a complementary term. :egad:

technomage

September 21st 2005, 10:50 PM

Depends on whether you're asking in D&D or Runequest. :lol: However, since I know both languages, I think I can translate.

:wiz1:

As a serious note (though you may already know this)--the term "Warlock" actually means "Oathbreaker" in Wicca--somewhere worse than calling a Christian an apostate. It's NOT a complementary term. :egad:
I knew those would come in handy. Thanks again, Bill! :teeth:

lao tzu

September 21st 2005, 11:50 PM

Greeings Justin,

What do you think of the faddish element of Wicca prevalent among teens?, about solitary Wiccans?, about those who are attracted to "black" magic? How do you interpret the three-fold law?

In peace, Jesse

D. Medvedev Fan

September 22nd 2005, 02:52 AM

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 07:20 AM

Greeings Justin,

Gettin' your money's worth, eh? :hehe:

What do you think of the faddish element of Wicca prevalent among teens?

For the most part, the teens who read a book and decide on Wicca as their "flavor of the month" just aren't that big an impact in the Wiccan Community--despite what is frequently seen on Internet forums. Some of them will get serious and grow up to be responsible and respectable Wiccan ... but heck, I was a teenager once (more years ago than I care to admit, thank you :hehe: ). I remember how easy it is to get distracted, and how easy it is to be attracted to the glamor of something without thinking the ramifications through.

I remember when I was a teenager: you could ask me everything, but you couldn't tell me much of anything. And that's pretty common for teenagers. So I try to help if a teen asks for help ... but I don't take it too personally if my advice gets ignored.

At the same time, I've had the occasional teen give me some insight that absolutely blew me away. But I've also seen a lot of teens who couldn't find their rear ends with both hands and a flashlight--and unfortunately, for some of these folks, being "too teenaged to live" can last for decades.

It's really case-by-case, as it is with the adults.

about solitary Wiccans?

Mixed feelings. There are so many solitaries out there who just ... miss the point. At the same time, I'm no longer with a coven, so I'm now a solitary.

When you're a solitary, your primary religious relationship is with the Gods, and with the people around you. If they can get those two relationships working, I'm not going to fuss at them.

about those who are attracted to "black" magic?

With a large (metaphorical) mallet, applied skillfully and repeatedly to the head.

How do you interpret the three-fold law?

I do adhere to the Law of Return, but I don't tend to attatch numbers to it--and I don't see it so much as "karma." The Law of Return is something that, as Wiccans, we have bound ourselves to. It's as if we have asked the Gods to give us the consequences of our actions.

And They do. It's not always a fun thing, but it definitely works.

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 07:22 AM

One thing I've always wondered about converts (not of any sort in particular) is how their family holding different beliefs responded to the change. Do you have any insights or experiences that you could indulge me with?

I don't, because my wife and I are both Pagan. However, there are folks on the Pagan and Christian Moot who live in "mixed marriages," and who may have some insight.

Ryokan

September 22nd 2005, 07:30 AM

What do you prefer, the D&D or White Wolf table top gaming system?

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 07:38 AM

What do you prefer, the D&D or White Wolf table top gaming system?

Actually--Hero Systems. But you have to go back to 3rd ed--after that, they really messed things up.

Ryokan

September 22nd 2005, 07:46 AM

Actually--Hero Systems. But you have to go back to 3rd ed--after that, they really messed things up.
I never used Hero Systems. I've played a couple GURPS games, but I mostly stick to the biggies. What's it like?

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 08:03 AM

I never used Hero Systems. I've played a couple GURPS games, but I mostly stick to the biggies. What's it like?

Everything's based on attributes and skills--there are no "character classes," so if you want a master swordsman who's also a mage, you can have it--you just need to have the points to pay for it.

But truth to tell, I haven't done any RPGing for several years now.

sylas

September 22nd 2005, 08:53 AM

Ryokan

September 22nd 2005, 08:58 AM

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 09:20 AM

You have cats. What kind? Pure breed or, just, ya know, cats? Long or short hair? Big or small. I have 2 cats right now, one large long haired one and two little short hairs. i used to have a big short hair, but she passed away lately. I am not sure which I like better, but...

No purebreeds--all of our cats are standard DSH. We have three black, one white, one pewter-grey. (The whie and pewter grey are brothers.)

1: Midnight: He's my mother-in-law's cat, and our oldest. Fourteen, black with a white spot on his belly, green eyes. He's kind of aloof unless he takes one of his moods, but when he has his mood on, you may NOT stop petting him, thank you!
2: Bagheera: He's our oldest: black, hazel eyes. This is our spoiled-rotten baby. He wants petting, and he wants it NOW!
3: Molly: she was a stray. Black, green eyes. She's the smallest of our cats, yet she is the BOSS--and if any of the other cats forget it, she WILL remind them.
4: Navi: he's the grey, with gold eyes. This cat is so lazy that if breathing weren't automatic, he'd quit. But he can really move when he hears the food-bag rattling.
5: Bowie: White, with one blue eye and one green eye. He's sweet, he's lovable ... and he's absolutely dumber than a stump.

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 09:20 AM

You seem to have a rather ... academic ... approach to things; and I mean that as a compliment. I see you apply both heart and mind to your musings. You appear to be well read in background scholarship relevant to language, culture, history... all the stuff I never really studied;

What formal education or training have you received in any of those areas?

Very little, actually. I have a two-year technical college degree in computer programming. I have had some post-secondary training in Koine Greek and Hebrew--just enough to winnow the good resources from the less than stellar ones, in all honesty.

Most of my actual training has been self-directed ... but for me, that's been almost a necessity. I was reading Bullfinch's Mythology by the time I was five: if I don't keep my brain busy, it gets into all sorts of mischief, so learning new things has always been self-defense against the more mischievious aspects of my nature. :hehe:

And by inclination, I'm a polymath: but like any polymath, I have my weaknesses as well as my strengths. Higher math is not my friend, but I absolutely love science. Then there's literature; philosophy; poetry (both reading and writing); music (listening, performing, and writing--but my music writing is also not that great); comparative religions; comparative cultures ... and the list goes on from there.

But I'm rather of the opinion in places like this that if I cannot speak from my heart and show people the "real me," then I might as well sit down and shut up. If something is true, then from where I sit, we have the responsibility to not only parrot the words, but to walk the walk. And if I can't do that from the heart, then my heart's in the wrong place.

JardinPrayer

September 22nd 2005, 10:41 AM

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 11:32 AM

When I was trying to learn about Wicca years ago, a priest came and gave a lecture for our college philosophy club. He looked the part to the letter (if you wanna go Hollywood): Tall, perfect posture, black hair and goatee, perfectly white teeth, confident, knowing grin, very dark, mesmerizing eyes, a larger-than-life presence. He spoke eloquently, trying to straighten us out about what Wicca was and was not. Once thing he said was that it was necessary to be sponsored into a coven, undergo an initiation rite, and move through levels of education with them in order to truly be Wiccan. The other notable thing he said was that if one wants to do that, one would have to find a Wiccan in a coven that has an "opening," and essentially beat down their door and convince the Wiccan of their worthiness.

How close is this to the real deal?

Eh ... some of that is accurate, but a lot of it is the "hype" of exclusivity, and some of it is sheerest hogwash.

There are some Wiccan traditions that say you cannot be Wiccan unless you're initiated in a Lineaged coven. While it's true that you cannot be a member of a Lineaged Tradition without a valid initiation, Wicca itself is not the property of any specific Tradition--no matter that some Wiccans would like for it to be.

However, it is true that you cannot properly be Wiccan without Initiation. That's not just a ritual--indeed, the actual ritual of Initiation is probably the least important aspect. Proper Initiation is the experience that occurs during an Initiation ritual--the ritual is one way to induce that status, but it is not the only way that it occurrs.

Indeed, Christians have an analog: Initiation is very similar to the Conversion experience of being Born Again. You can do that with the help of a Christian, or you can do so having heard the Word and having faith. Neither is less valid than the other.

Krusader

September 22nd 2005, 11:53 AM

"A Cup of Mystery," are you familiar with the case a few months ago when an Episcopal Priest in Pennsylvania was deposed for also being a priest within Wicca? His wife, also a priest at another church, is said to be a practitioner as well, but so far nothing has been done about it. She's into some type of feminist wicca. As far as you know, do Episcopal priests tend to get involved in Wicca more often than other ministers?

Krusader

September 22nd 2005, 11:53 AM

double post

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 12:17 PM

"A Cup of Mystery," are you familiar with the case a few months ago when an Episcopal Priest in Pennsylvania was deposed for also being a priest within Wicca?

I am--Rev. William Melnyk and his wife, Rev. Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk. And it wasn't Wicca, it was Druidism.

His wife, also a priest at another church, is said to be a practitioner as well, but so far nothing has been done about it. She's into some type of feminist wicca.

Not quite nothing--they submitted to episcopal discipline, and indeed, he lost his post as a rector. He had briefly considered leaving the church for Druidism, but decided against it--instead, both of them recanted of practicing Druidism unreservedly.

(Cite (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/144/51.0.html).)

As far as you know, do Episcopal priests tend to get involved in Wicca more often than other ministers?

Crusader, when I first heard of the Melnyks, I was gob-smacked. Most Christians know better, and most Wiccans won't have anything to do with Christians who want to "limp between two opinions." However, as I said, the Melnyks were working with a Druidic group (OBOD), and I have no idea what their procedures for such things are.

However, it may be helpful to look at an excerpt from his open letter.

Recently it has been brought to light by several agencies and individuals that I have been involved in work with Druid organizations in the United States and England, exploring the relationships between Christian and pre-Christian Druid spirituality and theology. These individuals and agencies have presented you with pages of documentation of my activities from the internet. You and I have discussed this material, and you have pointed out to me that it is the opinion of the church that my involvement, writings, and activities go beyond the bounds expected of a Christian and a Christian priest.

I affirm to you with all my heart it was never my intention to engage in such error, but only to help others who had lost connection to the Church to find a way to reconnect. I also thought that there was much in our early British heritage that could help those of us in the Church to broaden our understanding of Anglican tradition.

It sounds very much like the Melnyks' errors were well intentioned--and it sounds very much like they've repented of them. However, as far as your question ... I would say that it is vanishingly rare for Christians of any denomination to be involved with any branch of Neo-Paganism. But specifically to the Episcopaleans, I would say that their stance on not tolerating such behavior is well-documented.

Krusader

September 22nd 2005, 12:24 PM

I am--Rev. William Melnyk and his wife, Rev. Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk. And it wasn't Wicca, it was Druidism.

Not quite nothing--they submitted to episcopal discipline, and indeed, he lost his post as a rector. He had briefly considered leaving the church for Druidism, but decided against it--instead, both of them recanted of practicing Druidism unreservedly.

(Cite (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/144/51.0.html).)

Crusader, when I first heard of the Melnyks, I was gob-smacked. Most Christians know better, and most Wiccans won't have anything to do with Christians who want to "limp between two opinions." However, as I said, the Melnyks were working with a Druidic group (OBOD), and I have no idea what their procedures for such things are.

However, it may be helpful to look at an excerpt from his open letter.

Recently it has been brought to light by several agencies and individuals that I have been involved in work with Druid organizations in the United States and England, exploring the relationships between Christian and pre-Christian Druid spirituality and theology. These individuals and agencies have presented you with pages of documentation of my activities from the internet. You and I have discussed this material, and you have pointed out to me that it is the opinion of the church that my involvement, writings, and activities go beyond the bounds expected of a Christian and a Christian priest.

I affirm to you with all my heart it was never my intention to engage in such error, but only to help others who had lost connection to the Church to find a way to reconnect. I also thought that there was much in our early British heritage that could help those of us in the Church to broaden our understanding of Anglican tradition.

It sounds very much like the Melnyks' errors were well intentioned--and it sounds very much like they've repented of them. However, as far as your question ... I would say that it is vanishingly rare for Christians of any denomination to be involved with any branch of Neo-Paganism. But specifically to the Episcopaleans, I would say that their stance on not tolerating such behavior is well-documented.

Yes, that's right, it was Druidism. Is that akin to Wicca in any way? I followed the whole this on David Virtue's site. It caused quite a stir - but the Episcopal Church is very liberal, and the bishop of that particular diocese is quite, quite liberal - but the bishop did finally act. The reason I was asking is because I just read this morning that another Episcopal Church in PA is using Harry Potter for Bible Vacation class, with the theme of wizards and such. Do you know whether Melnyk is back as rector?

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 12:48 PM

Yes, that's right, it was Druidism. Is that akin to Wicca in any way?

Hmmm ... not really, especially not with OBOD. The two can be combined, but they are separate paths.

The reason I was asking is because I just read this morning that another Episcopal Church in PA is using Harry Potter for Bible Vacation class, with the theme of wizards and such.

Well--as I'm sure you're aware--there is much disagreement and discussion concerning Harry Potter within the Christian community. :shrug: It's really not something I feel I can comment on, save to say that there has been some very bad information passed around on both sides.

Heck, I'm right now working with another Christian website to clarify a statement they made about the HP series--I don't at all object that they feel it is inappropriate for Christians, but one of the statements they used was a completely inaccurate quote of an interview with Rowling. I gave them the text of the interview, and they're reviewing their information. (They're also up to their necks with other stuff--including helping out with Katrina evacuees--so as far as I'm concerned, my issues with the article is way down the priority list, and I've told them that.)

Do you know whether Melnyk is back as rector?

No idea, to tell the truth. The church's website seems to be down right now.

Krusader

September 22nd 2005, 12:53 PM

Hmmm ... not really, especially not with OBOD. The two can be combined, but they are separate paths.

Well--as I'm sure you're aware--there is much disagreement and discussion concerning Harry Potter within the Christian community. :shrug: It's really not something I feel I can comment on, save to say that there has been some very bad information passed around on both sides.

Heck, I'm right now working with another Christian website to clarify a statement they made about the HP series--I don't at all object that they feel it is inappropriate for Christians, but one of the statements they used was a completely inaccurate quote of an interview with Rowling. I gave them the text of the interview, and they're reviewing their information. (They're also up to their necks with other stuff--including helping out with Katrina evacuees--so as far as I'm concerned, my issues with the article is way down the priority list, and I've told them that.)

No idea, to tell the truth. The church's website seems to be down right now.

Well thanks for the clarification, I'll try to find out about Melnyk.

Krusader

September 22nd 2005, 01:05 PM

Cup, I found a 4-16-05 article on "The Wildhunt.org Weblog" which states that "OaskWyse/Melnyk is now the spiritual leader of Llynhydd Grove, 'a community of seekers committed to the experience of a Druidry of the Heart, and open to the expression of many spiritualities.' His wife Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk has decided to remain an Episcopalian: 'I am a Christian and have always been a Christian and I do not intend to leave the church.'" It has a picture of OakWyse(Melnyk) in his Druid garb.

Other information is that he willingly resigned from his parish, and was not suspended or deposed, but was under pressue to resign.

I don't know how much of the above is true, but the picture is intersting.

lao tzu

September 22nd 2005, 01:15 PM

Gettin' your money's worth, eh? :hehe: Just a practical application of the three-fold law. It's that "love of irony" thing. I can't help it.

I remember when I was a teenager: I was never a teenager. I appeared precipitously running madly and feverishly away from the horrors of adolescence half a step ahead of the devil.

Mixed feelings. There are so many solitaries out there who just ... miss the point. At the same time, I'm no longer with a coven, so I'm now a solitary. It's the solitaries who once were with a coven I find more reasonable than those still in a coven. And the solitaries who were never with a coven I find the least reasonable. Odd things breed in "dark" corners; things needing more than a "metaphorical" mallet.

I do adhere to the Law of Return, but I don't tend to attatch numbers to it--and I don't see it so much as "karma." The Law of Return is something that, as Wiccans, we have bound ourselves to. While I don't see the ... ahem ... Law of Return ... as anything but the law of karma, it's interesting to see your tradition "binds" yourself to a law my tradition seeks to "unbind."

Higher math is not my friend, but I absolutely love science. This is ... HERESY! Well, there's only one thing to be done about this.

"Burn the Witch!"

... before he turns someone into a newt.

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 01:25 PM

Just a practical application of the three-fold law. It's that "love of irony" thing. I can't help it.

:lol:

I was never a teenager. I appeared precipitously running madly and feverishly away from the horrors of adolescence half a step ahead of the devil.

Ah, that's your story, but I bet we could dig up some interesting dirt if you hadn't hidden all the witnesses.

It's the solitaries who once were with a coven I find more reasonable than those still in a coven. And the solitaries who were never with a coven I find the least reasonable. Odd things breed in "dark" corners; things needing more than a "metaphorical" mallet.

While I don't see the ... ahem ... Law of Return ... as anything but the law of karma, it's interesting to see your tradition "binds" yourself to a law my tradition seeks to "unbind."

Hmmm ... that's probably more a difference in terminology than anything. And yeah, the Law of Return is just another term for Karma ... but when I say "We bind ourselves to it," I mean we make a conscious decision to take responsibility for our actions ... and we invite the Universe to visit our karma upon us if we do not.

As you can guess, that's not always a pretty scene.

There is a parallel to Buddhism, in that the end result is release from the Wheel ... but there is also a parallel in Tao, because the intended result is to be our true selves, not the illusory self that we or others think we are.

We do not seek to do our way to being: we seek to be, and thus what we do will spring forth from our being naturally.

This is ... HERESY! Well, there's only one thing to be done about this.

"Burn the Witch!"

... before he turns someone into a newt.

Don't worry about it. Even if I turn you into a newt, you'll get better ... eventually.

:zap:

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 01:35 PM

Lizard

September 22nd 2005, 01:51 PM

:sigh: Yes, I'm getting on the bandwagon.

Here's the place to ask me questions--either me specifically, or Wiccans in general. I'm not going to set any conditions about having to answer a question in return, though I don't guarantee that I won't ask one.

These questions can be frivolous or serious. Just stick by Campus Decorum. :wink:

If you had a million dollars, would you buy me a donut?

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 01:56 PM

If you had a million dollars, would you buy me a donut?

Heck, with or without a million dollars, I'd make you a donut, if I could get my hands to knead the dough properly. :hehe:

Krusader

September 22nd 2005, 03:31 PM

Cup, do Wiccans practice herbal remedies as Curanderos prescribe here? Have you ever used herbal remedies for your problem with your hands?

JardinPrayer

September 22nd 2005, 03:45 PM

Gob-smacked. I love that term. Gotta start using it.

Does everyone answer Faramir's donut question with a sentence beginning with "Heck..." ? I know I did.

That wasn't the question. The question is where is the most breathtaking spot you have ever found yourself standing?

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 04:20 PM

Cup, do Wiccans practice herbal remedies as Curanderos prescribe here? Have you ever used herbal remedies for your problem with your hands?

Some do--most don't. Herbalism is seen by some as a good alternative medicine ... I'm a little skeptical myself.

Oh, and as a POI--it's not just the hands, it's systemic. Knees, hips, spine, and shoulders are the worst, with hands and feet somewhere down the list. It's just my hands are the most obvious reason as to why I'd have to take a break in the middle of a post.

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 04:22 PM

Gob-smacked. I love that term. Gotta start using it.

The licensing fees are reasonable, and easy payment schedules can be arranged. :deal:

The question is where is the most breathtaking spot you have ever found yourself standing?

This is going to sound so prosaic--unless you've had a kid.

In the delivery room at Greenville Memorial Hospital.

Krusader

September 22nd 2005, 05:28 PM

Some do--most don't. Herbalism is seen by some as a good alternative medicine ... I'm a little skeptical myself.

Oh, and as a POI--it's not just the hands, it's systemic. Knees, hips, spine, and shoulders are the worst, with hands and feet somewhere down the list. It's just my hands are the most obvious reason as to why I'd have to take a break in the middle of a post.

That sounds very serious. Is it some type of athritic condition? I am a devoted herbalist, myself, and collect specimens from the desert, mountains, you name it. I'm also interested in the Mexican use of herbs, and have learned a lot since I live only 3 miles from the border. Herbs do work, but they take a while and should be used in conjunction with exercise, diet, etc.

One of my favorite herbal remedies is chaparral, which tastes like truck oil, but is very useful as an antibiotic. It abounds here. It's supposed to have anti-cancer properties, but I wouldn't bet on it. A few years ago I tinctured some with Mexican alcohol and stored it in my bathroom closet. Now, it gets really hot here, but I didn't know that it got hot enough for these bottles to ignite on their own (probably the fumes) - but they did and caused a fire in the cabinet - which fortunately was put out when the herbal soaps melted! My husband got really ticked and took all the tincture out of the house and poured it on the driveway and lit a match to it - the fire was astounding!!!!

Needless to say, I only use it in powdered form now.

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 05:45 PM

That sounds very serious. Is it some type of athritic condition?

Well ... they're not sure. I come up negative on R factor and Lupus tests. It's possible that it's some form of what they call seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, or it could be fibromyalgia, or ... ? They were suspecing anything from Marfan's to Ehlers-Danlos, but all they seem to have done is narrowed it down to "I'd like to run a few more tests." :rant:

I am a devoted herbalist, myself, and collect specimens from the desert, mountains, you name it.

For my part, I acknowledge the skills of those who know their stuff with herbs ... but I've also seen to many folks around here (North and South carolina) tout knowledge they don't have. Frankly, after someone gave me sage tea for a fever (sage is an anti-diaphoretic), I've steered clear.

Needless to say, I only use it in powdered form now.

:lol: Oh, goodness, Crusader! I'm glad everything turned out all right, and I'm sorry for laughing at what could have been a tragedy, but I needed that today!

What part of the SW do you live in? I used to live in Tucson, and before that in the Sierra Vista and Rio Rico areas. (Rio Rico's a bedroom community just north of Nogales.)

A Cup of No

September 22nd 2005, 06:49 PM

In the delivery room at Greenville Memorial Hospital.

Hey I've been to greenville. :lol:

Well my fellow brother in the Brotherhood of the Cup, let me participate in your thread. (You should check out mine in the student lounge *cough cough*) Some of these questions are based on stuff I've heard from teachers.

Do you think that Harry Potter can lead kids to Wicca? Will the kids who go to Wicca from Harry Potter be disappointed?

What do you believe about the story that some guy who has studied witchcraft for years said that J.K. Rowling knows more about witchcraft than he does?

Are the spells in Harry Potter actually real spells that could be found in a spellbook?

Do you think that Harry Potter is inappropriate reading for Christians?

Krusader

September 22nd 2005, 06:52 PM

Well ... they're not sure. I come up negative on R factor and Lupus tests. It's possible that it's some form of what they call seronegative rheumatoid arthritis, or it could be fibromyalgia, or ... ? They were suspecing anything from Marfan's to Ehlers-Danlos, but all they seem to have done is narrowed it down to "I'd like to run a few more tests." :rant:

For my part, I acknowledge the skills of those who know their stuff with herbs ... but I've also seen to many folks around here (North and South carolina) tout knowledge they don't have. Frankly, after someone gave me sage tea for a fever (sage is an anti-diaphoretic), I've steered clear.

:lol: Oh, goodness, Crusader! I'm glad everything turned out all right, and I'm sorry for laughing at what could have been a tragedy, but I needed that today!

What part of the SW do you live in? I used to live in Tucson, and before that in the Sierra Vista and Rio Rico areas. (Rio Rico's a bedroom community just north of Nogales.)

We live in a remote section of southwestern New Mexico. I agree, there are many herbalist wannabees. I only prepare things for my own family, and don't do anything professionally. I've studied herbs for years, but there's a lot of conflicting info out there. The Mexicans are pretty savvy about herbs, and that out of necessity, since medicine is often beyond their economic reach.

It's okay to laugh - it really was funny. And to top it off, when the firemen came they tore open the ceiling to find out where the fire was, and found nothing. It wasn't until I looked into the cabinet that night that I found where all the smoke had come from - and this after my husband had called in an electrician and had him check all the wiring.

If you have a joint-related disease, I don't think it's fibromy. It may be some type of auto-immune problem they haven't pinned down yet. Does it run in the family?

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 07:31 PM

Do you think that Harry Potter can lead kids to Wicca?

Cup, I'll tell you the truth ... you've got a bunch of Christians worried about it, and even some Pagans saying it has led to a rise in interest. The one thing I cannot for the life of me understand is why? Unless you've got someone who's already interested and reading harry potter is just the last straw .... :shrug: From where I sit, it's sheerest idiocy--like someone getting interested in Christianity after seeing the Davinci Code. There are a lot better reasons for being interested in a religion!

But then again, a lot of folks have seen Charmed or Buffy and decided they should become Wiccan based on that. :ahem: Ask Crusader--I bet she can confirm it.

Frankly, if someone came to me and asked me to teach them because they'd read HP, I'd boot them so far it would take them a week to come down.

Will the kids who go to Wicca from Harry Potter be disappointed?

Absolutely. Just like the kids who went to Wicca from Charmed or Buffy.

What do you believe about the story that some guy who has studied witchcraft for years said that J.K. Rowling knows more about witchcraft than he does?

If the guy's name is Kevin Carlyon, I'm utterly unsurprised. :lol: "King Kev" is a publicity-hungry idiot from England who thinks he's the absolute. Most Wiccans, however, think he's an absolute moron.

Are the spells in Harry Potter actually real spells that could be found in a spellbook?

Nope. Just Latin words representing the actions Rowling wants to depict--and not very good Latin, at that.

Do you think that Harry Potter is inappropriate reading for Christians?

That's outside of my jurisdiction, aCoN. If an individual Christian asked me, I might be able to advise them if it was appropriate for them ... but even though I'm knowledgeable about Christianity, my opinions cannot be taken as authoritative for Christianity ... or even as necessarily the best advice.

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 07:36 PM

We live in a remote section of southwestern New Mexico. I agree, there are many herbalist wannabees. I only prepare things for my own family, and don't do anything professionally. I've studied herbs for years, but there's a lot of conflicting info out there. The Mexicans are pretty savvy about herbs, and that out of necessity, since medicine is often beyond their economic reach.

:yes: Frankly, I think that's the biggest tip-off that you've got someone who knows their stuff is if they're still in a culture that uses herbs extensively. Around ehre, everybody learns from books ... and heck, as you know, they'll print anything.

If you have a joint-related disease, I don't think it's fibromy. It may be some type of auto-immune problem they haven't pinned down yet. Does it run in the family?

It does. And ... the docs are fairly convinced it's either autoimmune, fybro, or maybe both together. Frankly, I just wish one of them would just come up with some sort of definite diagnosis, but nobody wants to pull their thumb out of their ... ear. :blush: Sorry, doctors irritate me at this point.

Pythagoras

September 22nd 2005, 08:26 PM

Mr. Cup of Mystery,

Does hocus-pocus with herbs actually do any good or does it cause more harm than good? Couldn't you unwitting poison someone with your brew since you're not a pharmacist?

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 08:52 PM

Mr. Cup of Mystery,

Does hocus-pocus with herbs actually do any good or does it cause more harm than good?

Certain herbs do have definite pharmaceutical results, but yeah, you can seriously mess someone up if you don't know what you're doing. There's stuff out there that will kill--foxglove is a good example.

Couldn't you unwitting poison someone with your brew since you're not a pharmacist?

I couldn't -- because I don't mess with that stuff! :lol: The only "herb" I mess with is tea--and I only use Lipton, because I'm picky. :wink:

Durthorin

September 22nd 2005, 09:05 PM

Mr. Cup of Mystery,

Does hocus-pocus with herbs actually do any good or does it cause more harm than good? Couldn't you unwitting poison someone with your brew since you're not a pharmacist?

Crusader is the one brewing up herbs.. Cup said he steers clear of them for the most part. As for herbs being hocus-pocus.. they work.. many of the medicines you take now are based on herbal knowledge. Like any medicine a person has to know how and how much to take and thats a matter of finding and herbalist who knows what they are about.

Meh_Gerbil

September 22nd 2005, 09:07 PM

Justin:

In regards to medical conditions I must tell you that you have to find the answer on your own -- doctors are less trust worthy than used car salesmen.

A couple of years ago I became very ill -- extensive coughing and vomitting. I literally wasn't sleeping at night and didn't for weeks because I'd cough constantly. My chest and back began to hurt, I wasn't keeping food down and I thought I was dying. I cannot tell you how much this hurt and how disabled I was at the time. (I lost 20 pounds)

I went to 3 different doctors and tried several medications -- I blew over 2,000.00 on tests -- everything from testing for turberculosies to running a tube down my throat to running barium through my system -- what a mess, what an expense -- what suffering.

Then I decided I needed to start trying something on my own.
I noticed I vomitted most frequently around 9am -- and hour or so after breakfast. So I began to exclude things from my diet -- the day I excluded milk was the first night I actually slept the whole night through in 6 weeks. After staying off milk for a couple of days I was happy and greatly recovered. As it turns out, I had developed a violent lactose intolerance -- something the doctors had not even bothered to look at.

The coughing was from my stomach generating gallons of acid which was eating my throat. Now THAT is heartburn.

Doctors = Clowns

A doctor is an assistant -- someone who can give you a clue -- but if you really want help you need to strike out on your own and start experimenting yourself because these guys will let you die.

JardinPrayer

September 22nd 2005, 09:19 PM

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 09:33 PM

Goodness, Justin! I had no idea! I have the exact same problem and feel the same way you do about not being able to get a definitive diagnosis or treatment. The only thing that has helped me thus far has been acupuncture, which my primary care doctor recommended when he realized western medicine had hit a wall with me.

Needles? :eww: NEEDLES?! :egad: Needles?!?! :eek:

I am so phobic about needles that I honestly don't know if I could go to an acupuncture session.

Have you ever had a lucid dream?

No ... but then again, I've never really tried for one. :hehe:

I don't tend to have memorable dreams since I started aching badly ... and that's been like thirteen years now. Normally I don't even remember having dreamed.

JardinPrayer

September 22nd 2005, 09:40 PM

Needles? :eww: NEEDLES?! :egad: Needles?!?! :eek:

I am so phobic about needles that I honestly don't know if I could go to an acupuncture session.

Oh, come on! Don't be a girly-man! Seriously though...you usually don't even see the needles and barely feel them at all most of the time (the ones in the hands are the big exception). And, if you really, really can't get past that, some practicioners do it with electro-stimulation and no needles. But, I'm telling you, I personally know lots of people who have been afraid, gotten past it enough to try it (because it beats the pants off of being in pain), and have been exhuberantly singing its praises ever since. Think about it...thirteen years is a long time to suffer!

technomage

September 22nd 2005, 09:56 PM

Oh, come on! Don't be a girly-man!

:chicken: <-- This is me.

Seriously though...you usually don't even see the needles and barely feel them at all most of the time (the ones in the hands are the big exception). And, if you really, really can't get past that, some practicioners do it with electro-stimulation and no needles. But, I'm telling you, I personally know lots of people who have been afraid, gotten past it enough to try it (because it beats the pants off of being in pain), and have been exhuberantly singing its praises ever since.

I've done the electro-stimulation. That provides some temporary relief, but leaves me completely wiped out energy-wise. And there are certain areas where it actually causes more pain than it relieves--along the shoulders being the worst.

Think about it...thirteen years is a long time to suffer!

Dearheart, it's been thirteen years that I've used a chair. I've had this all my life--that's just the length of time it's been severe enough to use 4-wheel drive.

JardinPrayer

September 23rd 2005, 08:20 AM

Dearheart, it's been thirteen years that I've used a chair. I've had this all my life--that's just the length of time it's been severe enough to use 4-wheel drive.

Well, how about this approach:

GET UP OUT OF THAT WHEELCHAIR AND WALK! By the power of Jesus, you are healed, son! Throw away those crutches and stand up...

On second thought...never mind. Go back to the needles!

Here's the question for today: What is the one limitation your physical limitations impose on you that you most wish you could overcome?

Ryokan

September 23rd 2005, 09:33 AM

You know, Cup, I gotta agree with Jardin. My grandma has rheumatiod arthritis, which is at least similiar to your affliction, and the accupuntcure helps alot. Suck it up.
(This from a guy who couldn't watch his wife get an epidural, of course)

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 09:37 AM

Well, how about this approach:

GET UP OUT OF THAT WHEELCHAIR AND WALK! By the power of Jesus, you are healed, son! Throw away those crutches and stand up...

Funny, you don't look a thing like Benny Hin. Though I'm sure if I drop a bug in Muz's ear, he may correct that in the "Manip War". :hehe:

Here's the question for today: What is the one limitation your physical limitations impose on you that you most wish you could overcome?

The biggest problem is the self-esteem, to tell the truth. I can deal with the pain level, and when I have to do something that's painful, I just go ahead and do it as best I can. But because I can't get up and do--especially working--it really hits the self esteem.

Beyond that, the second biggest problem with being in a wheelchair is the folks who assume that because your legs don't work, your brain obviously doesn't either. :rant:

Krusader

September 23rd 2005, 10:13 AM

:yes: Frankly, I think that's the biggest tip-off that you've got someone who knows their stuff is if they're still in a culture that uses herbs extensively. Around ehre, everybody learns from books ... and heck, as you know, they'll print anything.

It does. And ... the docs are fairly convinced it's either autoimmune, fybro, or maybe both together. Frankly, I just wish one of them would just come up with some sort of definite diagnosis, but nobody wants to pull their thumb out of their ... ear. :blush: Sorry, doctors irritate me at this point.

I learned to appreciate chapparral from the Navajo who use it for coughs, etc. They make a tea from it (ugh!), which as I said tastes like something you've drained from your truck - but, it's effective.

My advice, for what it's worth - give up coffee. I know this may be like having your leg amputated, but it's worth a try. Switch to green tea for a month and see if you don't feel better.

Also, while I can't personally recommend this, you might want to browse through the following site. Cat's claw grows near our property and I know it's a favorite among the locals:

http://www.nativeremedies.com/jointease_for_arthritis.shtml

If you have an autoimmune problem, an herb won't necessarily heal you, but can relieve symptoms. Also, herbs can take up to six weeks to have any effect, which is why many give up on the treatment before any benefit is obtained. It's something you have to stick with.

I'm not fond of doctors, either. I worked in a large county hospital back east for a few years - and oh, the horror stories I could tell (but won't).

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 10:31 AM

I learned to appreciate chapparral from the Navajo who use it for coughs, etc. They make a tea from it (ugh!), which as I said tastes like something you've drained from your truck - but, it's effective.

When I lived in Sierra Vista, I was in my freshman year in high school--a friend of mine's dad was Papago, and if I remember correctly he brewed chapparral for every cold he had. It seemed to work for him, but I remember the faces he made while drinking it. :eww:

My advice, for what it's worth - give up coffee. I know this may be like having your leg amputated, but it's worth a try.

I did for about six months three years ago--and my wife was kind enough to allow me to live through the withdrawl. :hehe: After withdrawl, I didn't notice that much of a difference, but things were better with the bones then, so I may have to try it again.

Switch to green tea for a month and see if you don't feel better.

Hand me a mug of green tea and you have a friend for life! Yum!

Also, while I don't personally recommend this, you might want to browse through the following site. Cat's claw grows near our property and I know it's a favorite among the locals:

http://www.nativeremedies.com/jointease_for_arthritis.shtml

We tried cats claw last year--I had a mild allergic reaction to it, so my doc recommended I avoid it.

That's one good advantage I have--my primary doc (he's actually a PA, but he's good) is all about alternative remedies if there's anything to them. He served as a medic in Vietnam, so he got exposed to some of the Eastern medicine there. He's the one who originally turned me on to Green Tea.

JardinPrayer

September 23rd 2005, 11:18 AM

Shall I presume you've tried SamE and/or glucosamine? I can't take either because one is contraindicated for shellfish allergies and the other if you're taking anti-depressants. I'm glad, since I'm told I do not have arthritis, which means you have inflammation that can be seen (swelling, redness) or measured (elevated white blood count). I have "arthralgia," which is pain without inflammation, and it sounds like you do, too. Nevertheless, Vioxx made a huge difference for me for several years. Once I went off of it, acupuncture was the only thing that worked for me. I'm pretty sure I'd be in a chair by now, too, if not for that. Now, I'm not taking any medication or receiving any therapy and I'm in mild pain all the time. I move like an 80-year-old when it comes to getting in and out of cars and standing up after sitting for long periods. I can't open jars and often drop things because I think my thumb muscles are going to do their job and they don't.

The question was in the first sentence.

Ryokan

September 23rd 2005, 11:26 AM

Beyond that, the second biggest problem with being in a wheelchair is the folks who assume that because your legs don't work, your brain obviously doesn't either. :rant:Yeah. No one should assume. We think your brain doesn't work here at TWEB because of your post, not your wheel chair. :teeth:

Ryokan

September 23rd 2005, 11:28 AM

To get completely off topic, what sort of influence do you think Wicca has had culturally in America, or the world in general. :hijacked:

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 11:35 AM

Shall I presume you've tried SamE and/or glucosamine?

I tried SAME, but had a bad reaction (either to it, or one of the cofactors). It was the weirdest thing ... I felt like I was floating outside of my body. I've not tried glucosamine, but I eat a lot of shrimp. Does that count? :hehe:

And one thing I will not try is shark cartilage, for ethical reasons.

[quote]I have "arthralgia," which is pain without inflammation, and it sounds like you do, too.

No, in my case I do have the inflammation (visible and WBC).

For me, Celebrex helped immensely ... unfortunately, it's also quite expensive, so until my wife's insurance kicks in, I'm making do with advil.

Krusader

September 23rd 2005, 11:37 AM

When I lived in Sierra Vista, I was in my freshman year in high school--a friend of mine's dad was Papago, and if I remember correctly he brewed chapparral for every cold he had. It seemed to work for him, but I remember the faces he made while drinking it. :eww:

I did for about six months three years ago--and my wife was kind enough to allow me to live through the withdrawl. :hehe: After withdrawl, I didn't notice that much of a difference, but things were better with the bones then, so I may have to try it again.

Hand me a mug of green tea and you have a friend for life! Yum!

We tried cats claw last year--I had a mild allergic reaction to it, so my doc recommended I avoid it.

That's one good advantage I have--my primary doc (he's actually a PA, but he's good) is all about alternative remedies if there's anything to them. He served as a medic in Vietnam, so he got exposed to some of the Eastern medicine there. He's the one who originally turned me on to Green Tea.

Sometimes allergic reactions will subside with use as the body acclimates itself.

Well, Cup, the only other way to go (beyond allopathic and alternative medicines) is the anointing with oil and laying on of hands by Spirit filled Christians - but, that might not be on your list right now. I was healed years ago of a chronic knee problem at a charismatic healing service in the local Episcopal Church. This problem had been with me for years, and then it was gone - just like that!!!!! In fact, as I was coming down from the altar, I called to the priest, "well, it's gone," and he said, "what did you expect?" God doesn't always heal instantly, and sometimes not at all (thorns in the side, for instance), but God can and does heal when it's in His will.

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 11:51 AM

Sometimes allergic reactions will subside with use as the body acclimates itself.

Sometimes they will. If it had just been a stuffy nose, I'd have persevered, but I got hives from cats claw. That made me nervous. (Not to mention they itched abominably!)

Well, Cup, the only other way to go (beyond allopathic and alternative medicines) is the anointing with oil and laying on of hands by Spirit filled Christians - but, that might not be on your list right now. I was healed years ago of a chronic knee problem at a charismatic healing service in the local Episcopal Church. This problem had been with me for years, and then it was gone - just like that!!!!! In fact, as I was coming down from the altar, I called to the priest, "well, it's gone," and he said, "what did you expect?" God doesn't always heal instantly, and sometimes not at all (thorns in the side, for instance), but God can and does heal when it's in His will.

:yes: And ... I've had Christian pastor who's a good friend pray and anoint me. I have to admit that if it was God's will to heal me, it was my lack of faith that prevented it, because very frankly I did it because my friend asked me, not because I believed it would work.

Now, in my defense, I will note that I was raised in a cessationist church. I'd heard how folks like Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart and Peter Popoff were "frauds" almost from the cradle. It's hard to shake that childhood training.

Krusader

September 23rd 2005, 12:04 PM

Sometimes they will. If it had just been a stuffy nose, I'd have persevered, but I got hives from cats claw. That made me nervous. (Not to mention they itched abominably!)

:yes: And ... I've had Christian pastor who's a good friend pray and anoint me. I have to admit that if it was God's will to heal me, it was my lack of faith that prevented it, because very frankly I did it because my friend asked me, not because I believed it would work.

Now, in my defense, I will note that I was raised in a cessationist church. I'd heard how folks like Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart and Peter Popoff were "frauds" almost from the cradle. It's hard to shake that childhood training.

I'd agree with your evaluation of Roberts, Swaggart, Popoff (not to mention Hinn!). I go to a cessationist church, myself, but it doesn't prevent them from praying for healing.

Well, this might sound off the wall, but I'd go to a charismatic service at a sacramental church (and you have that Anglican Mission in America down by you, don't you?). The AMiA is charismatic/evangelical Anglican continuing church. There are other continuing churches, as well, but that's the one that pops to mind.

I guess that's my sacramentalism cropping up, but I think God does work within the Body of believers, and in my case, it was the priest and the male leaders who performed the laying on of hands during the service.

Of course, for one of Baptist background, it's like going into the pit to attend a sacramental church, but it's also a learning experience. I'm not so sure the Baptists are right on everything. For instance, I'd like to see more celebrations of the Lord's Supper and less singing!

Also, try reading Dennis Bennett's "Nine O'Clock in the Morning," where he recounts his experience as an Episcopal priest all of a sudden encountering the Holy Spirit and practically being asked to leave his church. You can usually find it in a used book store (it was written in the 70's). Good reading for anybody. My prayers are with you. C

PS: as far as lack of faith goes - leave that problem to God.

JardinPrayer

September 23rd 2005, 12:18 PM

:yes: And ... I've had Christian pastor who's a good friend pray and anoint me. I have to admit that if it was God's will to heal me, it was my lack of faith that prevented it, because very frankly I did it because my friend asked me, not because I believed it would work.

Now, in my defense, I will note that I was raised in a cessationist church. I'd heard how folks like Oral Roberts and Jimmy Swaggart and Peter Popoff were "frauds" almost from the cradle. It's hard to shake that childhood training.

I'd say you're halfway home, Justin! If you are going to have faith, it should neither be in men nor any mystical power they may have to heal you. Jesus said, "Your faith has made you whole," and at least at the time he walked the earth, I believe these were demonstrations that a wholehearted surrender to God's sovereignty would open the door to an outpouring of blessings from God. Rather than focus on the healing itself, it is my personal belief that this was symbolic to show that lack of faith (to include appropriate respect and awe) in God is what led to separation from Him and the giving of one's heart completely is what will lead to salvation (reuniting with Him in the way He most desires). So, technically speaking, I'd say your lack of faith is almost a statement of faith!

You've talked about god-concepts. My question now is, have you ever or do you currently feel what can be described as "the presence of God?" How do you experience this, if so.

Timothy Leary

September 23rd 2005, 12:56 PM

Why believe in God?

eudyptes

September 23rd 2005, 01:15 PM

Yeah. No one should assume. We think your brain doesn't work here at TWEB because of your post, not your wheel chair. :teeth:

dang....beat me to it :penggrin:

...reallly need to find a duck and run smilie

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 01:23 PM

Yeah. No one should assume. We think your brain doesn't work here at TWEB because of your post, not your wheel chair. :teeth:
:brolly:

Though I do have to admit that was pretty good.... :hehe:

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 01:35 PM

To get completely off topic, what sort of influence do you think Wicca has had culturally in America, or the world in general. :hijacked:

Not much. :hehe:

Seriously, MSM and Mainstream culture in general still see Wicca as "Silly Season" stuff--kind of a "Look what your weirdo neighbors are doing." Yeah, we can be the heroes of a television show (even though the relationship between Wicca and what's portrayed in Charmed and Buffy is ... tenuous at best), and yeah, Bush lost a little bit of popular support with the Moderates when he made his statements about Wicca back in 2000 (not much, but a little), but in the "Big Picture" of world-wide culture, Wicca is definitely small potatoes.

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 01:41 PM

Of course, for one of Baptist background, it's like going into the pit to attend a sacramental church, but it's also a learning experience.

I've been to a Catholic mass, and to an Anglican service--yes, it was a learning experience. Actually, there are certain aspects of Wicca that are closer to the "sacramental" end of the Spectrum in some traditions.

I'm not so sure the Baptists are right on everything. For instance, I'd like to see more celebrations of the Lord's Supper and less singing!

You call that singing? Crusader, I grew up in Baptist churches--they sing like they died six weeks ago and no one told them to lay down! :hehe:

Though in some churches I attended growing up, they celebrated the Lord's Supper every Sunday. They still sang like they were dead, though.

My prayers are with you.

Thank you, Crusader. I know we've had our difficulties in the past ... but I am grateful for your prayers.

Krusader

September 23rd 2005, 01:49 PM

I've been to a Catholic mass, and to an Anglican service--yes, it was a learning experience. Actually, there are certain aspects of Wicca that are closer to the "sacramental" end of the Spectrum in some traditions.

You call that singing? Crusader, I grew up in Baptist churches--they sing like they died six weeks ago and no one told them to lay down! :hehe:

Though in some churches I attended growing up, they celebrated the Lord's Supper every Sunday. They still sang like they were dead, though.

Thank you, Crusader. I know we've had our difficulties in the past ... but I am grateful for your prayers.

You're right - Anglicans sing a whole lot better. Think about what I said, and see whether or not you have a charismatic continuing Anglican church in your area. I'm pretty sure there are some. If you need to, go the website of Anglican Mission in America, which has a directory, I think. Don't worry about being a Wiccan, God isn't prejudiced (like I have been, I guess). C

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 01:54 PM

Why believe in God?

Why believe in the rock that I just tripped over? Why believe in the air I breathe? Seriously, in that sense, I do not "believe" in God any more than I "believe" in rocks or air!

And the other side of that coin is that I am persuaded that the "Wiccan Lord and Lady" is nothing more or less than my faith's name for HaShem. That's a conclusion that most Jews and Christians cannot accept ... but in that sense, I can truly, from my heart, say "Shema Israel: Adonai Elohinu, Adonai Echad!"

Now, at the same time, I don't see myself as part of Israel: I'm a Noahide--though again, most Jews would balk at that distinction. That means I don't gain the Abrahamic Covenant benefits--but it also means I don't bear the Abrahamic Covenant responsibilities.

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 02:11 PM

You've talked about god-concepts. My question now is, have you ever or do you currently feel what can be described as "the presence of God?" How do you experience this, if so.

Well, yes. Darn near daily.

Jardin, part of my Initiation oath was to "submit myself to the will of the Creator." That's something I reaffirm every day--not as part of some ritual, but sincerely seeking the will of the Creator in my life. Right now, typing to you, I feel that presence ... and it's not some vague emotional thing. To the best of my understanding, it's as real as if you were sitting beside me, but this is within me.

It's really odd, because as I told Crusader, I grew up in a cessationist church. As a Christian, I never truly understood what it was to be "filled with the Spirit," though I certainly longed for it. What I failed to realize as a Christian is that even those times I was not aware of the Creator's presence, God was still there.

It's like the old phrase I've heard many times in my life: "Do you feel distant from God? Guess who moved."

As I told Dead Hobbit, I am persuaded that the Creator I follow is known by many names. Now, I'm also quite aware that your Bible directly contradicts such a concept. But I am also persuaded that the Bible is the work of men, not of God. The men who wrote the Bible were (I believe) truly seeking the Creator ... but I sincerely feel that their human limitations and human fallability got in the way, and because of that, the Bible contains some degree of error about the nature of God.

Now, to be fair, I also believe the same thing about my own books--that human limitations and human fallability have prevented any possibility of an absolutely correct understanding of the Creator from my Book of Shadows. But despite the fact that I will never have a perfect understanding of God, I still submit to God's Will, in as much as I understand that Will.

And that means that if I become persuaded that I can better serve the Creator as a Christian, I will be in church the very next time the doors open.

JardinPrayer

September 23rd 2005, 02:48 PM

Well, yes. Darn near daily.

Jardin, part of my Initiation oath was to "submit myself to the will of the Creator." That's something I reaffirm every day--not as part of some ritual, but sincerely seeking the will of the Creator in my life. Right now, typing to you, I feel that presence ... and it's not some vague emotional thing. To the best of my understanding, it's as real as if you were sitting beside me, but this is within me.

It's really odd, because as I told Crusader, I grew up in a cessationist church. As a Christian, I never truly understood what it was to be "filled with the Spirit," though I certainly longed for it. What I failed to realize as a Christian is that even those times I was not aware of the Creator's presence, God was still there.

It's like the old phrase I've heard many times in my life: "Do you feel distant from God? Guess who moved."

As I told Dead Hobbit, I am persuaded that the Creator I follow is known by many names. Now, I'm also quite aware that your Bible directly contradicts such a concept. But I am also persuaded that the Bible is the work of men, not of God. The men who wrote the Bible were (I believe) truly seeking the Creator ... but I sincerely feel that their human limitations and human fallability got in the way, and because of that, the Bible contains some degree of error about the nature of God.

Now, to be fair, I also believe the same thing about my own books--that human limitations and human fallability have prevented any possibility of an absolutely correct understanding of the Creator from my Book of Shadows. But despite the fact that I will never have a perfect understanding of God, I still submit to God's Will, in as much as I understand that Will.

And that means that if I become persuaded that I can better serve the Creator as a Christian, I will be in church the very next time the doors open.

You rock, do you know that?

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 03:09 PM

You rock, do you know that?

Dearheart, in talking to the folks here--yourself definitely included--you would be surprised at how many times I've expressed a similar sentiment.

D. Medvedev Fan

September 23rd 2005, 05:13 PM

As a wiccan, do you believe in one god or a couple gods? How do you view God?

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 05:22 PM

As a wiccan, do you believe in one god or a couple gods?

Um, yes? :hehe:

How do you view God?

Seriously, the Wiccan Lord and Lady are, fundamentally, aspects of the One Creator. God is One. Yet ... as human beings, it's very difficult to have a "relationship" with an infinite Entity. So we all have our own understanding of God. In my case, I see the Lord and Lady as separate aspects, reflecting the unity of God. It's not completely dissimilar to the Christian concept of the trinity, but there are differences.

I also see the Creator as manifest in Creation--still separate in some senses, but "indwelling" Creation. In some respects, this is not dissimilar to the Christian concept of the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer ... but the analogy isn't very good, and I don't emphasise it too much.

James Peter

September 23rd 2005, 05:24 PM

Dearheart, in talking to the folks here--yourself definitely included--you would be surprised at how many times I've expressed a similar sentiment.

Yeah. Always insightful and respectful whilst being humble...better than most of us christians to be honest...

I've just read through 7 pages so I should probably ask a question but all the obvious ones have been asked. Hmm, I guess as I've been exploring 'Sin and sin' all evening a question about sin/soteriology would make sense.

Do you agree more with the concept of Sin/Death/Law being cosmic powers against which we struggle or as sin being individual transgressions that we commit and are accountable for?

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 05:43 PM

Do you agree more with the concept of Sin/Death/Law being cosmic powers against which we struggle or as sin being individual transgressions that we commit and are accountable for?

James, I'll be honest with you--I don't hold to a concept of Sin at all. Death is a natural part of life--indeed, physical life without physical death is absolutely untenable to me. And I'm fairly well persuaded that Law is far more cultural than Cosmic.

Now, by the same token, I am persuaded that there is right, and there is wrong. We as individuals can do wrong by commission or by omission. But I cannot tell you with any confidence what the Creator's moral commands or preferences are ... I have my guesses, but they're conjecture, based on my understanding of theology.

To me, it is axiomatic that the Creator indwells all of Creation. That means that every person I meet is indwelt by God. It is possible for God to influence their choices if that person listens to God ... but many don't. And as human beings, we have both the potential for good, and the potential for evil. I firmly believe that the potential for evil is more frequently expressed when a person doesn' listen to those promptings.

But there can be no "Sin" that separates us from God. Indeed, to my understanding, when a person dies, their "soul" (for lack of a better term) returns to the Creator, because it was actually part of Him in the first place. When we die, we return to the Creator, as a drop of rain returns to the sea from whence it originally came.

In some areas, my beliefs are very similar to Christianity ... not identical, to be sure, but bearing a resemblance. But the concept of "sin" is probably the biggest divergence from that resemblance.

James Peter

September 23rd 2005, 05:55 PM

Timothy Leary

September 23rd 2005, 06:28 PM

Wait a tic - you believe in the bible?!

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 08:19 PM

So, once we die the consequences for our actions (both good and bad) cease? From what you posted earlier you appear to believe in some form of karma so would that mean that by the time we die we've received all our karma as it were? If not does death 'save' us from it as it were or do you think we receive whats due to us in some other way?

Yes, consequences cease at death, because there is no longer an individual for those consequences to happen to. And that means that as human beings, we may never see all the consequences of our actions. Now, as a Wiccan, part of my vow is a request for karma (for lack of a better term) to be visited a little quicker--and in response, as Wiccans we are expected to be attentive to the results of our actions ... not just the results to us, but to those around us.

Don't worry, I'm not really building up to anything here. It makes a lot of sense though to reject a saviour if you don't think there is anything for us to be saved from...

And in that sense, while I will agree that I've rejected that there's anything to be saved from, I actually haven't abandoned or rejected the concept of a "Savior." That's why I asked Crusader if she was speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus Christ--I do reject the Christian doctrine that the two are the same. But I do not--indeed, I cannot--reject that Jesus is Lord.

To be sure, I don't see things the way Christians do ... but the name Jesus Christ is one of the names that the Creator has been called for almost two-thousand years now.

technomage

September 23rd 2005, 08:27 PM

Wait a tic - you believe in the bible?!

Not in the sense that you may mean it.

I believe that the Bible is an account of two groups seeking God--first the Jews, then the Christians (who originally started out all as Jews, then the Gentiles came in later). Now, to be sure, that means the books are the product of the time they were written in: for most of the books of the Tanakh, the current forms were written (from the best info I have) during or after the Babylonian Captivity--some as late as 200 BCE, perhaps even later. Yes, some of the material was older than that, but it was compiled and redacted at that time. For the NT ... the latest is around 100-110 CE (my best estimation).

The people who wrote these books didn't necessarily experience the exact events that they recorded--but that's not the point. They wrote these things because they were trying their level best to get people to what they sincerely thought God wanted. And no--I don't consider that to be "dishonest" on the part of the redactors--I consider it to have been their best understanding of the right thing to do.

D. Medvedev Fan

September 23rd 2005, 10:58 PM

Seriously, the Wiccan Lord and Lady are, fundamentally, aspects of the One Creator. God is One. Yet ... as human beings, it's very difficult to have a "relationship" with an infinite Entity. So we all have our own understanding of God. In my case, I see the Lord and Lady as separate aspects, reflecting the unity of God. It's not completely dissimilar to the Christian concept of the trinity, but there are differences.
So in some ways it's like a two rather than three part deity?

Eyeheart Pumpkin

September 24th 2005, 02:50 AM

So in some ways it's like a two rather than three part deity?
To some people, yes. To some, it's a six-part deity, with each of the male and female aspects being further broken down into trinitarian aspects (the goddess trinity is called Maiden, Mother and Crone, though I'm not sure what particular names are given the male trinity -- I suppose the Christian terms are as adequate as any others).

Of course, those archetypes apply most fittingly for those Wiccans who follow a general duality (God/dess, Lord & Lady, Mother Earth & Father Sky, etc.). There are others who instead adopt entire pantheons as their archetype of deity, and some who are true polytheists. The archetype paradigm might be able to be described like a tree, with the Creator/God being the entirety of the tree, and the tree might have only two branches (God/dess) or six branches (trinitarian God/dess) or several branches (all the deities of a pantheon), or even each branch representing a different pantheon with the myriad god/desses of the world being the leaves on the branches, each subtly different, but all part of the same tree. That last version might serve to represent the Eclectic Wiccans.

James Peter

September 24th 2005, 07:01 AM

And in that sense, while I will agree that I've rejected that there's anything to be saved from, I actually haven't abandoned or rejected the concept of a "Savior." That's why I asked Crusader if she was speaking of Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus Christ--I do reject the Christian doctrine that the two are the same. But I do not--indeed, I cannot--reject that Jesus is Lord.

To be sure, I don't see things the way Christians do ... but the name Jesus Christ is one of the names that the Creator has been called for almost two-thousand years now.

So the Jesus that Paul experienced on the road to Damascus was the divine making itself manifest in a form he could understand (and to an extent misunderstood)? But the historical Jesus of Nazareth wasn't the (or should that be 'an') incarnation of God?

technomage

September 24th 2005, 09:24 AM

So the Jesus that Paul experienced on the road to Damascus was the divine making itself manifest in a form he could understand (and to an extent misunderstood)?

:shrug: I cannot tell if the specifics of Paul's vision was an actual event that Paul experienced, or a doctrinal teaching that Luke developed. However, that's the basics: Paul had a vision of the Creator--but that vision was filtered through his limitations.

Indeed, Paul was right on the money when he said "Now we see through a glass darkly...."

But the historical Jesus of Nazareth wasn't the (or should that be 'an') incarnation of God?

James, as a perfectly sincere question--what do we know of the historical Jesus of Nazareth? To the best of my understanding, the Gospel accounts deal far more with doctrine than history, and many of the "historical claims" are actually (TTBOMU) doctrinal claims.

So we have large passages of speeches purportedly by Jesus--but are they actually the words of Jesus, or the doctrinal exposition of later writers, from 30 to 70 years after Jesus was dead. We have reports of deeds done by Jesus--but again, we do not know if these reports are historical, or doctrinal.

And it actually makes more sense if they are doctrinal. Considering the literary conventions of the time, this was not dishonest: this was "getting the point across."

James Peter

September 24th 2005, 11:19 AM

James, as a perfectly sincere question--what do we know of the historical Jesus of Nazareth?

I'd say that we know a reasonable amount although knowing whether any specific saying is original or not is beyond us. I think that saying that all the events passed on through the gospels are entirely without basis in actuality is to go a step too far. I'm much more comfortable with the notion that the authors took oral tradition and shaped it to fit their agenda as they used it.

I think that the core of the story of Jesus is accurate but specific encounters are often used to make doctrinal points. Something must have caused people to associate their later experiences of the divine with the man they once knew. From Paul's letters (which are a more reliable source than Acts) we know that the church in Jerusalem was led by people like Peter, John and James (the brother of Jesus) and for these people to connect their collective experiences of the divine with a man....something must have caused the connection. But thats straying from the point. I think that Jesus must have made some extraordinary claims and that the early church must have had some extraordinary experiences but accept that as historical documents the gospels aren't what we'd consider 100% accurate.

So does that mean your answer is that we can't know if Jesus was an incarnation of the divine? That possibly he was but that even if he was he wasn't the sole incarnation and that claims that he was 'the way, the truth and the life...' etc are almost certainly doctrinal and don't date back to Jesus himself?

JardinPrayer

September 24th 2005, 11:33 AM

technomage

September 24th 2005, 11:54 AM

Hey, pardon my innocence here...I'm also asking this sincerely: Are you saying that Peter's epistles were not written by Peter...the Peter who sat at the last supper and was an eye witness to his crucifixion?

That is the contention of mainstream scholarship. It is almost certain (because of the grammar and writing style style of the two letters) that the two Petrine epistles were not written by the same person. I am of the opinion that neither was written by Peter--Jaltus thinks 1 Peter could have been written by him.

technomage

September 24th 2005, 12:17 PM

I'd say that we know a reasonable amount although knowing whether any specific saying is original or not is beyond us. I think that saying that all the events passed on through the gospels are entirely without basis in actuality is to go a step too far. I'm much more comfortable with the notion that the authors took oral tradition and shaped it to fit their agenda as they used it.

I'm not claiming that we can know nothing of the historical Jesus, nor that all the events are without basis. But with the intrusion of doctrinal writings, that casts doubt on the narrative as a whole, and on each specific part. Was a particular statement or deed the historical Jesus, or a doctrinal insertion? And the only answer that comes back is "We cannot know."

To be sure, we have some folks trying to winnow the one from the other ... but frankly, I didn't think much of the Jesus Seminar. While well intentioned, there is no way to objectively separate history from doctrine, therefore the Jesus Seminar can only give the subjective impressions of its constituent scholars.

James, there is the possibility that Jesus did not exist as a historical person. That's not my preferred position, and I happen to feel that there is sufficient evidence to establish his historicity, at least in very broad terms. For me, the Bible--even as a set of completely doctrinal writings--makes absolutely no sense if there was not a historical Jesus, but I do have to acknowledge that it is a possibility.

So does that mean your answer is that we can't know if Jesus was an incarnation of the divine? That possibly he was but that even if he was he wasn't the sole incarnation and that claims that he was 'the way, the truth and the life...' etc are almost certainly doctrinal and don't date back to Jesus himself?

Hmmm ... not so definitely as all that. I am, however, persuaded that because we cannot tell what was history and what was doctrine, we have to take all the NT account as doctrine. I've been told that this is a hyper-skeptical view that refuses to take anything on faith ... and I suppose that's not a completely incorrect assesment. But when it comes to history, I try not to take anything on faith. The purpose of history is to know, not to believe.

James Peter

September 24th 2005, 02:51 PM

Hey, pardon my innocence here...I'm also asking this sincerely: Are you saying that Peter's epistles were not written by Peter...the Peter who sat at the last supper and was an eye witness to his crucifixion? When I studied hermanutics with my church's bible training institute, I was taught that one of the ways it was determined whether a scripture would be included in the canon was if it was written by an eye witness. I'm not the bible student I wish to someday be and my church history is practically non-existent...so I'm asking if I've understood your assertion clearly.

I know Cup has already addressed this but I thought I'd add a christian (albeit heretical) voice to his response. Basically whilst the conservative wing of the church likes to pretend that all the NT writings were written directly by witnesses it is likely that none of them were. I'd agree with Jaltus that 1 Peter is strongly linked to Peter and I'd say that 1 John is closely linked to John (the disciple) but other than that and the 7 genuine Pauline letters...this is probably something to go into in another thread so I'll stop there.

Back to my line of questioning though...

So do you believe that the divine has ever become incarnate or that it will ever? I'm not just thinking in terms of Jesus but also various other pagan stories/myths (depending on your view on them). I'm not sure if I'm making much sense here but basically I'm trying to get at your views on how the divine and the mundane interact and so forth...

technomage

September 24th 2005, 03:02 PM

So do you believe that the divine has ever become incarnate or that it will ever? I'm not just thinking in terms of Jesus but also various other pagan stories/myths (depending on your view on them). I'm not sure if I'm making much sense here but basically I'm trying to get at your views on how the divine and the mundane interact and so forth...

I believe that God is directly incarnate in creation on a constant basis--God is both Immanent (indwelling the Universe) and Transcendant (existing outside the Universe).

And in that sense, I look to the Bible accounts and the various Pagan myths as fundamentally wrong in one respect: incarnations of God are not unique. We are all "incarnations" of God.

lee_merrill

September 24th 2005, 05:44 PM

Hi Justin,

Thanks for the pointer to this thread...

But there can be no "Sin" that separates us from God.
That would indicate that God is not holy (in the sinless sense), and that there are no real moral imperatives. If God is in union with all beings at all times, then what goes on in the world is simply "God," and there can be no real call for justice, that would be asking for God to be changed.

Now, to be fair, I also believe the same thing about my own books...
I would wonder then how can progress be made, though it seems there is a way being proposed in the Bible to tell which message is most authentic, which is accurate prediction of the future:

Isaiah 41:23 ... tell us what the future holds, so we may know that you are gods.

And then I have my list (as you do know!) of clear and even some testable predictions:

Babylon will never be rebuilt, or reinhabited (Isa. 13:19-20, Jer. 25:12, Jer. 51:26).

Edom will never be rebuilt or reinhabited (Isa. 34:9-10, Jer. 49:18).

The Edomites would disappear as a nation (Oba. 1:18).

The Caananites would disappear, most notably the nation of the Philistines, which lasted the longest (Ex. 15:15, Isa. 14:31, Amos 1:8, Zeph. 2:5).

There will always be Jewish people (Jer. 31:35-37; 33:24-26).

There will be Egyptian and Assyrian people up until the fulfillment of Isa. 19:16-25.

Egypt will never again rule the other nations (Eze. 29:14-15).

And this is unparalleled in other scriptures, including, I would expect, the Book of Shadows.

But despite the fact that I will never have a perfect understanding of God, I still submit to God's Will, in as much as I understand that Will.
Would you ask Jesus (never minding what other people think, the real Jesus) to give you insight into what to do, and then do it?

So as not to seem to pull a sleight-of-hand on you, that is what I believe is the essence of being a Christian.

Blessings,
Lee

technomage

September 24th 2005, 08:08 PM

That would indicate that God is not holy (in the sinless sense), and that there are no real moral imperatives.

It would indicate that there is no "set apart" to the nature of God, yes--but it says nothing about whether or not there are moral imperatives. Indeed, one obvious moral imperative is if we are to respect and love God, then we must respect and love the Creation that He is manifest within.

If God is in union with all beings at all times, then what goes on in the world is simply "God," and there can be no real call for justice, that would be asking for God to be changed.

This is incorrect, Lee. Just because God is manifest in nature does not mean that all human phenomena are from God. As Christian doctrine states, God (in the form of the Holy Spirit) lives within you, but you yourself know how many times you do things that are against the nature of God as you understand--what precisely makes you think that you are unique in this regard?

I would wonder then how can progress be made, though it seems there is a way being proposed in the Bible to tell which message is most authentic, which is accurate prediction of the future:

It would seem so--but as you and I have discussed, many of these events did not occur as you state. Yet you vary so much in your interpretation of how these prophecies are supposedly "fulfilled" that I can only think back to the facile "interpretations" of the Nostradamus fans.

Would you ask Jesus (never minding what other people think, the real Jesus) to give you insight into what to do, and then do it?

Lee, precisely what makes you think I did not?

lee_merrill

September 25th 2005, 05:35 PM

Hi Justin,

Lee: That would indicate that God is not holy (in the sinless sense), and that there are no real moral imperatives.

Justin: ... one obvious moral imperative is if we are to respect and love God, then we must respect and love the Creation that He is manifest within.
This is only a moral imperative to the extent that God is sinless, though.

Now should we love killer whales trying to drown a baby grey whale so they can eat it? There are aspects of nature that express evil, not goodness, and yet to condemn the evil is to condemn God, if he or she is expressed in all of nature.

Job 4:17 Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?

Lee: If God is in union with all beings at all times, then what goes on in the world is simply "God," and there can be no real call for justice, that would be asking for God to be changed.

Justin: As Christian doctrine states, God (in the form of the Holy Spirit) lives within you, but you yourself know how many times you do things that are against the nature of God as you understand...
Yes, Christians hold that the union between God and man is imperfect in his children, Wiccans, apparently, insist that everyone is already one with God, and again, nature expresses God, and we are part of nature. How could we ask a lion not to be a lion? It just "is." And similarly, how can we ask a person not to be a person? They just "are." And so no real call for justice is possible, no reason to call for change, even.

Lee: though it seems there is a way being proposed in the Bible to tell which message is most authentic, which is accurate prediction...

Justin: but as you and I have discussed, many of these events did not occur as you state.
My position, of course is that they did!

Justin: Yet you vary so much in your interpretation of how these prophecies are supposedly "fulfilled" that I can only think back to the facile "interpretations" of the Nostradamus fans.
Well, what is to interpret in "there will always be Jewish people"?

And could you not rebuild Babylon (in a similar way to Jerusalem being rebuilt - see Zechariah and Haggai for more details), and invalidate the "Babylon will never be rebuilt" prophecy?

These are quite plain predictions, and verifiable ones, and some are even falsifiable ones (though I don't recommend attacking Jewish people).

Lee: Would you ask Jesus (never minding what other people think, the real Jesus) to give you insight into what to do, and then do it?

Justin: Lee, precisely what makes you think I did not?
Well, two points. First, I have been tempted to witchcraft, and also attacked by witchcraft (it would seem), and "the Lord delivered me from them all." So I would hold that the power of witchcraft is distinct from the power in Christ, and if you are asking guidance from the real Jesus, he will let you know of that distinction.

However, if you are really in touch with Jesus, that's great! And I would (and do) expect the unexpected, yet he is faithful, and fulfills all his promises...

Blessings,
Lee

technomage

September 25th 2005, 06:10 PM

This is only a moral imperative to the extent that God is sinless, though.

Lee, that may be your belief--but neither your beliefs nor mine affect what is. If your beliefs are wrong, then it is quite possible for "Love God, and Love Your Neighbor" to both be moral imperatives without any concept of "sin" ever entering the picture.

Now should we love killer whales trying to drown a baby grey whale so they can eat it?

Why not? Life feeds on life, Lee. It's not necessarily pretty, but it is true.

Job 4:17 Can a mortal be more righteous than God? Can a man be more pure than his Maker?

Lee, that's one thing you're going to have to understand if you're going to gain any understanding of how Wiccan think and believe. "Righteousness" has nothing to do with it. Morality in the sense of what you are speaking is a human invented concept: to the best of my understanding, it is not something that is applicable to God.

How could we ask a lion not to be a lion?

Why would we want to?

That's a serious question, Lee.

My position, of course is that they did!

You've expressed that.

First, I have been tempted to witchcraft, and also attacked by witchcraft (it would seem), and "the Lord delivered me from them all."

So precisely what makes you think that the "witchcraft" you were tempted to or attacked by has anything to do with what I do?

Lee, you do not even understand what witchcraft is. You definitely don't understand what Wicca is. Yet you feel you understand it enough to condemn it--ok, on the grounds of "It's not Christian," you do have some room to stand.

But you want to go condemning specific aspects of Wicca ... and the only thing you are accomplishing is expressing your own ignorance of what Wicca is.

Lee, I don't say that to condemn you--I say that because your questions have little or nothing to do with Wicca.

Krusader

September 27th 2005, 12:56 PM

lee_merrill

September 27th 2005, 11:43 PM

Hi Justin,

Lee: This is only a moral imperative to the extent that God is sinless, though.

Justin: If your beliefs are wrong, then it is quite possible for "Love God, and Love Your Neighbor" to both be moral imperatives without any concept of "sin" ever entering the picture.
Well, then loving God would seem to involve loving his sin, too, if God is not perfection.

Lee: Now should we love killer whales trying to drown a baby grey whale so they can eat it?

Justin: Why not? Life feeds on life, Lee. It's not necessarily pretty, but it is true.
But the question is if we should love this, not whether this is what happens in nature.

Justin: Morality in the sense of what you are speaking is a human invented concept: to the best of my understanding, it is not something that is applicable to God.
That's kind of my point here, though, that this view in Wicca leaves us without real moral imperatives.

Lee: How could we ask a lion not to be a lion?

Justin: Why would we want to?
Well, that again is my point, so then if we should not ask a lion not to be a lion, we should also not ask a human not to be different either, and again we have no moral imperatives.

Lee: First, I have been tempted to witchcraft, and also attacked by witchcraft (it would seem), and "the Lord delivered me from them all."

Justin: So precisely what makes you think that the "witchcraft" you were tempted to or attacked by has anything to do with what I do?
Because you do claim to be involved in witchcraft, with supernatural power that goes with that, that does not acknowledge Jesus as revealed in Scripture? As in what you mentioned, it is not Christianity, and yet there is power there, thus I must conclude this is not the power that delivered me from being signed up or knocked down by call-it-what-you-will-craft. And I don't think that there are powers apart from Christ that are yet neutral in regard to Christ, or somehow apart from him and yet congenial in regard to him.

Blessings to you,
Lee

technomage

September 28th 2005, 07:45 AM

Well, then loving God would seem to involve loving his sin, too, if God is not perfection.

What "sin?" Sin is an act that (in Judeo-Christian beliefs) separates us from God ... but if God is manifest within Creation, then there is no "sin."

But the question is if we should love this, not whether this is what happens in nature.

Do you love your wife and children? Yet they feed on life. So do you.

Lee, ALL life feeds on life. That's part and parcel of existence in creation. To live, we kill. Now, what precisely that has to do with our reliationship to the Creator I don't know ... you're the one who brought it up.

That's kind of my point here, though, that this view in Wicca leaves us without real moral imperatives.

Well, that again is my point, so then if we should not ask a lion not to be a lion, we should also not ask a human not to be different either, and again we have no moral imperatives.

Lee, it is possible for you to be more incorrect ... but I'm honestly not sure how. We do have moral imperatives--they don't come from God because they don't have to.

Because you do claim to be involved in witchcraft, with supernatural power that goes with that, that does not acknowledge Jesus as revealed in Scripture? As in what you mentioned, it is not Christianity, and yet there is power there, thus I must conclude this is not the power that delivered me from being signed up or knocked down by call-it-what-you-will-craft. And I don't think that there are powers apart from Christ that are yet neutral in regard to Christ, or somehow apart from him and yet congenial in regard to him.

Well, I respect your thoughts on this ... but frankly, what we think or do not think is not really relevant to who and what God is.

tmancour

September 28th 2005, 02:47 PM

Quick existential question, Lee:

Do you do what is Good because it is Good, independent of divine judgement . . .

. . . or do you do what is Good because Jehovha says it is Good?

Does Good and Evil exist independent of Jehovha?

(I'm assuming, of course, that you try to do Good. Pretty safe assumption, from our past conversations.)

Arion the Blue

lee_merrill

September 28th 2005, 10:48 PM

Hi everyone,

Lee: Well, then loving God would seem to involve loving his sin, too, if God is not perfection.

Justin: What "sin?" Sin is an act that (in Judeo-Christian beliefs) separates us from God ... but if God is manifest within Creation, then there is no "sin."
I should have said "imperfection" rather than sin, but yes, this is my point again! There is no sin in this view, and thus no moral imperatives.

Justin: Do you love your wife and children? Yet they feed on life. So do you.
Yet I am asking if we should love this aspect of nature, if it expresses the nature of God. If not, are we not asking a lion not to be a lion, or a person not to be a person?

We do have moral imperatives--they don't come from God because they don't have to.
Well, I would wonder what that source would be. And why God is not subject to them, and lions are not, either, though (apparently) we are.

... what we think or do not think is not really relevant to who and what God is.
Yes, I agree, making a god is a bad idea...

Arion: Do you do what is Good because it is Good, independent of divine judgment . . .
. . . or do you do what is Good because Jehovha says it is Good?
I have difficulty assessing my motives, to tell the truth! I do believe that good behavior generally starts out as a punishment-avoidance decision (which has been true of me), and should go on from there, to doing good for its own sake, out of love.

Does Good and Evil exist independent of Jehovha?
Yes, I believe that good and evil are not adjustable (as far as principles, e.g. loving others, in the sense of wanting what's best for them). Applications can vary, but the principles are like moral axioms, I believe, so self-existent, in that sense...

Blessings,
Lee

technomage

September 28th 2005, 11:06 PM

I should have said "imperfection" rather than sin....

What do you consider "imperfect?" As far as I can tell, the Universe is exactly as it is supposed to be.

but yes, this is my point again! There is no sin in this view, and thus no moral imperatives.

Are there moral imperatives in secular culture? Of course there are ... these moral imperatives are devloped by the culture they originate from.

And that's the crux of the issue, Lee--you believe that moral imperatives are transcendant. OK, I respect your belief ... but it is a subjective belief on your part, and I'm sure you'll agree that our subjective beliefs do not dictate the nature of the Universe.

However, all the evidence I have available indicates that moral imperatives are products of the various human cultures.

Yet I am asking if we should love this aspect of nature, if it expresses the nature of God.

Why not? For my part, I would say yes.

Well, I would wonder what that source would be. And why God is not subject to them, and lions are not, either, though (apparently) we are.

Since these moral imperatives are developed by human cultures, they apply to people living in the cultured. God is not subject to the culture ... come to think of it, neither are lions, unless they're pets. Even at that, getting them to agree to moral strictures might be a bit difficult.

lee_merrill

October 1st 2005, 03:59 PM

Hi Justin,

Justin: What do you consider "imperfect?" As far as I can tell, the Universe is exactly as it is supposed to be.
Wiccans therefore do not object to terrorist attacks? Human predators?

Are there moral imperatives in secular culture? Of course there are ... these moral imperatives are developed by the culture they originate from.
Well, I'm not sure they merit the name "imperatives," then.

Lee: Yet I am asking if we should love this aspect of nature, if it expresses the nature of God.

Justin: Why not? For my part, I would say yes.
May I ask what there is to love, in killer whales trying to drown a baby gray whale in order to eat it?

Blessings,
Lee

technomage

October 1st 2005, 04:13 PM

Wiccans therefore do not object to terrorist attacks? Human predators?

Ah, but are these "functions of the Universe," or of men who do not listen to the moral imperatives of their culture?

Well, I'm not sure they merit the name "imperatives," then.

Well, I understand your uncertanty ... but if they're not "imperatives" by your definition, they are at least strong enough to be enforced by the culture.

May I ask what there is to love, in killer whales trying to drown a baby gray whale in order to eat it?

:shrug: What isn't there to love? More importantly, does my love (or lack of it) change the situation?

And why would I choose (for example) to save the seal at the expense of the whale? That's a form of intervention based on personal choices ... but where then does intervention stop?

tmancour

October 2nd 2005, 11:14 AM

Wiccans therefore do not object to terrorist attacks? Human predators?

Of course we do. They are criminals. We don't need to consider them "sinners" in order to find them abhorent.

Well, I'm not sure they merit the name "imperatives," then.

I'm not certain the distinction is important. In practical terms, they serve the same function in our society and culture. Ironically, it is most often Christians who violate these supposed "imperatives" (murder, torture, terrorism, coersion) and use their faith and "imperative knowlege" of What God Wants as their excuse.

May I ask what there is to love, in killer whales trying to drown a baby gray whale in order to eat it?

What's not to love? Killer whales have to eat. Babies are fair game in the wild. It sounds as if your issue springs from anthropomorphizing the process. Because of the "moral imperative" implicit in Christianity that Death is always evil, an enemy of Good (except when it is Jehovha-sanctioned), you look upon this cetacean infantacide as evil, when it is actually just a tasty snack for the orca and a REALLY bad day for the baby gray.

I find it ironic and amusing that many Christians, when they pray before a meal, thank God for the meat in front of them -- but make no mention of gratitude to the beast itself. Same for plants -- vegetarianism is no defense -- all life feeds on the dead. It is only when you divorce yourself from the idea that death in the service of life is noble, and worthy of respect, that you can go on and commit horrible atrocities with a clear conscience. When your subconscious has a fear of a herd of ungrateful animal spirits hounding you for your ingratitude, it seeks to make amends somehow. But in order to leave this behind, you have to put animals and plants in completely seperate boxes from humanity -- and then can justify just about any perverse crime by seeing the victim in that same light ("they're just like animals!" The cry of colonialism and imperialism). Someone who hold ALL life as sacred also holds all death as sacred -- especially when it is in service to the Lifeforce.

lee_merrill

October 3rd 2005, 10:21 PM

Hi everyone,

Lee: May I ask what there is to love, in killer whales trying to drown a baby gray whale in order to eat it?

Justin: What isn't there to love?

Arion: What's not to love?
Well, I'm not sure what to hope here. Maybe I hope you really don't see the problem here, but that is almost as bad as seeing it, and saying you don't.

Arion: Killer whales have to eat.
Well, again, I'm not asking if this is true, I'm asking if we should love this.

Justin: but where then does intervention stop?
Right here:

Revelation 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

Though we cannot change the order of nature now, we can see that sorrow, until it ends, it's a picture of sin, yet not believing in sin makes it impossible to have any objection here. I guess that is what I would hope, about the first question, that you all are insisting on being consistent, and thinking the cost of loving every aspect of all that happens (or saying you do) is not too great. I would say, however, that it is.

Arion: We don't need to consider them "sinners" in order to find them abhorrent.
Certainly, but I put a human predator in a different class than a rotting corpse.

Arion: Ironically, it is most often Christians who violate these supposed "imperatives" (murder, torture, terrorism, coersion) and use their faith and "imperative knowlege" of What God Wants as their excuse.
You do seem to be saying this is really inherently wrong, and not just a current consensus here. I would agree...

Arion: I find it ironic and amusing that many Christians, when they pray before a meal, thank God for the meat in front of them -- but make no mention of gratitude to the beast itself.
Perhaps because the beast was not intending this?

Someone who hold ALL life as sacred also holds all death as sacred...
I certainly marvel at plant life, but I don't hold it sacred. Nor is animal life on a level with human life. But doesn't "sacred" imply a distinction? But if everything is sacred, what is the distinction?

And I shall never worship an earthworm or a dung beetle, nor my shadow, nor the light behind it. Again, we are losing a distinction here, how can I worship Everything, which includes myself? Baal bows to Baal, which is like the serpent who is eating his tail...

Blessings,
Lee

technomage

October 3rd 2005, 10:36 PM

Well, again, I'm not asking if this is true, I'm asking if we should love this.

Is it any different from the cow that tears the grass out, and grinds it to death between its teeth? Lee, one more time--LIFE FEEDS ON LIFE. What part of this are you failing to accept?

Do you love your own life? Yet you also kill to eat. So in answer to that question--what's the difference between Lee eating a hamburger, and Orca eating a baby seal?

Right here:

Revelation 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

:shrug: So we have pie-in-the-sky in heaven, or after the end of the world? That does nothing to remove the necessity of life feeding on life.

I certainly marvel at plant life, but I don't hold it sacred. Nor is animal life on a level with human life. But doesn't "sacred" imply a distinction? But if everything is sacred, what is the distinction?

Only in your own mind, Lee. The distinction is false, and you are incorrect ("wrong" as in "not in accord with fact," not "morally wrong") to insist on a distinction that does not exist.

Baal bows to Baal, which is like the serpent who is eating his tail...

Lee, the only thing you are demonstrating here is that you do not understand. After so many times of going around and around with you, I am beginning to wonder if you are incapable of understanding, or unwilling, to understand.

tmancour

October 4th 2005, 03:03 AM

Well, I'm not sure what to hope here. Maybe I hope you really don't see the problem here, but that is almost as bad as seeing it, and saying you don't.

Well, again, I'm not asking if this is true, I'm asking if we should love this.

Lee, you see it as a problem. We don't. You see death as a problem. We don't. We see it as a part of Life. That's LIFE. As in alive. As in being a living entity that respirates, defecates, consumes and reproduces. To aspire to anything else is to reject LIFE. I know you and Christianity seem to want to reject DEATH -- to do so is to also give up LIFE. To give up LIVING. And Wicca and Paganism are LIFE affirming religions -- the whole picture, not just the fun bits. Christianity is obsessed with death, because it is predicated on a fear of DEATH. Now, one can argue that the many facets of human religion are, in part, means of releasing that fear of DEATH. Some try to accept death as a natural part of the life cycle, a necessary thing that is not to be feared even if it is sorrowful -- like Buddhism, Wicca, Hinduism and Shinto.

The Abrahamics, instead of releasing this fear through introspection, self-knowlege and awareness of LIFE, deal with their fear by asserting that a better or worse "afterlife" awaits them -- and that sometime in the future the LIFE and WORLD that you fear will go away, and everyone will be happy, all together.

Endless. Staring. Happy.

You say so.

Right here:

Revelation 21:4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.

No tears, no mourning, no crying, no pain. Endless bliss. Nothing to look forward to. Nothing to regret. Just stare at the light . . . and smile. Never have another original, self-defining thought again. Just bask in the Bliss, the Glory, and . . . do nothing.

Forever.

Eternal bliss or eternal torment. Without point or reason. Without any real purpose. To glorify God? Does he need your affirmation that badly? Do you need to devote yourself to such a singlemindedness that the result is spending eternity as a bliss-ninny, no different from any of your coreligionists in any special way? As individual as a cosmic light-bulb? Is that your aspiration?

That seems as pointless and stupid -- not to mention completely unsupported by anything remotely resembling a fact -- as the concept of eternal torment authored by an omnipotent diety.

Though we cannot change the order of nature now, we can see that sorrow, until it ends, it's a picture of sin, yet not believing in sin makes it impossible to have any objection here.

I don't understand this. How is sorrow, a perfectly normal, natural, and HUMAN emotion, a "picture of sin"? I don't accept that as axiomatic. Regardless of my belief or lack in sin, why is honest sorrow bad? We have to suffer, sometimes Lee, in order to learn. Our sorrow and our pain help define us, temper us, allow us to grow. Without growth, there is only stagnation. We are gifted with sorrow as a means of plumbing the depths of our souls, of discovering the shape of our spirits. It gives our flat spiritual selves dimension.

When you reject sorrow, you reject empathy. You reject memory. You reject the very pain that makes you human. If a painless existance is what you desire, there are a number of opiates that can provide just that. I think that, given the choice, most people want to keep their sorrow -- or forget it utterly -- a choice that Nature has provided means for us to choose. Most choose to accept their sorrow and the gifts it brings. Some recoil, their minds convinced that they are not strong enough to bear it. And some who walk the Earth feel no sorrow at all -- are they the kind of people you would have us emulate?

I guess that is what I would hope, about the first question, that you all are insisting on being consistent, and thinking the cost of loving every aspect of all that happens (or saying you do) is not too great. I would say, however, that it is.

What "cost" is this? LIFE is not exclusively a spiritual profit/loss chart. I do love all aspects of it -- because to exclude some diminishes the whole. What of the "cost" of loving Jehovah? Do you not give up something there? I would say that you do.

Certainly, but I put a human predator in a different class than a rotting corpse.

You do seem to be saying this is really inherently wrong, and not just a current consensus here. I would agree...

The point was that I do not require a divinity to instruct me that the human predator isn't to be tolerated in my society. Figured that one out on my own. So did a couple thousand generations of my ancestors. Whether or not to tolerate such people in my society has less to do with inherent wrongness as it does with a societal concensus, of which I am a part and participating member. And I am quite happy merely applying my subjective standards on such people without worrying about whether or not allowing those people to live in my society is right or wrong.

Perhaps because the beast was not intending this?

Is that not even more reason to thank it? That animal "saved your life", intentionally or not, by providing you sustenance. Should it not get thanks for its sacrifice while you're dishing out gratitude? If you were rescued as a child by a fireman who himself didn't survive the blaze, would you not be grateful to him, even though it was "Jehovah" who decided to take him so cruelly but spare you? My moral compass says "yes", you thank whoever contributed to your continued survival, whether they intended to or not. It might not mean a durn thing to the spirit of the animal involved, but it should mean something to you that an animal -- or a plant, for that matter -- gave its life for you.

It's only polite.

I certainly marvel at plant life, but I don't hold it sacred. Nor is animal life on a level with human life. But doesn't "sacred" imply a distinction? But if everything is sacred, what is the distinction?

"Sacred" is a spiritual short-hand for identifying objects, emotions, places, people, or ideas as somehow special and worthy of note within that part of your consciousness that defines such things. You hold the Bible, the sacraments, and other trappings of your religion as sacred, and the rest of the world as profane. You have narrowed the spotlight in your mind to include a few objects, institutions, and ideas as sacred. Me, I think that everything in my environment that contributes to my continued existance is worthy of this special consideration. Yes, it's a big list. Trying to fit it all in every day is time consuming, so we portion off these elements into abstract ideas or symbols that allow us to say a whole lot with a very little. And each of us, Christian and Pagan alike, make their own determination of what is "sacred". Sometimes a group of people can reach a concensus on that. More often, not. You may exclude things of this world in your determination. I include a few of them. You may exclude everything but the Bible and its designated agents and assigns, but I have to include my wife and children in mine. Etc, etc.

And I shall never worship an earthworm or a dung beetle, nor my shadow, nor the light behind it. Again, we are losing a distinction here, how can I worship Everything, which includes myself? Baal bows to Baal, which is like the serpent who is eating his tail...

Define "worship".

Is Adoration worship? Respect? Affinity? Appreciation? Love? Veneration? Subserviance? I don't think I've ever "worshipped" an earthworm or a beetle -- that doesn't stop me from feeling a sense of respect for their vital role in the cycle of life. I've never "worshipped" my shadow, but I appreciate that it is a part of me, a representation of me, and I appreciate it for the rich metaphor it gifts me with. I appreciate the light behind it for a similar body of metaphor, the ability to let me see (handy thing, that) and the nifty way photons work. But worship . . . ?

I worship the Goddess, who is our Mother, the agency of our LIFE, from whose passion and in whose womb we were brought into the world. I worship the Horned God, whose DEATH in eternal cycle brings us LIFE.

I adore the Moon, and the Sun, for the Sun lights us and brings us LIFE, and the Moon brought tidal forces that stirred the great primordial cauldron of Earth and threw upon her shores my remotest ancestors. I adore the Trees which gave us shelter when dragons walked the Earth, and followed it up with opposable thumbs (big hit with the kids, weren't they?). I adore the water that all life depends upon, the earth upon which all life grows, the air which we all breathe and the fires of the sun or its imitators who keep us safe from predators and warm in the winter.

I respect the animals and plants who I share this world with. I respect their lives, and I respect their deaths and give them my gratitude when their deaths contribute to my well-being. I feel an affinity with some animals who share lives that resemble mine, and may have feelings resembling mine, and therefore accord them a little more respect and appreciation than your average loblolly pine.

I love my family, and the other interpersonal relationships around which my life happily revolves. My mother and father, my brothers who all raised me into the person I am. Especially my loving Wife, who balances so many things and makes me so complete that a love so passionate that "worship" may not be too strong a word. And I love my children, who are making me into the man I will become, giving my life purpose and meaning.

I venerate my ancestors, for they shaped the people who shaped me and contributed the DNA I walk around with these days. I venerate the Wise before me. I venerate the abstract concepts of Freedom, Inventiveness, Art, Imagination, and Courage.

I adore the Stars because we were all once starstuff, and we will be again.

I am subservient to . . . no one. I am a Free Man, who has recognized his inherent freedom against fear and loss and will not cower before a diety unworthy of my worship. To do so would dishonor all of the above.

Part of the problem, Lee, is that the Abrahamic faiths have been trying to use Bronze Age reasoning and metaphors to try to cope with modern issues, and the fact is that our cultures and societies are more sophisticated than that, now. Our cultures have evolved more elaborate and refined ways of describing our inner struggles. We have more accurate and useful spiritual tools at our disposal now. That's one of the factors propelling Paganism to prominence -- for all of our Neolithic rhetoric, we are redifining how we think of religion as it relates to individuals. We are using this more sophisticated map to find more comfortable ways to achieve the ultimate goals, means without recourse to guilt and sin and fear. And you guys are sitting there talking about spiritual matters and righteousness in the same limited vocabulary you had two thousand years ago.

Arion

Geifodd

October 4th 2005, 08:27 PM

This conversation about "life feeding on life" is very interesting to me. I have always felt that people tend to try and anthropomorphize Nature too much, often in an attempt to prove that the Creator is somehow moral in any humanly-meaningful sense of the term. But any honest observation of Nature and its workings will show one that if there is indeed a Creator (and of course I believe that there is), It is certainly not the "loving god of compassion and justice" that many people want to believe It to be. Anthropomorphizers of the Creator may quote scripture as "proof" all they like, but I quote natural selection, natural disasters and the law of the jungle as mine.

One thing that has distressed me about some aspects of the Pagan scene is what I believe is most typically referred to as the "fluff bunny Pagan." I am sure Justin must have come across creatures such as this, who talk about embracing Nature, but whose idea of "Nature" seems largely to be something out of a My Little Pony cartoon. I have always wanted to throw a fluff bunny into the middle of a hurricane and see what they think of Nature afterwards -- assuming that they survive, of course. :hehe:

Geifodd

October 4th 2005, 08:31 PM

Arion, just a few questions:

I worship the Goddess, who is our Mother, the agency of our LIFE, from whose passion and in whose womb we were brought into the world. I worship the Horned God, whose DEATH in eternal cycle brings us LIFE.

I will not insult you by drawing comparisons between your Horned God and my Satan. However, I would be much interested to know if you consider the God and the Goddess to be conscious entities, or if you perceive Them as being more like impersonal forces that are merely personified through human symbolism. I would also be interested to know what you would think of Them and Their roles if you were a hard polytheist (I am assuming that you aren't, but please correct me if my assumption is inaccurate). If you were a hard polytheist, what two deities of Pagan mythology would you most likely identify with your God and Goddess in particular? I am guessing that you might identify the God specifically with Pan, and the Goddess specifically with somebody like Inanna/Ishtar. Would this be accurate?

I am not sure how useful these questions are, I am just curious.

technomage

October 4th 2005, 08:35 PM

I have always wanted to throw a fluff bunny into the middle of a hurricane and see what they think of Nature afterwards -- assuming that they survive, of course. :hehe:

My favorite fluff-bunny....

:db:

Fried, of course.

Heathen Dawn

October 5th 2005, 06:53 AM

My favorite fluff-bunny....

:db:

Fried, of course.

The vaunted pagan “tolerance” and “embrace of diversity” ends as soon as those pagans who have chosen to restrict themselves to the light side of the divine are concerned.

technomage

October 5th 2005, 07:08 AM

Hi, HD! I've missed you, my friend!

The vaunted pagan “tolerance” and “embrace of diversity” ends as soon as those pagans who have chosen to restrict themselves to the light side of the divine are concerned.

Not so, HD. "Fluff Bunny" is not a term for one who fights for the light and resists the darkness--it is the term for one who cleaves to ignorance and eschews knowledge and wisdom.

Heathen Dawn

October 5th 2005, 07:18 AM

Not so, HD. "Fluff Bunny" is not a term for one who fights for the light and resists the darkness--it is the term for one who cleaves to ignorance and eschews knowledge and wisdom.

Not so, Cup. “Fluffbunny” and “white-lighter” are usually mentioned in the same breath, and always connected in modern pagan thought. And fighting for the light and resisting darkness is seen as cleaving to ignorance and eschewing knowledge and wisdom.

Let any pagan register on a pagan discussion board and mention that she avoids dealing with the shadow aspects and dark facets of the divine. It is guaranteed that there will be a flow of responses calling her a fluffbunny, an immature person, an unserious pagan, and someone who gives all pagans a bad name.

But the strong-willed choose the path that works for them and not the path that is highly thought of by others. One of my biggest mistakes was my weakness of will in that regard. Well, there’s always time to make amends.

technomage

October 5th 2005, 07:24 AM

Not so, Cup. “Fluffbunny” and “white-lighter” are usually mentioned in the same breath, and always connected in modern pagan thought. And fighting for the light and resisting darkness is seen as cleaving to ignorance and eschewing knowledge and wisdom.

Not to me, my friend. And while there are those in the Wiccan and Pagan community who are guilty of such (and it must be admited that they're frequently rather loud and obnoxious about it), I would encourage you to remember that it's not all Wiccans and Pagans.

Heathen Dawn

October 5th 2005, 08:41 AM

Ok.

Geifodd

October 5th 2005, 11:51 AM

Greetings Heathen Dawn:

The vaunted pagan “tolerance” and “embrace of diversity” ends as soon as those pagans who have chosen to restrict themselves to the light side of the divine are concerned.

Usually, from what I've seen, it's the other way around...Many of the Lightsiders I've ever met have been highly critical and even intolerant of Darksiders. This may be because of the area in which I live, however.

When I use the term "fluff-bunny," I use it to identify a Pagan who doesn't even want to accept that there is a dark side to Paganism. Not somebody who just focuses on the light side. Somebody who focuses on the light side can still be respectful of the dark side without actually following it. But the fluff bunnies I have met will go so far as to say that any "darkside Pagans" are not really Pagans at all. And they are even worse when it comes to the subject of Satanism. Some fluff bunny Pagans almost sound like paranoid delusionals like Bob Larson, when it comes down to it.

Geifodd

October 5th 2005, 11:52 AM

One further comment:

You all might find this very hard to believe, but there is even such a thing as a "fluff-bunny" Satanist...

technomage

October 5th 2005, 11:56 AM

One further comment:

You all might find this very hard to believe, but there is even such a thing as a "fluff-bunny" Satanist...

:lol: One variety of fluff-bunny Satanist I've met is the perpetual teenager. They're still rebelling against their parents ... even though they're fourty years old and no longer living in their parent's basement.

Even worse are the ones who are fourty years old, but still are living in their parent's basement. :egad:

Geifodd

October 5th 2005, 12:14 PM

:lol: One variety of fluff-bunny Satanist I've met is the perpetual teenager. They're still rebelling against their parents ... even though they're fourty years old and no longer living in their parent's basement.

Even worse are the ones who are fourty years old, but still are living in their parent's basement. :egad:

:lol: you said it! And then there are the Satanists who try to deny their Christian roots by cutting out all references to the Jewish and Christian cultures in their belief systems. Some will even go so far as to deny that "Satan" is really a Judaic term, and they will claim that it was "originally" Sanskrit or some other language (and of course I have yet to see any conclusive evidence of such). However, even though it's okay to call Him Satan, you're not allowed to call Him "the Devil" because "that's just too Christian-sounding." Such people have a big problem with folks like myself who identify as Devil Worshipers. They'll say that "Devil Worshipers are really just another kind of Christianity" (much like what some fluff-bunny Pagans claim about Satanism in general), never quite realizing that the word "Satanism" which they love so much was first coined by Christians. The word "Satanist" did not exist until Christians coined it during the medieval era. Seems kind of two-faced to accuse your fellow Satanists of being "too Christian" when you yourself are using a term that was first coined and used by Christians. (Generic "you" here -- not talking to anyone specifically.)

Satanism has grown out of other sources than just the Judeo-Christian culture, including various forms of Paganism and even the works of Crowley. But even though we majorly disagree with Judaism and Christianity, the more mature Satanists will tell you that our Judeo-Christian roots are important and should not be ignored or denied. However, there sure are a lot of "fluffy" Satanists out there who want to ignore and deny these roots, and claim that Satanism "has absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish or Christian cultures." My opinion is, "If you are so edgy to divorce yourself from the Jewish and Christian cultures completely, why do you even bother to use the term 'Satanist,' which itself grew out of the Christian culture?"

Heathen Dawn

October 5th 2005, 12:20 PM

Usually, from what I've seen, it's the other way around...Many of the Lightsiders I've ever met have been highly critical and even intolerant of Darksiders.

Haven’t you heard? Tolerance and diversity are out of fashion these days. “Yes, I’m open-minded, but not so open-minded that my brains fall out” is the rallying cry of everyone who wants to be free of the shackles of that old-fashioned thing.

When I use the term "fluff-bunny," I use it to identify a Pagan who doesn't even want to accept that there is a dark side to Paganism. Not somebody who just focuses on the light side. Somebody who focuses on the light side can still be respectful of the dark side without actually following it. But the fluff bunnies I have met will go so far as to say that any "darkside Pagans" are not really Pagans at all.

I don’t know what the word “fluffbunny” means. I don’t know what the word “heretic” means. (hint, hint)

I, well, experimented with the shadow side of divinity in the past. Even tried gothism for a few weeks. I gave it up because it drained my energies. It’s not for me, not even in combination with the light side.

It seems to me most religions are either darkness-focussed or a balance of both sides. I now just accept the idea that I’m one of the white, I mean, black sheep of religion, and of paganism in particular. But that doesn’t mean I accept insults.

technomage

October 5th 2005, 12:23 PM

I now just accept the idea that I’m one of the white, I mean, black sheep of religion, and of paganism in particular.

Does that mean you feel sheepish, or woold ewe suggest not goat-ing there. :hehe:

But that doesn’t mean I accept insults.

Seriously, I understand not accepting insults ... but it is also possible to see insults where none are intended.

Geifodd

October 5th 2005, 12:52 PM

Heathen Dawn,

It seems to me most religions are either darkness-focussed or a balance of both sides. I now just accept the idea that I’m one of the white, I mean, black sheep of religion, and of paganism in particular. But that doesn’t mean I accept insults.

As well you shouldn't. Insults are for schoolchildren. However, I have to admit that from where I'm standing, it would seem that most religions are either light-focused or a balance of both sides. People who favor the dark side of divinity seem to be the minority, not the majority. However my perspective might be biased on this.

JardinPrayer

October 5th 2005, 01:13 PM

Just got back from my trek to Florida and found myself wondering...what happened to "Ask a Wiccan?" I do find this discussion fascinating, but I was hoping for more Q&A when I stopped in to catch up on the thread.

To that end, here's a question:

Justin: What are your beliefs and practices with regard to spells and the ability to influence people and events with them?

technomage

October 5th 2005, 01:19 PM

Justin: What are your beliefs and practices with regard to spells and the ability to influence people and events with them?

I've seen evidence that such things are effective. However, because of my own vows and the rules of my tradition, I am not permitted to do any "person affecting" spells without the explicit permission of the person (preferrably with them actually in the ritual), and I'm not allowed to do any "harmful" spells under any circumstances--even if the person asks for it (and there have been some who have).

There are exceptions, but those exceptions must be along the lines of physical self defense: minimum force necessary to defuse the situation, and only in cases of actual threat of immanent harm. But if it ever gets to that point, it's probably already to the point of physical self-defense.

For the most part, on those (relatively rare) situations where I do magic, it's to affect my own situation, not that of other people. Indeed, I rarely accept requests to do anything but physical healing.

JardinPrayer

October 5th 2005, 01:26 PM

Indeed, I rarely accept requests to do anything but physical healing.

Would you be willing to share your most profound experience with healing magic?

technomage

October 5th 2005, 01:33 PM

Would you be willing to share your most profound experience with healing magic?

:lol: OK, but if it gets into TMI territory ... you asked.

My wife and I had tried for fifteen months to have a child--no luck. So we did a fertility spell ... and about six weeks later, she woke me up in the middle of the night to tell me she had to have a pear salad, and she had to have it NOW!

Oh, by the way--I'm clinically sterile. :teeth:

Not exactly "healing magic," because my situation didn't change ... but it's certainly the most statistically unlikely.

JardinPrayer

October 5th 2005, 01:36 PM

:lol: OK, but if it gets into TMI territory ... you asked.

My wife and I had tried for fifteen months to have a child--no luck. So we did a fertility spell ... and about six weeks later, she woke me up in the middle of the night to tell me she had to have a pear salad, and she had to have it NOW!

Oh, by the way--I'm clinically sterile. :teeth:

Not exactly "healing magic," because my situation didn't change ... but it's certainly the most statistically unlikely.

I would certainly classify that as "profound," and not TMI...you were very tactful!

However, you did give me the perfect opening for my next question:

What is a pear salad? I must have this recipe!

technomage

October 5th 2005, 01:47 PM

What is a pear salad? I must have this recipe!

:lol: Well, it sounds nasty ... but I tried it (I tried nearly everything my wife craved, except for the hot spicy stuff).

Take canned pear halfs, put a very light coating of mayonnaise on the cut side, and sprinkle grated cheese on the mayo. Like I said, it sounds absolutely awful ... but it wasn't half bad.

EDITED TO ADD: That was the cheap and sleazy version that we used that night--I'm not sure if there's not a fancier version.

JardinPrayer

October 5th 2005, 01:55 PM

:lol: Well, it sounds nasty ... but I tried it (I tried nearly everything my wife craved, except for the hot spicy stuff).

Take canned pear halfs, put a very light coating of mayonnaise on the cut side, and sprinkle grated cheese on the mayo. Like I said, it sounds absolutely awful ... but it wasn't half bad.

EDITED TO ADD: That was the cheap and sleazy version that we used that night--I'm not sure if there's not a fancier version.

:egad:

tmancour

October 6th 2005, 10:06 PM

Arion, just a few questions:

Never a problem. Bring it on.

I will not insult you by drawing comparisons between your Horned God and my Satan.

I don't consider it an insult -- comparative religions and all. I know that historically and culturally speaking, many aspects of the Horned God were absorbed by Satan. I don't consider it a problem, and I recognize them as two distinct dieties.

However, I would be much interested to know if you consider the God and the Goddess to be conscious entities, or if you perceive Them as being more like impersonal forces that are merely personified through human symbolism.

Well . . . both, actually. I consider them a personification of impersonal forces that have, in their intersection with humanity, developed individual consciousness through our investment of our collective belief and attention. The symbolic element allows us to communicate and influence the impersonal forces through the agency of the conscious divinity.

I would also be interested to know what you would think of Them and Their roles if you were a hard polytheist (I am assuming that you aren't, but please correct me if my assumption is inaccurate). If you were a hard polytheist, what two deities of Pagan mythology would you most likely identify with your God and Goddess in particular?

Actually, I am a hard polytheist with pantheist frosting. I was originally trained in an Alexandrian tradition coven (more or less), and when that imploded I studied druidism and other forms of paganism. I consider myself a Druidic Wizard, placing a healthy emphasis on the theologic application of Wisdom. My patron divinity is Brighid, in all of Her forms. I also have an affinity with other goddess. The god who I have the most affinity to tends to be Cernunos, in several forms, and occasionally others.

But I appreciate the maxim "All gods are one god and all goddesses are one goddess." The polytheistic Gods are themselves manifestations of the primal God and Goddess, i.e. the masculine and feminine Ur deities of our hunter-gatherer forebears. I contend that the human race cannot spend 100,000 years worshipping the Mother and the Hunter and suddenly go, "Oh, we discovered agriculture; we don't need the older gods anymore." or "Oh, look! Writing! Guess we don't need all of those pesky gods anymore -- let's just go with the one." Veneration and worship (intentional or unintentional) of the Elder Gods is appropriate and is usually done by everyone at some point (psychologically speaking). Sex and Death, two human universals. Perhaps the only two. You can't wish them away by going all Cosmic Divinity.

I am guessing that you might identify the God specifically with Pan, and the Goddess specifically with somebody like Inanna/Ishtar. Would this be accurate?

I usually use the Celtic names, Cerridwen and Curnunos, to honor my ancestors and 'cause they sound cool, but essentially you are correct.

Brighid (aka St. Brighid) is the Celtic Athena. Warrior/craft goddess, essentially the Goddess of Art and Technology, with an Elemental Fire base, and a maiden/mother/crone triplicity. She also runs baking, hearth, smithcraft, poetry, healing, recreational sex, inspiration, protection of newborns, and vengeance. As goddesses go, She's pretty useful. She was also one of the few deities who was recognized across the Pan-Celtic world -- the Brigantes were a confederation of tribes in Southern Scotland/Northern England who had Her as a patron. Her survival as St. Brigit in Ireland and St. Brighead in Wales show how potent She was in Her prime.

I even belong to a completely online Order, Ord Brighedeach, devoted to Her adoration and worship. I'm the First Shift Flamekeeper of Cill Gius, meaning I burn a candle to Her and meditate one day out of nineteen (Her number -- the number of years it takes to rectify the Lunar and Solar calendars.)

lee_merrill

October 8th 2005, 07:26 PM

Hi everyone,

Lee: Well, again, I'm not asking if this is true, I'm asking if we should love this.

Justin: Is it any different from the cow that tears the grass out, and grinds it to death between its teeth? Lee, one more time--LIFE FEEDS ON LIFE. What part of this are you failing to accept?
Well, again, I'm not asking if life feeds on life, I'm asking if we should love the fact that there are animal predators.

Justin: Do you love your own life? Yet you also kill to eat. So in answer to that question--what's the difference between Lee eating a hamburger, and Orca eating a baby seal?
I don't love that fact that a cow has to be killed so I can eat meat, no, I don't love that. I don't refuse to eat meat because of that, but I don't love that aspect, there is something wrong in nature, which of course, cannot be acknowledged if nature is all imbued with God, and it all expresses God's nature.

So we have pie-in-the-sky in heaven, or after the end of the world?
No, God will change nature so that the lion will eat straw like the ox.

Arion: As in being a living entity that respirates, defecates, consumes and reproduces. To aspire to anything else is to reject LIFE.
Life could be different, though:

1 Corinthians 6:13 "Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"-- but God will destroy them both.

So all this will change, and I would indeed think it an improvement not to have to have even indoor plumbing.

Endless. Staring. Happy.

You say so.
Well, we had this discussion already, and my reply is that you don't understand good worship, in the presence of God! Then the response was that you do have good worship experiences, so now, well, we can't have it both ways.

I do believe there will be much to do in the new earth, by the way, the command to subdue the earth will not be rescinded, so believers will not be in heaven, as a rule, rather, "the earth he has given to man," and work to do on it, even on the new earth.

Lee: Though we cannot change the order of nature now, we can see that sorrow, until it ends, it's a picture of sin, yet not believing in sin makes it impossible to have any objection here.

Arion: How is sorrow, a perfectly normal, natural, and HUMAN emotion, a "picture of sin"?
No, I didn't mean sorrow per se, I meant the cause of that sorrow, killer whales drowning baby gray whales. Surely you could see it appropriate to see some sorrow there. But I agree that sorrow will be done away with, as well, which leads to the next point.

Arion: When you reject sorrow, you reject empathy. You reject memory. You reject the very pain that makes you human.
Yes, so why the response "what is there not to love?" in your and Justin's response about the killer whales? You have rejected empathy, I would say.

If a painless existance is what you desire, there are a number of opiates that can provide just that.
Wouldn't infinite pain be akin to hell, though? If people live forever, then pain stopping at some time, I would not object to, and with the end of pain, sorrow also would end.

I do not require a divinity to instruct me that the human predator isn't to be tolerated in my society. Figured that one out on my own. So did a couple thousand generations of my ancestors.
Is this not asking humans not to be humans, though? We need not concern ourselves (Wiccans say) so much with questions of if beings are good or evil, beings (including human ones) just are.

... it should mean something to you that an animal -- or a plant, for that matter -- gave its life for you.
But "gave" implies an intent. I agree that an intent should be acknowledged, now the sun shines and provides (with water) the most crucial elements of life, why should we thank the sun and the water? They have no will or consciousness at all. Should we thank the very few atoms in the virtual vacuum of space, for giving us room to ride around it? Should we thank nothing for something?

By the way, this shows that life does not invariably feed on life, plants generally do not, for instance.

Is Adoration worship? Respect? Affinity? Appreciation? Love? Veneration? Subserviance?
Well, yes, to all but affinity...

My favorite fluff-bunny...
Well, I feel I must make a comment on this exchange, HD caught you all fair and square in being ... intolerant, and it might do you good to acknowledge that! Now there is another irony, in that HD is also being intolerant of the intolerance. It seems that tolerating all views in every way cannot be done properly!

Well, I would agree, and again, I think it would be good to acknowledge that.

Blessings,
Lee

Geifodd

October 8th 2005, 07:51 PM

Thank you for your answers Arion, you have been very helpful.

Lee:

Well, again, I'm not asking if life feeds on life, I'm asking if we should love the fact that there are animal predators.

It doesn't matter if we do or don't -- Nature doesn't care what we think. And Nature is a whole lot bigger than we are.

I don't love that fact that a cow has to be killed so I can eat meat, no, I don't love that. I don't refuse to eat meat because of that, but I don't love that aspect, there is something wrong in nature, which of course, cannot be acknowledged if nature is all imbued with God, and it all expresses God's nature.

If you really felt that there was something "wrong" with Nature because of the fact that certain organisms are carnivores, then you wouldn't be allowing yourself to eat meat. If you complain about the moral implications of killing an animal for food, even while you are allowing yourself to eat the animal, then you are a hypocrite.

No, God will change nature so that the lion will eat straw like the ox.

Don't look up, you might just get a pie in your face. :hehe:

No, I didn't mean sorrow per se, I meant the cause of that sorrow, killer whales drowning baby gray whales. Surely you could see it appropriate to see some sorrow there. But I agree that sorrow will be done away with, as well, which leads to the next point.

The problem with human beings is that they are constantly trying to anthropomorphize the world around them, in order to make themselves feel better and more secure, and to give themselves the illusion of being "included" in some imaginary cosmic order. Human beings are even willing to write holy scriptures and to spend centuries indoctrinating themselves and each other to believe this drivel. It is curious that Man is the only animal in Nature who will not be himself.

Sorry can't help it, I'm an LHPer.

Is this not asking humans not to be humans, though? We need not concern ourselves (Wiccans say) so much with questions of if beings are good or evil, beings (including human ones) just are.

Nothing is truly "good" or "evil" in and of itself -- these are subjective value judgments that we human beings impose upon the reality around us. They are adjectives used to describe nouns, not nouns themselves.

lee_merrill

October 9th 2005, 09:02 PM

Hi Geifodd,

Nature doesn't care what we think. And Nature is a whole lot bigger than we are.
But I don't think mere size has much to do with moral imperatives. Nor does what Nature does or doesn't think of our opinions! But I agree with the aspect of what you seem to be saying here, that to worship Nature makes morality an "it doesn't matter" business. Though the proponents of this position are quick enough to cry foul if they have been impinged upon. And they don't say "I dislike your moral preference," either!

If you complain about the moral implications of killing an animal for food, even while you are allowing yourself to eat the animal, then you are a hypocrite.
Well, some people do desist from eating meat for that very reason. But I don't think it immoral that animals are eaten, yet I don't love that aspect of steak and shrimp, either. But if an animal is humanely dispatched, I see no moral problem. I wouldn't boil a lobster alive, for instance, in order to have it be more tasty.

Lee: No, God will change nature so that the lion will eat straw like the ox.

Geifodd: Don't look up, you might just get a pie in your face.
Being omnivorous, I also eat pies. Not straw, though. I guess omnivorous is a bit of a misnomer.

Lee: I meant the cause of that sorrow, killer whales drowning baby gray whales. Surely you could see it appropriate to see some sorrow there.

Geifodd: The problem with human beings is that they are constantly trying to anthropomorphize the world around them...
I actually don't think whales and dolphins are humans in a wet suit! But can there be no empathy with other living creatures? That was my point, just like not eating live clams with a bit of lemon.

It is curious that Man is the only animal in Nature who will not be himself.
There are areas of my self, in fact, that I would like not to be. I think we can set our sights higher than "take whatever exists now in every aspect of nature." Presumably you believe in supernature? Then what would the agenda of the supernatural beings be? If they have purposes, I would like to hear what you think they might be, and I also wonder what an LPHer is.

Nothing is truly "good" or "evil" in and of itself -- these are subjective value judgments that we human beings impose upon the reality around us.
Then I assume you make no objections to any sort of injury whatsoever? On principle...

Blessings,
Lee

Geifodd

October 10th 2005, 06:43 PM

Hello Lee,

But I don't think mere size has much to do with moral imperatives.

It sure doesn't.

Nor does what Nature does or doesn't think of our opinions! But I agree with the aspect of what you seem to be saying here, that to worship Nature makes morality an "it doesn't matter" business.

I think I understand what you mean here, but I just want to clarify something very quickly: I believe it is fairly obvious that "morality" is an aspect of human nature. However, morality is not shared by the rest of Nature -- and there is a whole lot more to the rest of Nature than there is to human beings. So I am not saying that it "doesn't matter." I'm saying that I believe human beings should not expect their morality to be enforced on a cosmic level. I view this as both a blessing and a curse.

Also, human morality should not expected to be consistent across the board either, considering that different humans have different ideas of what it is and means to be "moral," depending upon geographical areas, cultural backgrounds, points of reference and circumstance.

Though the proponents of this position are quick enough to cry foul if they have been impinged upon. And they don't say "I dislike your moral preference," either!

True enough, there are many fluff-bunnies who claim to worship Nature, but all they worship is sunshine and daffodils and unicorns and faery princesses and Satan knows what else. Take one of these fluff-bunnies and throw 'em in the middle of a hurricane like Katrina and I doubt they would continue to see the world under such rose-tinted glasses.

Being omnivorous, I also eat pies. Not straw, though. I guess omnivorous is a bit of a misnomer.

Ah, you have a sense of humor! I like you. :smile:

I actually don't think whales and dolphins are humans in a wet suit! But can there be no empathy with other living creatures? That was my point, just like not eating live clams with a bit of lemon.

Surely we can empathize with reasonably intelligent animals, such as dogs and cats and apes. But what I meant is, human beings in many religions somehow believe that there is some sort of cosmic force or policeman that is going to enforce human morals on a cosmic level -- call it Karma, the Will of God, or whatever. Mayhap it is just because I am a Satanist and I am biased in my own Luciferian worldview, but this has never made much sense to me, considering that if it were true, human beings would have no need for prisons, or for any kind of law enforcement on their part.

There are areas of my self, in fact, that I would like not to be. I think we can set our sights higher than "take whatever exists now in every aspect of nature." Presumably you believe in supernature? Then what would the agenda of the supernatural beings be? If they have purposes, I would like to hear what you think they might be,

You can read about my view on this matter at the following webpage, which essentially describes my creed in detail:

http://www.theisticsatanism.com/geifodd/creed.html

and I also wonder what an LPHer is.

LHPer. It's short for "Left Hand Pather." In the Western occult tradition, spiritual paths are often divided between two primary approaches: the Right Hand Path and the Left Hand Path. These terms originate from Hindu Tantric systems.

"Right Hand Path" is usually used to describe light-oriented spiritualities which place emphasis on following established traditions, seeing yourself as part of a fixed societal or cosmic order, and viewing the universe as somehow reflecting human morality on a cosmic level (as in Karma or some such, and "good vs. evil" dualisms also fit under this). RHP systems usually consider the spirit world to be either separate from or somehow superior to the physical world of the flesh (which is considered "mundane"), although there are exceptions (Gardner's idea of the "Great Work" being an example).

"Left Hand Path" is usually used to describe dark-oriented spiritualities which place emphasis on breaking established traditions and developing your own individualized systems, rebelliously exploring what is unknown or taboo to a particular society or societies, and viewing the universe as being an amoral battleground in which various independent forces (not just two) compete for survival and propagation. LHP systems usually consider the spirit world to simply be another dimension of the physical world of the flesh (which is considered "divine"), although there are exceptions (the Temple of Set being an example).

Blavatsky's Theosophy would be a primary example of a Right Hand Path occult tradition, while Satanism would be a primary example of a Left Hand Path occult tradition. Some people believe that there is a "Middle Path" in which different aspects of the two approaches can be syncretized together. Others will tell you that this terminology is outdated and no longer useful in the post-modern world. Personally I do not use this terminology often anymore, but I am an old fogie and I still like scaring some of the other occultists by telling them that I'm a LIBERAL LEFT-WING LEFT-HAND PATHER and going "Boogedy boogedy boo!" at 'em. I am a crotchety old man, what can I say.

Then I assume you make no objections to any sort of injury whatsoever? On principle...

No -- I have my own subjective ideas of what "Good" and "Evil" are. To me, things like personal liberty, freedom of expression and good ol' fashioned peace and quiet are Good. And things like tyranny, oppression, bigotry and ignorance are Evil. However, I accept that these things are only "Good" and/or "Evil" because I characterize them as such, and that my morals are not reflected, enforced, or even necessarily condoned on a cosmic level.

tmancour

October 10th 2005, 06:58 PM

I think I understand what you mean here, but I just want to clarify something very quickly: I believe it is fairly obvious that "morality" is an aspect of human nature. However, morality is not shared by the rest of Nature -- and there is a whole lot more to the rest of Nature than there is to human beings. So I am not saying that it "doesn't matter." I'm saying that I believe human beings should not expect their morality to be enforced on a cosmic level. I view this as both a blessing and a curse.

Also, human morality should not expected to be consistent across the board either, considering that different humans have different ideas of what it is and means to be "moral," depending upon geographical areas, cultural backgrounds, points of reference and circumstance.

Well said!

True enough, there are many fluff-bunnies who claim to worship Nature, but all they worship is sunshine and daffodils and unicorns and faery princesses and Satan knows what else. Take one of these fluff-bunnies and throw 'em in the middle of a hurricane like Katrina and I doubt they would continue to see the world under such rose-tinted glasses.

Lol! I live in North Carolina. I love hurricanes. They are nature writ large, a none-so-gentle reminder that we're just guests here. Yes, the suffering and destruction can be devestating -- I've gone through Hugo, Floyd, Bertha, Andrew and Fran. I've seen my share of destruction, and on a retail level it is very sad. But such crises do bring out the best and worst of humanity, extremes which are necessary to forge a strong individual character.

But my favorite part is stripping down as close to skyclad as I can get away with and standing in the naked force of the wind and rain.

It makes me feel all druidy.

Ah, you have a sense of humor! I like you. :smile:

I like Lee, too, though we disagree more often than not. He can take the heat, and dish it out so politely that you don't even notice sometimes. That makes him worthy of caution.

Personally I do not use this terminology often anymore, but I am an old fogie and I still like scaring some of the other occultists by telling them that I'm a LIBERAL LEFT-WING LEFT-HAND PATHER and going "Boogedy boogedy boo!" at 'em. I am a crotchety old man, what can I say.

I can appreciate that. While I couldn't claim an exclusive foot on either path, I prefer convenient D&D terminology: I'm Lawful Neutral. Mostly.

Arion

lee_merrill

October 13th 2005, 09:12 PM

Hi everyone,

Geifodd: ... human beings in many religions somehow believe that there is some sort of cosmic force or policeman that is going to enforce human morals on a cosmic level -- call it Karma, the Will of God, or whatever. ... this has never made much sense to me, considering that if it were true, human beings would have no need for prisons, or for any kind of law enforcement on their part.
That's a good point, unless prisons and policemen were part of the enforcement!

Romans 13:1-2 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

And God might have a purpose other than a simple setup where everyone always obeys right from the start:

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Geifodd: "I believe that Jehovah is a Spirit who desires to be recognized and worshiped as God over all other beings, and who wishes to maintain control over humans by means of hardcore orthodoxy and the legislation of morality."
Then isn't this saying that desiring control is a real evil? We can't just determine this for ourselves? Just thinking some heresy in view of your creed here, and perhaps I think (for myself) that it is good for Jehovah to desire to be worshipped as God! Why would you not accept that? For me, and for Jehovah...

I believe that the Prince of Darkness is greater in power than Jehovah.
You might be interested in this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51819), then...

Arion: ... so politely that you don't even notice sometimes. That makes him worthy of caution.
You have been warned... :eek:

Blessings,
Lee (who is also a North Carolinian)

Richbee

December 16th 2005, 02:04 AM

Hi everyone,

That's a good point, unless prisons and policemen were part of the enforcement!

Romans 13:1-2 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

And God might have a purpose other than a simple setup where everyone always obeys right from the start:

Romans 11:32 For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

Then isn't this saying that desiring control is a real evil? We can't just determine this for ourselves? Just thinking some heresy in view of your creed here, and perhaps I think (for myself) that it is good for Jehovah to desire to be worshipped as God! Why would you not accept that? For me, and for Jehovah...

You might be interested in this thread (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=51819), then...

You have been warned... :eek:

Blessings,

Lee (who is also a North Carolinian)

Well posted.

Amber22291984

December 19th 2005, 04:40 PM

tmancour

December 20th 2005, 03:06 PM

Hi
I am a practising witch and I was waching TV and babysitting the other day, I got up to go to the rest room and I looked in the mirror and I was pale my hair was black and my eyes where grayish blue, my hair was in tight curls at if it was permed and that is not what I was thinking about and that is not what i look like at all. I have brown eyes and I dyed my hair red naturlly brown and I even looked at my hair in my hand away from the mirror and it was black. I also have naturally curly hair but never permed it. after I left the restroom I sat back down on the couch and wated till the kids parents returned and they didn't seem to notis so i went back in the restroom and my face and hair was back to normal. What the heck happened? I don't understand, was it a glammor spell or what?

In Wiccan tradition mirrors are gateways, and caution should always be used around them. What happened to you could be ascribed to several different causes, natural (mental) and supernatural. Without knowing specifics, it's hard to say. Has this happened before? Have you done mirror work before? Seances? I'd say it was probably a fluke occurance, and it may mean nothing. If it repeats, then it might be worth further study. What kind of clothing were "you" wearing? Modern or archaic? It could be helpful.

Arion

James Peter

December 20th 2005, 07:29 PM

What makes you certain that what you were seeing was actually you? Were the features other than your hair, eyes and skin tone identical? Did you look the same age? I'm just curious although my gut feeling is that what you were seeing was something along the lines of your 'true self' - although what the significance of the differences are I'm not sure. I'm assuming it was more than just a fleeting glance? Hmm...

Curious...

Krusader

December 20th 2005, 07:33 PM

Hi
I am a practising witch and I was waching TV and babysitting the other day, I got up to go to the rest room and I looked in the mirror and I was pale my hair was black and my eyes where grayish blue, my hair was in tight curls at if it was permed and that is not what I was thinking about and that is not what i look like at all. I have brown eyes and I dyed my hair red naturlly brown and I even looked at my hair in my hand away from the mirror and it was black. I also have naturally curly hair but never permed it. after I left the restroom I sat back down on the couch and wated till the kids parents returned and they didn't seem to notis so i went back in the restroom and my face and hair was back to normal. What the heck happened? I don't understand, was it a glammor spell or what?

It's possible, Amber, that this was a supernatural message from God: "Now we see through a glass (mirror) darkly, but then, face to face."

For now we see through a glass, darkly

First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (Bible, 1 Corinthians 13, verse 11)

When I was a child, I spake as a child,
I understood as a child, I thought as a child:
but when I became a man, I put away
childish things. For now we see through a
glass, darkly; but then face to face: now
I know in part; but then shall I know even
as also I am known

Pick up a Bible Amber and begin reading the Gospel of John. Your vision is dark, but God wants to see you face to face.

Durthorin

December 20th 2005, 10:36 PM

mommatney

June 19th 2007, 12:37 AM

I was reading through all of these past postings and wondering if you were still out there answering questions. I have many and do not even know where to begin. I don't even know if I am in the right place to be asking. I guess I should start with a history. I declare myself "Christian" only because I do not know what to call myself. In truth, I do not really have a name to call my beliefs. I question and doubt the validity of way too much of what I have been taught to be christian, what I have seen of christians that I have known, general history itself and all that jazz to really say that I am Christian. I have been doing research on Pagan/Wicca and keep coming back to it. I am really drawn to the ideas and thoughts I have read, but truly know very little. In all honesty, I was searching for the earliest recorded religion when I stumbled on this site. In my thought, start at the beginning and work from there. It seems that too much of the more commonly noted religions of today (and of the long past) have just borrowed parts of other practicing religions, so it seemed logical to me in my search for "what am I?" stop chasing backwards from modern day christianity or other religions of today that 'borrowed' from some historical religion and just go to the beginning. Basically, to get to the bottom line is> I am lost, can you help?

Lazarus

June 19th 2007, 12:48 AM

Durthorin

June 20th 2007, 07:44 AM

Durthorin

June 20th 2007, 07:45 AM

I asked this question in another thread concerning Wicca belief but never received an answer. Perhaps you can help me.
What does Wicca have to say about celebacy? Is there a tradition of celebacy in Wicca?

It is a pesonal choice but not one we really take a great deal of value in. There is no real tradition that I know of celbacy.

tmancour

June 25th 2007, 01:04 PM

Yeah, celibacy wasn't ever a big thing for Pagans, as such. Really more of a masochistic monotheistic thing. Most Pagans I know like to screw.

Arion

Lazarus

June 26th 2007, 10:00 AM

Yeah, celibacy wasn't ever a big thing for Pagans, as such. Really more of a masochistic monotheistic thing. Most Pagans I know like to screw.

Arion

Your understanding of celebacy seems almost as deep as your sense of romance.

Lili

July 2nd 2007, 01:58 PM

I have a few questions about Wicca.

Do Wiccans believe God(s) is good?

Do Wiccans believe that God(s) gives commandments?

Do Wiccans believe in a judgment in the afterlife?

Durthorin

July 3rd 2007, 04:41 PM

Do Wiccans believe God(s) is good?

Good/Bad are human perspective on what the Gods actions. The Gods are in most cases we think of them is good. others we think of as having a rather twisted sense of humor.

[quote=Lili;2005781]
Do Wiccans believe that God(s) gives commandments?

No. They give you advise, usually right but they don't order you to behave in a certain way.

Do Wiccans believe in a judgment in the afterlife?

For the most part no.

mommatney

July 7th 2007, 11:03 PM

Sorry, it has taken me so long to get back to you in your offer to answer my questions. Honestly, I do not know where to begin. I guess when I used the term, "lost", it may have not been the best choice of wording, but it feels that way sometimes. I am actually, just trying to answer questions in my head almost too numerous to count. I do believe there is/are a 'higher' power(s) than us. I acknowledge the bible as a great book of historical and ethical information, but feel that 'man' has had his hands in there way too much to count it as valid as our instructional guide for life. I believe that it has been edited and changed to suit the political or otherwise ambitions of historical figures entirely too often to trust it as more than a great historical viewpoint of the world by one group of people(s). So, in saying that and acknowledging that the closest thing to a religious upbringing I may have had was Christian in nature, this is where I got the word, "lost'. I have in the past when asked about my religion just simply said , "I believe" and let the other person take that as they feel best in doing. I gues that is where I am. I am happy in myself, happy in my life ( as best as possible, I guess), and try to live my life in the way that my inner self tells me to do, but I would really like to learn more about the pagan view points on life. I really don't NEED to have a label to put on myself, but I am a neat and tidy sort of person and I guess I like labels. I think the pagan view may be one that I can connect with, but really don't even know where to begin to find out. Where do I start? What do I ask? What should I know? Am I even on the right track? Follow?

mommatney

July 7th 2007, 11:07 PM

Oops, The above reply was intended as reply to Durthorin's offer to help me out with questions. I am winging this posting thing, and although I use my computer often, I rarely post anywhere.

tmancour

July 9th 2007, 10:00 AM

I live right behind the Wicked Witch of the West's old castle--which has, of course, been largely abandoned since she had that unfortunate accident with a bucket of water. Since she received her fatal injury while in the process of being a wicked witch, it was counted as an occupational fatality--we hired a law firm (Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe) to get her heirs properly compensated. Now if only we could get rid of those dratted flying monkeys ... they really drive the property values down, and the Homeowner's association is really displeased, because Orkin won't take the contract.

(And I really live in North Carolina, USA.)

Hey, Justin, whereabouts? I live in Durham!

Arion

Marnikca

July 28th 2007, 03:46 PM

tmancour

July 30th 2007, 09:56 AM

I apologize if this has been asked before...

I have read the Celtic and Pagan beliefs about All Hallows Eve, and I am trying to get the Wiccan perspective on what it means to be born on that day. Any info would be greatly appreciated.

thanks
While there are no hard and fast rules for what it means to be born on a particular day (except Feb 29, leap year, which means you're screwed for birthday parties) the general concensus seems to be that there is a "specialness" of some sort that associates you with that holiday. My daughter, for example, was concieved at Beltane, and has some unusual perspectives on things for a five year old. Samhain, in particular, is special because it is traditionally the time of year when "the veil between the worlds is thinnest". The actual "thin spot" is astrologically based, and usually occurs sometime after the actual holiday. As to what, exactly, this might mean, accounts vary.

Your best bet is to consult a qualified astrologer and get a full chart done. But first get at least an elementary education in astrology so that you understand what they are telling you. If there is anything of significance in your life tied to that date, it should show up on your chart like a beacon.

Arion the Blue
High Druid of Durham

technomage

August 13th 2007, 11:35 AM

Hey, Justin, whereabouts? I live in Durham!

Arion
Durham? I'm so sorry.... :lol:

Seriously, I live about an hour west of Charlotte.

Bill the Cat

August 13th 2007, 11:47 AM

Justin!!!! :highfive:

tmancour

September 17th 2007, 11:46 AM

Durham? I'm so sorry.... :lol:

Seriously, I live about an hour west of Charlotte.

Actually, we in Durham are pretty happy about our rep . . . people don't mess with you when you tell them you're from Durham, and it scares the Yankees away. Lowest cost-of-living in the Triangle -- I LOVE my Bull City!

Many Pagans in your neck of the woods?

But I digress . . .

Arion

wowmy_sn

December 3rd 2007, 11:00 PM

I've read many of your posts... you're growing on me.
Wanna be friends (or at least PM back and forth)?

:blush:

tmancour

December 5th 2007, 01:22 AM

It's a matter of perspective. And my wife of 10 years (and another 7 living together) thinks I'm terribly romantic. She doesn't mind the blatant sexual references. I'm just that way.

Arion

UnAnaray

October 26th 2008, 11:41 PM

Durthorin

October 27th 2008, 09:29 AM

Seri

October 27th 2008, 03:04 PM

Hello, I have a personal question. I haven't been able to find anyone that could help me yet. I just started my journey in wicca, and I have a really good friend who is having a problem and I was wondering what I could do for him. If you interested in helping me let me know and I will tell you more about the situation.

I would ask that you answer the big three questions first.

1. Is your friend comfortable and agreeable to the idea of using energy-work to help with the problem?
2. Is it for the highest good to do so?
3. Do you both realize that the follow-through is absolutely necessary to the success of the solution?

If the answer to the first question is no, then do not proceed with any type of energy-work. Use mundane-only solutions. If the friend isn't comfortable with it, then their wishes should be respected. For question two, you must take time to think through the issue and meditate on the paths before you. Not every problem can or should be dealt with by specific energy-work (I differentiate here because I use Crowley's definition of magick, which includes "mundane" actions towards praxis, while energy-work tends to be taken as ritual or otherwise non-material aid) and if it is not appropriate, then don't do it. Lastly, magickal workings must include a follow-through. You cannot arrive at a place that you do not depart for in the first place. You can't win the lottery if you aren't buying the ticket and you won't get interviews if you aren't applying for jobs in the first place.

If you are able to answer yes to all three of these questions, then you can help in a number of ways. I always recommend starting with the most basic methods and moving up as necessary. By most basic, I mean really basic. Listening to and discussing things with the friend would be my first step. Then I would move to direct help after that. Generally, the highest good will entail that the individual learns to adapt and succeed, though this is sometimes not the case by some accounts. The highest good is an eventual thing. What appears good may not be in accordance with the highest good.

I'm sure Durthorin will give you good advice when it comes to energy-work. I heartily encourage you to consider if it is proper and necessary before using it.

one_lost_coin

October 28th 2008, 10:04 AM

Who forgives you of your sins?

Durthorin

October 28th 2008, 01:06 PM

Who forgives you of your sins?

We don't have the concept of sin in our theology. Therefore no forgiveness for it is needed. Its like asking you as a Christian about your karma.

Blessed Be, Dur

Lizard

October 28th 2008, 02:02 PM

Do you have any good Soul Cake recipes for All Souls Day (well that is what us Christians call it anyway)

one_lost_coin

October 28th 2008, 02:42 PM

We don't have the concept of sin in our theology. Therefore no forgiveness for it is needed. Its like asking you as a Christian about your karma.

Blessed Be, Dur

No concept of sin huh. So then murder and stealing are ok with wiccans?

If you have any keys or locks on the door of your house or car then whether you want to accept it or not you have a concept of sin.

Or is what you mean to say your beliefs are not completely thought out and your group hasn't gotten around to developing the theology yet?

Seri

October 28th 2008, 03:28 PM

No concept of sin huh. So then murder and stealing are ok with wiccans?

If you have any keys or locks on the door of your house or car then whether you want to accept it or not you have a concept of sin.

Or is what you mean to say your beliefs are not completely thought out and your group hasn't gotten around to developing the theology yet?

We do have a concept of harm. Sin, however, entails a separation from the divine, which Paganism and Wicca do not presuppose.

The doctrine of sin claims that we are separated from divinity because all actions somehow fail to meet God's standard. You fail to show love in all things and you are cursed by sin. Your examples are extremes of this, not standards of it. Moreover, the doctrine of sin entails eternal suffering (hell) for those who do not repent to your concept of divinity. Pagan karma entails a relative punishment equivalent to the action, as well as relative positive reinforcement for beneficial actions.

Pagans and Wiccans know that the world does not follow a good code of ethics and morals to our liking. We realize that people take actions that are absolutely harmful to others. This does not require your doctrine of sin to realize.

one_lost_coin

October 28th 2008, 03:47 PM

Before I ask about this good code and morals that you suggests exists I am curious to know what concept wiccans have of how the creation came about.

Seri

October 28th 2008, 04:00 PM

Before I ask about this good code and morals that you suggests exists I am curious to know what concept wiccans have of how the creation came about.

Pagans and Wiccans don't have a whole lot of dogma. Personally, I accept the Big Bang as a plausible explanation and some myth-writing Pagans have done the same, but with a metaphorical joining of the God and Goddess. Other Pagans and Wiccans do not share my view and tend to panentheists (which is valid, I suppose, though I don't agree with the rationale).

Please realize that you're asking for dogma from a religion of pragmatism. Paganism and Wicca do not operate on the same principles as the Abrahamic religions.

one_lost_coin

October 28th 2008, 04:31 PM

Seri

October 29th 2008, 05:45 AM

so if we bottom line this, there is some notion that there was a creator or creators described and accounted for no matter what explanations various groups have.

so you describe a uniting of some kind of god and goddess in your personal system. can you tell me what these god and goddess indicated they made us for?

The term "creator" is something you keep throwing in here. I don't posit an outside creative force. As a symbolic pantheist, I think of the God and Goddess as impersonal divinity (impersonal meaning "without personality" and, therefore, without intention). With that in mind, I tend to interpret the writings of various myth-writers as being a statement of co-incidence or synchronized action rather than one of causation. Tremendous amounts of energy moved in such a way as to form our existence. This happened on all "planes" simultaneously.

Ultimately, I do not believe that we are "created" (after all, I don't posit intention to divinity and thus cannot possibly believe that the God and Goddess desired anything, let alone do anything). We always were and will continue to be through the God and Goddess, insofar as existence exists (remember, current theory states that time began at the Big Bang, so there is a sort of twisted limiter on "eternity"). Material existence coincides with divinity, differing only in terms of perception. All existence is energy, moving at various speeds, and material existence is simply a different speed than non-material existence. I do not assume purpose to be inherent to existence, nor imposed by it. We desire and impose purpose on ourselves.

The obvious question that comes out from this view is "but what about when the universe collapses on itself, which scientists predict?" Answer: It's inconsequential. Paganism and Wicca both celebrate cycles. The Hermetic Principle of Correspondence states "As above, so below, as below, so above." Cycles are not limited to any single level of perception. Mythologically speaking, Paganism notes these cycles in the imagery of the God and Goddess. The Goddess is associated with the triplicate: Maiden, Mother, and Crone. She is the cycle of life. The God is associated with childhood, adolescence, maturity, and age through the seasons, mimicking that cycle. We see these cycles on a myriad of levels, from the reproduction and life cycles of cells, the functioning of organs (the heart and lungs, particularly) the passage of time (seasons, days, lunar phases, epochs), molecular half-life of substances (like uranium), weather, the water cycle (by which water evaporates, condenses, and cycles between the land and oceans), the emergence of emotion (particularly love), the process of creating, and even the things we create, like homes, cars, and computers. Every exchange of energy is cyclical in nature. If and when the universe collapses upon itself, then it is the return of the wheel full-circle. While we won't be around to tell, will it not be possible for the wheel to start anew with a new universe? The universe is in its childhood, still growing. In time, so will the wheel move and the life-cycle continue.

So often, we look for the exceptions, paying no heed to the pattern itself. Sunspots, eclipses, and the like that are a disruption to the pattern (or so we think) that are simply "out of the ordinary." Is it right to focus on "what is abnormal" instead of "what is consistent, reliable, and normal" when attending to the world? So often, people look at this worldview that lacks an eternal constant and declare that it is morally bankrupt or meaningless. They are so locked into presuppositions about so many abnormal things that they fail to realize what is so normal about life. These presuppositions make people feel as though only an objective source can spawn "true" morality and legitimate "judgment." This is simply not true. Morality is a function of intellect, a trait that humans possess. The desire for judgment comes from the desire for justice, which people sometimes feel is not met due to perceptions and presuppositions. With an open heart and open mind, one can look upon existence and see the intricate interactions between individuals and groups of individuals and see that justice played out slowly, measured solely by the action and inaction of others.

I believe that the biggest disjunct between us rests on the notion of cycles. I believe in recurring cycles. You appear to believe in a beginning and end, but not a recursion. As such, you believe that there is special importance to this iteration of existence and assign an eternity to adjudicate the limitations of the existence you believe in. My beliefs do not entail that my actions are without consequence, but rather that the consequences will occur and, as such, so will change in accordance with the pattern. Perhaps these consequences will not fulfill your notion of justice, but existence does not bend to narrow perspectives. I tend to find that most Pagans are moral people because Paganism is pragmatic and, therefore, is built upon the understanding of immediate and long-term consequences for actions rather than "eternal" consequences. You tend to find Christians to be moral people because of adherence to your belief that sin separates divinity from us and Christians repent of that sin for a positive "eternal" consequence.

Lizard

October 29th 2008, 05:48 AM

So? No good soul cake recipes?

Seri

October 29th 2008, 06:11 AM

So? No good soul cake recipes?

Never heard of that tradition before, but wikipedia led me to this. (http://www.godecookery.com/godeboke/foodtv/foodtv.html) Looks pretty tasty.

Durthorin

October 29th 2008, 09:06 AM

Thank you Seri well said an I find I have little to add to that reply

Lizard

October 29th 2008, 09:09 AM

Never heard of that tradition before, but wikipedia led me to this. (http://www.godecookery.com/godeboke/foodtv/foodtv.html) Looks pretty tasty.

Thanks. Looks like a good recipe. Not sure if I will use it though it calls for Sack Sherry, not even sure if my local bottle shop carries that nor how much it would cost.

And maybe the Soul Cake tradition is a post Christian Celtic tradition. But if recall correctly the celebration around all souls day (Nov. 2) evolved from Celtic pagan ceremonies of early fall.

one_lost_coin

October 29th 2008, 12:04 PM

The term "creator" is something you keep throwing in here. I don't posit an outside creative force. As a symbolic pantheist, I think of the God and Goddess as impersonal divinity (impersonal meaning "without personality" and, therefore, without intention). With that in mind, I tend to interpret the writings of various myth-writers as being a statement of co-incidence or synchronized action rather than one of causation. Tremendous amounts of energy moved in such a way as to form our existence. This happened on all "planes" simultaneously.

Ultimately, I do not believe that we are "created" (after all, I don't posit intention to divinity and thus cannot possibly believe that the God and Goddess desired anything, let alone do anything). We always were and will continue to be through the God and Goddess, insofar as existence exists (remember, current theory states that time began at the Big Bang, so there is a sort of twisted limiter on "eternity"). Material existence coincides with divinity, differing only in terms of perception. All existence is energy, moving at various speeds, and material existence is simply a different speed than non-material existence. I do not assume purpose to be inherent to existence, nor imposed by it. We desire and impose purpose on ourselves.

You are going to have to pardon my ignorance but much of that seems arbitrary and contradicting. Maybe you can help clear some of it up.

You said you personally believe we were not created yet you also say tremendous amounts of energy formed our existence but somehow we are this eternal energy.

The God and Goddess don't do anything, desire anything nor have a personality or intention. Therefore for absolutely no reason sustain us until we go out of existence.

Since there seems to be absolutely nothing guiding this random process of accidents that gave birth to us. I take it we the eternal energy with no intention gave birth to ourselves for no reason and we have no knowledge of doing any of this (except for you of course) because why?

one_lost_coin

October 29th 2008, 01:35 PM

Thank you Seri well said an I find I have little to add to that reply

Good than maybe you can tell me what you base your morality or good code upon. Since you do believe people harm other people why do you believe its wrong? How do you know what is the true morality as it is already admitted different groups hold to different beliefs? Who is the judge of which one is right? How is it this good code and morality are binding upon others who don't share it?

Durthorin

October 29th 2008, 02:10 PM

Good than maybe you can tell me what you base your morality or good code upon. Since you do believe people harm other people why do you believe its wrong? How do you know what is the true morality as it is already admitted different groups hold to different beliefs? Who is the judge of which one is right? How is it this good code and morality are binding upon others who don't share it?

1. My moral code is based on the society I grew up in, my religious beliefs and my personal choices. My society says a man having a mistress is wrong, my religion accepts polyamry my personal choice "If it Harm none, do as you will" leads me to think my wife would be harmed if I did this so I choose not to.

2. In any society or community that society or community has rules, those rules allow people to live together. People harming people outside of those rules is construed as wrong behavior. Murder for example is not taking a human life, it is illegally taking a human life.

3. There is no true morality, just individual moral codes with negotiated common ground. You have a moral code based on being a member of this society and your Christian beliefs, mine are based on the laws of the society and my Pagan beliefs. On the purely secular points of that morality we can agree on the common ground. Neither of us want for example to be robbed or killed. I on the other hand do not want you or someone like Krusader to control my ability to speak or worship. The common ground keeps your morality from interering with what I believe is moral.

4. I judge if my morality is right, if I do something wrong my community or society judges it.

5. It isn't. No morality is binding on another, it is enforcable if you have the force and willingness to use it.

one_lost_coin

October 29th 2008, 03:04 PM

1. My moral code is based on the society I grew up in, my religious beliefs and my personal choices. My society says a man having a mistress is wrong, my religion accepts polyamry my personal choice "If it Harm none, do as you will" leads me to think my wife would be harmed if I did this so I choose not to.

2. In any society or community that society or community has rules, those rules allow people to live together. People harming people outside of those rules is construed as wrong behavior. Murder for example is not taking a human life, it is illegally taking a human life.

3. There is no true morality, just individual moral codes with negotiated common ground. You have a moral code based on being a member of this society and your Christian beliefs, mine are based on the laws of the society and my Pagan beliefs. On the purely secular points of that morality we can agree on the common ground. Neither of us want for example to be robbed or killed. I on the other hand do not want you or someone like Krusader to control my ability to speak or worship. The common ground keeps your morality from interering with what I believe is moral.

4. I judge if my morality is right, if I do something wrong my community or society judges it. It's all nothing more than a power play right?

5. It isn't. No morality is binding on another, it is enforcable if you have the force and willingness to use it.

So then Stalin was pretty much alright by you as he was living out his personal morality even though he was negotiating on a different moral ground than those he had murdered. I see. I am sure you do not judge or condemn him after all you can't bind your personal morals on him who's to say he wasn't right after all.

I assume it is you who deserve to have the force and willingness to use it because of course your community would use it correctly but then how could you actually know what those things are they don't actually exist?

Your view of "The common ground keeps your morality from interering with what I believe is moral." seems to be a far cry from reality.

It would seem in that in addition to not believing in sin you also do not believe in any true sense of justice.

After all according to number 5 its all nothing more than a power play. Who or what rules you?

Durthorin

October 29th 2008, 04:08 PM

So then Stalin was pretty much alright by you as he was living out his personal morality even though he was negotiating on a different moral ground than those he had murdered. I see. I am sure you do not judge or condemn him after all you can't bind your personal morals on him who's to say he wasn't right after all.

I assume it is you who deserve to have the force and willingness to use it because of course your community would use it correctly but then how could you actually know what those things are they don't actually exist?

Your view of "The common ground keeps your morality from interering with what I believe is moral." seems to be a far cry from reality.

It would seem in that in addition to not believing in sin you also do not believe in any true sense of justice.

After all according to number 5 its all nothing more than a power play. Who or what rules you?

Of course I judge and condemn him I simply judge and condemn him on what I know is my personal code of morality. I assume that within his moral code what he did was right. In mine what he did was wrong. The same applies to my communities moral code, which if I remember correctly is referred to as social norms and mores. At any point in life the community, society etc moral norms can come into conflict with your moral code. At that point you have to choose what is or is not moral. I rule myself. I concede authority, I give loyalty. but in all those I choose. You are responsible for your choices and the repercussions of those choices. You believe that your belief in Christ washes your "sin" away. All of your previous misconduct is forgiven. While I believe that anything that I know to be wrong and has caused harm to others, only I can make right. I can not give that responsibility to anyone else.

As for justice. In the sense a Christian believes in justice, then the answer is no I don't.

one_lost_coin

October 29th 2008, 04:43 PM

Of course I judge and condemn him I simply judge and condemn him on what I know is my personal code of morality. I assume that within his moral code what he did was right. In mine what he did was wrong. The same applies to my communities moral code, which if I remember correctly is referred to as social norms and mores. At any point in life the community, society etc moral norms can come into conflict with your moral code. At that point you have to choose what is or is not moral. I rule myself. I concede authority, I give loyalty. but in all those I choose. You are responsible for your choices and the repercussions of those choices. You believe that your belief in Christ washes your "sin" away. All of your previous misconduct is forgiven. While I believe that anything that I know to be wrong and has caused harm to others, only I can make right. I can not give that responsibility to anyone else.

As for justice. In the sense a Christian believes in justice, then the answer is no I don't.

I guess its all just fun and games as long as its not you. Of what value is your judgement of anything its nothing more than your opinion. It doesn't seem like Stalin would have been very impressed by your opinion but that is ok isn't it. Just as long as he had the power to get away with it.

So you rule yourself and concede power do you. I guess you do that as long as that suits you? Then what, you leave the group find another one or start your own?

What about the things other people think are wrong that you violate? I would suppose you have no responsibility to fix that after all thats just their personal erroneous belief and they are entitled to it. If they don't like it I guess they need to be more powerful.

How does a murderer make right his wrong? (of course I am assuming he thinks its wrong) Do they give life back or can they just say oops and that makes it all better. How does that work?

You need not explain Christianity to me the subject line of the thread is "ask a wiccan!" you need only focus on what wiccans believe since you desire to represent these beliefs for them or yourself, whichever. If I want to know what a Christian believes I will ask a Christian.

So why don't you explain what real wiccan justice is.

Seri

October 31st 2008, 04:53 AM

You are going to have to pardon my ignorance but much of that seems arbitrary and contradicting. Maybe you can help clear some of it up.

You said you personally believe we were not created yet you also say tremendous amounts of energy formed our existence but somehow we are this eternal energy.

The God and Goddess don't do anything, desire anything nor have a personality or intention. Therefore for absolutely no reason sustain us until we go out of existence.

Since there seems to be absolutely nothing guiding this random process of accidents that gave birth to us. I take it we the eternal energy with no intention gave birth to ourselves for no reason and we have no knowledge of doing any of this (except for you of course) because why?

"Formed" here, in the sense I used it, is the same as coalesced. I assume no agent of creation. The myth-writers tend to put the union of the God and Goddess as a cotemporaneous event, which makes them not agents of creation, but "entities" (again, I'm a symbolic pantheist, so the God and Goddess are symbols to me, representations in an intelligible form, not entities in the way that one would envision Norse or Hellenic pantheons). To say that we are part of the energy of existence is to state nothing contradictory: all that exists is energy, moving at varying rates. Material existence is simply less sublimated than non-material existence. The primary claim I make is that, due to all things being energy in various states, there is an energetic link between all things. This is to say that, in some way, all things are united.

In general principle, I believe in an organic existence, which is to say that the reason for the continuation of existence is latent, passive self-interest. Personally, I have enough self-interest to not step in front of a bus if given the choice. I have no control over the growth of my constituent parts (cells, organs, etc.) other than the resources I make available to them. Existence presents many resources to its constituent parts and, as can be expected, the constituent parts are acting in accordance to the available resources, but not necessarily to any plan that the larger organism intended. I don't intend to get sick, personally, but if I make available an abundance of illness-causing bacteria to my body, that's exactly what happens.

I have found no reason to believe that any set of conditions entails a creator entity. "Random" chance is sufficient to me, as I believe purpose to be the invention of a high-functioning cognitive mind. Similarly, any intention that can be deciphered from the way in which the wheel turns is, in fact, superimposed, or possibly enacted, by those same minds.

You have to remember that, unlike other varieties of pantheism, symbolic pantheism is closer to atheism/naturalism than it is to panentheism or deism. Generally, the difference between a symbolic pantheist and an atheist is the attribution of an additional set of existential forces.

Durthorin has defended my conception of consensual morality quite well, I must say. Essentially, morality is relative to the community in which the greatest power to enforce morality rests, but is heavily influenced by the set of communities to which an individual belongs. I believe that Dur's example regarding adultery is an excellent indicator of this. Similarly, I would say that the majority of people found Stalin's actions to be morally objectionable. There were few moral agencies capable of enforcing that moral standpoint at the time, however. Counterbalancing that are considerations for the repercussions of action and a potentially more morally objectionable consequence of unnecessary, wide-spread war. The risk against self-preservation would have been particularly bad in this scenario, which is a large moral quandry.

To say that moral relativism does not produce moral people or consistent morals is not true. Morals coalesce among like-minded individuals. Look at moral legislation regarding homosexual unions or abortion, where the communities involved have been teetering back and forth in the power struggle to accomplish the goal of enforcing their own morality upon the other community. I find humans to be highly moral creatures. The circles of their morality extend everywhere: personal, household, neighborhood, city, state, national, world, religion, work, and leisure. The issue is that there is not mutual consent among each of these communities and, as such, there is not a universal set of morals that apply everywhere. This is not to say that we have not formulated language to assume morality, though. We differentiate "murder," "execute," "kill," "slay," and "assisted suicide" in English, each of them having a moral flavor. Murder is defined as morally objectionable killing. Executing is legal, sanctioned, and moral killing. Killing is simply one entity ending the life of another entity. Slaying is to kill in such a way as to imply enjoyment of the killing and is usually deemed a variety of murder. Assisted suicide is (potentially) morally sanctioned killing of an individual who has requested that you do so. We guarantee that murder is morally objectionable, but in return, it is limited in context. We make no guarantee regarding killing, but there are no contextual limits outside of the necessary event structure (that is, for one entity to end the life of another).

Durthorin

October 31st 2008, 06:25 AM

I guess its all just fun and games as long as its not you. Of what value is your judgement of anything its nothing more than your opinion. It doesn't seem like Stalin would have been very impressed by your opinion but that is ok isn't it. Just as long as he had the power to get away with it.

About the same as anyone elses judgment, they to are after all only opinions as well, including your own. Stalin was unimpressed by the opinion of the entire world. While I find what he did objectionable personally in the same way most of the world did, I think collectively we found a nuclear war more objectionable.

So you rule yourself and concede power do you. I guess you do that as long as that suits you? Then what, you leave the group find another one or start your own?

Think of an older model, I give my fealty/loyalty to my community and the code of morals of that community. At anytime that community changes that code. I.e. its time to gather Christians up and start feeding them to the lions. Then I must make a personal moral decision if I intend to follow that. My options being obey, non-violent opposistion, violent opposition or departure. I am responable for what I choose.

What about the things other people think are wrong that you violate? I would suppose you have no responsibility to fix that after all thats just their personal erroneous belief and they are entitled to it. If they don't like it I guess they need to be more powerful.

If a man believes rape is morally fine and I shot him, then my morality trumps his. If on the other hand I steal from someone which violates my moral code then I have a responability to fix that. If I'm caught my moral code tells me I should be punished.

How does a murderer make right his wrong? (of course I am assuming he thinks its wrong) Do they give life back or can they just say oops and that makes it all better. How does that work?

You accept the punishment your society mets out for murder. In some societies in the past that meant taking care of the family of your victim and providing for their needs for the rest of your life. In others, you pay for the life you take with your own.

You need not explain Christianity to me the subject line of the thread is "ask a wiccan!" you need only focus on what wiccans believe since you desire to represent these beliefs for them or yourself, whichever. If I want to know what a Christian believes I will ask a Christian.

So why don't you explain what real wiccan justice is.

If it harm none, do as you will.

one_lost_coin

October 31st 2008, 03:46 PM

Think of an older model, I give my fealty/loyalty to my community and the code of morals of that community. At anytime that community changes that code. I.e. its time to gather Christians up and start feeding them to the lions. Then I must make a personal moral decision if I intend to follow that. My options being obey, non-violent opposistion, violent opposition or departure. I am responable for what I choose.

Actually it is nothing like fealty. Fealty is an oath of allegiance binding the oath taker to another before God. It requires that there be objective truth. You do not believe in objective truth. The system you present is purely subjective with no truth to discern. It seems to be nothing more than whimisical exploitation of the weak in the absence of any true obligation to protect them.

You can not even find any moral truth to convict Stalin what possible moral decision are you capable of making. You are merely deciding whether you will join in or not you could be just as equally motivated to walk away from a lion feeding by it not being worth your time because your favorite tv show is on as anything else. There simply seems to be no evil that cannot be justified in this system of belief.

my question- What about the things other people think are wrong that you violate?...

your answer-If a man believes rape is morally fine and I shot him, then my morality trumps his...

The question must not have been clear. I am asking rather, if you murdered someone does that victim and the surviving victims have any legitmit rights of his own just because he existed?

I will put your definition of justice aside for the meantime as your answer makes no sense.

Instead I would like to know can you provide me with any healthy society built on this system of subjective morality? Please do not list examples of societies built on objective morality as a substitute.

Seri

November 1st 2008, 04:21 AM

Instead I would like to know can you provide me with any healthy society built on this system of subjective morality? Please do not list examples of societies built on objective morality as a substitute.

This is the sticking point. You believe the world to be running on objective morality. Durthorin and I believe the world to be running on subjective morality. In fact, Durthorin and I claim that every society and its constituent parts are built upon this system of morality.

FreezBee

November 1st 2008, 05:08 AM

If it harm none, do as you will.

I would like to pick up here, if that's ok?

How do you know, what harms none?

- FreezBee

Seri

November 1st 2008, 01:38 PM

I would like to pick up here, if that's ok?

How do you know, what harms none?

- FreezBee

This is one of the great questions of Paganism. People use different definitions of harm based on the morals they learn from their various communities. Personally, I don't consider death to be harm if an appropriate justification is given. Killing a cow to produce leather, meat, and other products is absolutely acceptable to me, as is assisted suicide, so long as there is some independent confirmation that it is right action. I'm also generally ok with capital punishment. Giving some real life examples, here, there are two times I've been confronted with death that I consider murder: the first, which just had its one year anniversary, involved a high school friend who was lured by a deceptive Craigslist ad to a "nanny position," where she was shot in the back, then left in her own car trunk a few blocks away, the second, a former coworker in her 70s was stabbed and left for dead in her own home when it was robbed. Neither of these have any justification morally, as both were preceded by harm in the first place: willful deception for entrapment and theft.

Some Pagan writers urge a good deal of caution in regards to this issue, saying that it's best not to involve yourself if you're not sure it's right action. The trick, though, is that all harm refers to what is called "the highest good" by some. If it does not violate "the highest good," then it does not do harm. That's how the death thing works. The real issue with this is that you can't guarantee that someone is not working for the highest good. Let's tackle that one for a second.

The first murder that I described had an amazing ripple of effects. First and foremost, the victim was part of a family that was known around the world due to missionary works and other similar things, such that there were prayer groups on all 7 continents following her death. Over 1600 people attended her funeral, in addition to several hundred more at the wake. Personally, it gave me the perspective and strength to overcome an addiction and drive me into stronger faith. If it caused a similar change in others, then I would say that her death was for "the highest good," but not her murder. The issue here is that they're completely linked. I can say with fair certainty that a 24 year old woman is not going to die without extraordinary circumstances, such as the gunshot wound and interior bleeding she suffered. I still don't have a good means of reconciling that fact, but as we've all heard before, just because there isn't one now doesn't mean there won't be one later. That said, if we accept the link between the two, and we accept that her death was for "the highest good" (if you couldn't tell, I quote that because I do not believe that "good" is a proper word choice, since I do not believe in an objective distinction between good and evil that the entire phrase presupposes), then we must accept that her murder was, in some way, for "the highest good." I guess the best explanation there is that the subsequent trial and (hopefully) sentencing of the 19 year old who did it is also for "the highest good."

Anyway, gotta head off. Durthorin, help me out, please. :-) I have disjointed thoughts here.

FreezBee

November 1st 2008, 02:06 PM

This is one of the great questions of Paganism. People use different definitions of harm based on the morals they learn from their various communities. Personally, I don't consider death to be harm if an appropriate justification is given. Killing a cow to produce leather, meat, and other products is absolutely acceptable to me, as is assisted suicide, so long as there is some independent confirmation that it is right action. I'm also generally ok with capital punishment. Giving some real life examples, here, there are two times I've been confronted with death that I consider murder: the first, which just had its one year anniversary, involved a high school friend who was lured by a deceptive Craigslist ad to a "nanny position," where she was shot in the back, then left in her own car trunk a few blocks away, the second, a former coworker in her 70s was stabbed and left for dead in her own home when it was robbed. Neither of these have any justification morally, as both were preceded by harm in the first place: willful deception for entrapment and theft.

Some Pagan writers urge a good deal of caution in regards to this issue, saying that it's best not to involve yourself if you're not sure it's right action. The trick, though, is that all harm refers to what is called "the highest good" by some. If it does not violate "the highest good," then it does not do harm. That's how the death thing works. The real issue with this is that you can't guarantee that someone is not working for the highest good. Let's tackle that one for a second.

The first murder that I described had an amazing ripple of effects. First and foremost, the victim was part of a family that was known around the world due to missionary works and other similar things, such that there were prayer groups on all 7 continents following her death. Over 1600 people attended her funeral, in addition to several hundred more at the wake. Personally, it gave me the perspective and strength to overcome an addiction and drive me into stronger faith. If it caused a similar change in others, then I would say that her death was for "the highest good," but not her murder. The issue here is that they're completely linked. I can say with fair certainty that a 24 year old woman is not going to die without extraordinary circumstances, such as the gunshot wound and interior bleeding she suffered. I still don't have a good means of reconciling that fact, but as we've all heard before, just because there isn't one now doesn't mean there won't be one later. That said, if we accept the link between the two, and we accept that her death was for "the highest good" (if you couldn't tell, I quote that because I do not believe that "good" is a proper word choice, since I do not believe in an objective distinction between good and evil that the entire phrase presupposes), then we must accept that her murder was, in some way, for "the highest good." I guess the best explanation there is that the subsequent trial and (hopefully) sentencing of the 19 year old who did it is also for "the highest good."

Not a bad answer :thumb:

It illustrates the difficulties in figuring out, what is good and bad -- we have limited knowledge, and occasionally the moral value of something may depend on a later outcome.

Does that mean that it is impossible -- morally speaking -- to be a wiccan? If anything that you and anything that you don't do may end up bad, how do you choose good/not-harming from bad/harming?

- FreezBee

Durthorin

November 1st 2008, 03:57 PM

Not a bad answer :thumb:

It illustrates the difficulties in figuring out, what is good and bad -- we have limited knowledge, and occasionally the moral value of something may depend on a later outcome.

Does that mean that it is impossible -- morally speaking -- to be a wiccan? If anything that you and anything that you don't do may end up bad, how do you choose good/not-harming from bad/harming?

- FreezBee

The problem morally, is you *must* choose. Even inaction or the choice to not become involved is by its nature a choice. What i was taught is that "If it Harm none, do as you will" is meant to force us as Wiccans to evaluate what we do, to accept our choices with an awareness of the effects of those decisions. While Seri was taught "the highest good", my teacher instructed me somewhat differently. You make the best decision you can with the information you have with the best intent.

1. If it harm none.. do as you will.
You can do anything you want as long as it harms no one, note.. your someone so self destructive behavior harms someone.

2. Few if any actions will cause no harm what so ever. So ever action you take requires you to look at the harm that will be caused and choose the one that causes the least amount of harm to yourself and to others.

3. A man is going to rape a woman, you see him about to attack her, your only option from your position to save the woman from rape is to kill the man. Using the rede, what are your decisions?

a. Allow the woman to be raped, the man to escape.
If I do this, then the woman is harmed and a man who has proven himself by the one attack is now free to attack again. Anything he does any further victims he takes are my responsibility. So there is harm to the woman, any other victims and to myself.

b. kill the man
No matter how evil a man is there will be those that care for him. Killing this man will cause grief in their life. Taking a human life i something that no sane human does willingly. There is harm therefore. But in comparison the greater harm is to allow the man to commit the crime and escape.

Durthorin

November 1st 2008, 04:05 PM

Actually it is nothing like fealty. Fealty is an oath of allegiance binding the oath taker to another before God. It requires that there be objective truth. You do not believe in objective truth. The system you present is purely subjective with no truth to discern. It seems to be nothing more than whimisical exploitation of the weak in the absence of any true obligation to protect them.

I swear and oath before my Gods, they tend to take it seriously.. so to I. No one is obligated to protect the weak, they choose to do so.

The question must not have been clear. I am asking rather, if you murdered someone does that victim and the surviving victims have any legitmit rights of his own just because he existed?

Murder being defined as the illegal taking of life would mean I have violated the codes of morality of my society and having sworn to abide by them my own personal codes. Thus I would say they have legitimate rights to hunt me down and punish me.

I will put your definition of justice aside for the meantime as your answer makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense to me, this is why I'm a Pagan and your not. If it made sense to you, I suspect you would be one of us.

Instead I would like to know can you provide me with any healthy society built on this system of subjective morality? Please do not list examples of societies built on objective morality as a substitute.

All societies are built on subjective morality. Objective morality does not exist.

FreezBee

November 1st 2008, 05:08 PM

The problem morally, is you *must* choose.

Yes, that's the tricky part: you *must* choose, you cannot keep decisions stalled forever.

Even inaction or the choice to not become involved is by its nature a choice. What i was taught is that "If it Harm none, do as you will" is meant to force us as Wiccans to evaluate what we do, to accept our choices with an awareness of the effects of those decisions. While Seri was taught "the highest good", my teacher instructed me somewhat differently. You make the best decision you can with the information you have with the best intent.

Ok, I can agree with this. The best we can do -- being limited beings -- is to act from the current information.

That's why I have problems with legalism, the idea that laws are absolute. Occasionally you have to break the law to keep the law.

- FreezBee

Seri

November 1st 2008, 11:58 PM

FreezBee

November 2nd 2008, 01:43 AM

The issue is always that, as Durthorin put it, there is always the presence of harm in choices and the path of least harm is the one that is generally considered to be in accordance with "the highest good."

Ok, but doesn't the path of least harm lead through uncharted territory -- I mean, you don't know, where it is, until you step beside it?

I don't consider it morally impossible, but the Rede holds us to a very, VERY high standard. The Rede is a guideline, not a law. That's the nature of the term "rede." The guideline is a recommendation on the choices we make rather than the necessity of moral action. The corollary is the Law of Return (which is considered a law), in which intent returns to the intender.

The Law of Return sounds to me more as some kind of natural law rather than as a moral law.

- FreezBee

Seri

November 2nd 2008, 03:32 AM

Ok, but doesn't the path of least harm lead through uncharted territory -- I mean, you don't know, where it is, until you step beside it?

Pretty much. Learning the path of least harm is a process of trial and error in decision making.

The Law of Return sounds to me more as some kind of natural law rather than as a moral law.

It is. The Law of Return (sometimes called the Threefold Law) is indiscriminate as to what it is returning. Beneficial intent begets beneficial intent, harmful intent begets harmful intent. The Rede is the guideline of how to interact with it and others. If you do no harm (and, by extension, intend no harm), then no harm should return to you. You can interpret hardship that comes towards you in one of three basic ways:

1. Return of harm you've intended
2. Incoming intended harm that is unprovoked
3. Not actually harm

It's important to remember that perspective is essential to this. What you think is harm might not actually be harm, and what you don't think is harm might actually be harm. You may just be viewing the issue poorly. Unfortunately, the limited perspective we possess is of detriment here.

FreezBee

November 2nd 2008, 04:50 AM

Pretty much. Learning the path of least harm is a process of trial and error in decision making.

Indeed it is :lol:

It is. The Law of Return (sometimes called the Threefold Law) is indiscriminate as to what it is returning. Beneficial intent begets beneficial intent, harmful intent begets harmful intent. The Rede is the guideline of how to interact with it and others. If you do no harm (and, by extension, intend no harm), then no harm should return to you. You can interpret hardship that comes towards you in one of three basic ways:

1. Return of harm you've intended
2. Incoming intended harm that is unprovoked
3. Not actually harm

It's important to remember that perspective is essential to this. What you think is harm might not actually be harm, and what you don't think is harm might actually be harm. You may just be viewing the issue poorly. Unfortunately, the limited perspective we possess is of detriment here.

Ok, my problem here is that this Law of Return appears difficult to make operational. If I receive harm, I might first consider it return of harm, I myself had caused, then perhaps as unprovoked, incoming harm, and finally thinking about it as not really harm. It is as if you can pick and choose, so how does one know, what is what?

- FreezBee

Seri

November 2nd 2008, 11:32 AM

Ok, my problem here is that this Law of Return appears difficult to make operational. If I receive harm, I might first consider it return of harm, I myself had caused, then perhaps as unprovoked, incoming harm, and finally thinking about it as not really harm. It is as if you can pick and choose, so how does one know, what is what?

- FreezBee

How does one know anything with absolute certainty? I can suspect something with sufficient evidence to make me believe that it is the case, but I know that I have limited perspective and a mind that plays tricks on me occasionally. I might be misconstruing the evidence present for any position.

If you change your mind as to what the cause is regarding a harm you receive, it is likely that you have more evidence than before regarding the nature of it or that you mistakenly interpreted the existing evidence in a particular way. As such, usually the pattern goes something like this: it was unprovoked, I caused a return, it wasn't really harm in the first place.

Generally, people are in denial of their faults. This brings about the idea that it is an unprovoked harm. Once someone realizes that they had a part in it, they come to understand that it was not unprovoked. Then, usually FAR later on, and only in some circumstances, they come to view the event as a motivating hardship or challenge rather than harm. Ultimately, the only intent you are in control of is your own and it is necessary to keep that in check for relative happiness (this is acting under the general assumption that perceived harm causes unhappiness).

FreezBee

November 2nd 2008, 11:41 AM

How does one know anything with absolute certainty? I can suspect something with sufficient evidence to make me believe that it is the case, but I know that I have limited perspective and a mind that plays tricks on me occasionally. I might be misconstruing the evidence present for any position.

If you change your mind as to what the cause is regarding a harm you receive, it is likely that you have more evidence than before regarding the nature of it or that you mistakenly interpreted the existing evidence in a particular way. As such, usually the pattern goes something like this: it was unprovoked, I caused a return, it wasn't really harm in the first place.

Generally, people are in denial of their faults. This brings about the idea that it is an unprovoked harm. Once someone realizes that they had a part in it, they come to understand that it was not unprovoked. Then, usually FAR later on, and only in some circumstances, they come to view the event as a motivating hardship or challenge rather than harm. Ultimately, the only intent you are in control of is your own and it is necessary to keep that in check for relative happiness (this is acting under the general assumption that perceived harm causes unhappiness).

Ok, but doesn't that imply that you come to live in a closed loop, where your only concern is, how you perceive things without really bothering about, why they happen?

I know that some New Agers consider everything they can't handle to be a challenge thrown at them, and that the same kind of challenge will be thrown at them, until they learn how to deal with it. Is it along the same lines with Wicca?

- FreezBee

Seri

November 2nd 2008, 12:17 PM

Ok, but doesn't that imply that you come to live in a closed loop, where your only concern is, how you perceive things without really bothering about, why they happen?

You gain a lot more concern for the perspective you hold on all things. I think several steps beyond each action before I decide, anticipating responses and consequences. This is something I didn't do in the past.

I know that some New Agers consider everything they can't handle to be a challenge thrown at them, and that the same kind of challenge will be thrown at them, until they learn how to deal with it. Is it along the same lines with Wicca?

- FreezBee

Just as it's the view of some New Agers, it's likely the view of some Wiccans. I have no certainty in the matter, though. I just know that Wicca and New Age are not mutually exclusive. It seems to be an interesting view of the world that engenders competition. In that regard, I like it. It seems as though it could go to unhealthy extremes, though.

FreezBee

November 2nd 2008, 01:41 PM

You gain a lot more concern for the perspective you hold on all things. I think several steps beyond each action before I decide, anticipating responses and consequences. This is something I didn't do in the past.

Umm, I try to do that as well. The tricky bit is that events never unfold in any of the ways I have imagined :smile:

Just as it's the view of some New Agers, it's likely the view of some Wiccans. I have no certainty in the matter, though. I just know that Wicca and New Age are not mutually exclusive. It seems to be an interesting view of the world that engenders competition. In that regard, I like it. It seems as though it could go to unhealthy extremes, though.

Ok, does that imply that Wiccans sees life as a spiritual growth process, perhaps leading to some elevation to a higher sphere?

Excuse me for asking, but I am actually not all that familiar with Wicca :smile:

- FreezBee

Seri

November 2nd 2008, 05:51 PM

Umm, I try to do that as well. The tricky bit is that events never unfold in any of the ways I have imagined :smile:

True story.

Ok, does that imply that Wiccans sees life as a spiritual growth process, perhaps leading to some elevation to a higher sphere?

Excuse me for asking, but I am actually not all that familiar with Wicca :smile:

- FreezBee

I wouldn't use the term "higher" so much as "different." Generally, it's not considered a sliding scale of existence. Some sources state that other energetic planes are "higher" or "lower," but that's generally meant to mean crude or sublimated. Sublimated planes (generally considered to be mental, spiritual, etc) are planes in which energy is more diffuse than the material plane or otherwise acts separate of the material plane.

That is, assuming you opt to call the various energetic strata "planes." We coexist on many of them simultaneously, but we only generally acknowledge the material.

Anywho, Paganism is a fertility religion. Life and growth are key concepts for any fertility religion. Wicca, when it is practiced from a Pagan standpoint, is then based on the same. Wicca, by itself, is a mental path more than a spiritual path, but is also about growth. To talk about Wicca by itself, you must refer back to the transitional, early history traditions, such as Gardnerian Wicca (historically speaking, this is the first time that "Wicca" is used to reference magickal practices). Some authors (erroneously) state that all Wiccans are Pagans. The fact of the matter is that you can be Wiccan without subscribing to the Pagan faith whatsoever. Similarly, not all Pagans are Wiccan. I tend to think of them as lifestyles that don't conflict in the slightest. Because of this, a significant number of Wiccans, probably the majority, tend to be Pagan, as well. Historically, Wicca is directly tied to Occultism (a la Crowley, Fortune, etc.) and, as such, carries some elements of Christian magickal traditions (largely extinct since the Burning Times), such as calling on select angels/archangels. The trouble is compounded when considering traditions such as Stregheria or Brujeria, which identify as being witches (Bruja being Spanish for witch, Stregha the Italian for witch), and, therefore, gets confused with Wicca, given that many followers of Wicca (myself included) refer to themselves as witches. Neither Stregheria nor Brujeria share that many commonalities with Wicca or Paganism outside of words to describe a few things.

Getting back to the point, yes, Wicca/Paganism (the syncretic system that is commonly practiced) is focused on personal growth. More importantly, it is focused on unity, the dispelling of what is called "maya," the illusion of separateness, and the acquisition of wisdom.

FreezBee

November 2nd 2008, 10:18 PM

I wouldn't use the term "higher" so much as "different." Generally, it's not considered a sliding scale of existence. Some sources state that other energetic planes are "higher" or "lower," but that's generally meant to mean crude or sublimated. Sublimated planes (generally considered to be mental, spiritual, etc) are planes in which energy is more diffuse than the material plane or otherwise acts separate of the material plane.

That is, assuming you opt to call the various energetic strata "planes." We coexist on many of them simultaneously, but we only generally acknowledge the material.

You use the word 'energy' here, what is meant by that? Is there only one kind of energy, or is there more than one?

Anywho, Paganism is a fertility religion. Life and growth are key concepts for any fertility religion. Wicca, when it is practiced from a Pagan standpoint, is then based on the same. Wicca, by itself, is a mental path more than a spiritual path, but is also about growth. To talk about Wicca by itself, you must refer back to the transitional, early history traditions, such as Gardnerian Wicca (historically speaking, this is the first time that "Wicca" is used to reference magickal practices). Some authors (erroneously) state that all Wiccans are Pagans. The fact of the matter is that you can be Wiccan without subscribing to the Pagan faith whatsoever. Similarly, not all Pagans are Wiccan. I tend to think of them as lifestyles that don't conflict in the slightest. Because of this, a significant number of Wiccans, probably the majority, tend to be Pagan, as well. Historically, Wicca is directly tied to Occultism (a la Crowley, Fortune, etc.) and, as such, carries some elements of Christian magickal traditions (largely extinct since the Burning Times), such as calling on select angels/archangels.

Let me see, if I got this right. Paganism is about fertility, and Wicca is about magick. Is that correctly understood?

Getting back to the point, yes, Wicca/Paganism (the syncretic system that is commonly practiced) is focused on personal growth. More importantly, it is focused on unity, the dispelling of what is called "maya," the illusion of separateness, and the acquisition of wisdom.

"[T]he illusion of separateness"? Separateness of whom from what?

- FreezBee

Seri

November 3rd 2008, 01:01 AM

You use the word 'energy' here, what is meant by that? Is there only one kind of energy, or is there more than one?

One energy, different vibrations. Everything is energy. Material existence is simply one vibration of that energy.

Let me see, if I got this right. Paganism is about fertility, and Wicca is about magick. Is that correctly understood?

More or less. The two are linked by syncretism very often. It's important to note that the Wiccan Rede and Law of Return are both Wiccan notions, but the God and Goddess concept is Pagan.

"[T]he illusion of separateness"? Separateness of whom from what?

- FreezBee

Generally, maya is used to refer to the perceived separateness of anything from anything else. One energy, different vibrations, all interconnected. I'd like to say that it's a Hindu concept, but I'm not quite certain on that. It has most definitely been adopted by certain segments of the Pagan/Wicca community, including authors such as Christopher Penczak and Kerr Cuhulain. I find it to be a concept that meshes well with pantheism (though many Pagans tend to be panentheists, I adhere to pantheism).

FreezBee

November 3rd 2008, 02:15 AM

One energy, different vibrations. Everything is energy. Material existence is simply one vibration of that energy.

So Wicca is a monism.

More or less. The two are linked by syncretism very often. It's important to note that the Wiccan Rede and Law of Return are both Wiccan notions, but the God and Goddess concept is Pagan.

Yes, the God and Goddess appear central to Wicca, which for many makes it appear as if Wicca is (a form of) Paganism.

Generally, maya is used to refer to the perceived separateness of anything from anything else. One energy, different vibrations, all interconnected. I'd like to say that it's a Hindu concept, but I'm not quite certain on that.

Maya is a Hindu concept, it's the Sanskrit word for 'illusion', the illusion of an individual self separated from the rest of the universe.

It has most definitely been adopted by certain segments of the Pagan/Wicca community, including authors such as Christopher Penczak and Kerr Cuhulain. I find it to be a concept that meshes well with pantheism (though many Pagans tend to be panentheists, I adhere to pantheism).

Doesn't that imply that the God and Goddess collapse to just one deity?

- FreezBee

Seri

November 3rd 2008, 03:35 AM

So Wicca is a monism.

That's my interpretation, yes. Others may disagree. A common saying is that there are as many forms of Wicca as there are Wiccans.

Yes, the God and Goddess appear central to Wicca, which for many makes it appear as if Wicca is (a form of) Paganism.

Amazingly, the God and Goddess are not central to some varieties of Wicca. It's only the syncretic form of Wicca/Paganism that holds them as central. The key is that the majority of Wiccans adhere to Paganism, at least from first blush.

Maya is a Hindu concept, it's the Sanskrit word for 'illusion', the illusion of an individual self separated from the rest of the universe.

I'm glad my memory isn't failing. Yes, that is precisely what I was trying to get at.

Doesn't that imply that the God and Goddess collapse to just one deity?

- FreezBee

Excellent question. The answer is yes for pantheists, but usually a maybe for panentheists. I reconcile the God and Goddess through the Hermetic Principle of Gender, using the symbols to sort through what is an immense set of concepts. One of the foundational rules of magick is that you cannot effectively work on anything that you do not understand, so making sense of existence is essential to any magickal endeavors. Ignorance is the breeding ground of harm, after all.

Back to the point, I tend to conceptualize the God and Goddess through a set of numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7. This is how it plays out.

1 Divine force, which constitutes all things, made of
2 Genders (polarities), embodying
3 stages of life: Maiden, Mother, and Crone, while also representing
4 seasons, the yearly cycle of the world, which sustains us, and, therefore,
7 combined phases, each representing a piece of the Wheel.

Since I'm a symbolic pantheist, I find no particular contradiction in saying that the God and Goddess collapse into a single divinity. The truth is that I genuinely encourage that thought, as it is part of the unity of existence. Since I posit the God and Goddess as symbols of understanding for the divine, a sort of reference tool to the understanding of existence, it bothers me not one bit to say that they are one in the same.

FreezBee

November 3rd 2008, 07:21 AM

That's my interpretation, yes. Others may disagree. A common saying is that there are as many forms of Wicca as there are Wiccans.

:lol: Yes, Wicca doesn't seem to be particularly concerned about orthodoxy.

Amazingly, the God and Goddess are not central to some varieties of Wicca. It's only the syncretic form of Wicca/Paganism that holds them as central. The key is that the majority of Wiccans adhere to Paganism, at least from first blush.

Ok, I had gotten the idea that the God and Goddess were integral to Wicca, but that may be because all Wiccans I know are Pagan Wiccans :smile:

Excellent question. The answer is yes for pantheists, but usually a maybe for panentheists. I reconcile the God and Goddess through the Hermetic Principle of Gender, using the symbols to sort through what is an immense set of concepts. One of the foundational rules of magick is that you cannot effectively work on anything that you do not understand, so making sense of existence is essential to any magickal endeavors. Ignorance is the breeding ground of harm, after all.

Indeed it is.

Back to the point, I tend to conceptualize the God and Goddess through a set of numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7. This is how it plays out.

1 Divine force, which constitutes all things, made of
2 Genders (polarities), embodying
3 stages of life: Maiden, Mother, and Crone, while also representing
4 seasons, the yearly cycle of the world, which sustains us, and, therefore,
7 combined phases, each representing a piece of the Wheel.

Since I'm a symbolic pantheist, I find no particular contradiction in saying that the God and Goddess collapse into a single divinity. The truth is that I genuinely encourage that thought, as it is part of the unity of existence. Since I posit the God and Goddess as symbols of understanding for the divine, a sort of reference tool to the understanding of existence, it bothers me not one bit to say that they are one in the same.

That's fitting for a monist :smile:

So you don't think that the genders are absolute, they are symbolic polarities, not strictly related to differences between the biological genders?

I've understood than many religious denominations take that view, does that go for Wicca as well?

- FreezBee

Durthorin

November 3rd 2008, 10:42 AM

You might consider this example I give to my students:

Hold out your hands, "If you consider that this.", touching the chest is the Divine, the left arm, "This is God", touch the right, "This is Goddess.", then touching the fingers of the left hand, "Lugh, Odin.. Zeus." Touch the fingers of the right hand, "Brighid, Danu, Athena.. etc"

Then what we worship is aspects of the Divine. The aspects that we need.. or can understand. But still aspects of the whole. We worship the Divine but how we interact with the Divine is based on what we perceive we need.. I ask Brighid for courage, I ask Danu for her love and compassion.. From the Morrigan I may need wisdom. At the same time I go to the God and ask him for aid as well, to live my life in balance and to master the skills that I need in the aspect of Lugh.

Wicca is often accused of being a religion of pick and choose. But when one looks at how a Wiccan sees Divinity then it becomes less so. As a Catholic might ask for intercession or look to one of the Saints with particular trials in his life.. i.e "Patron saints..." we looks to our Gods and Goddess. We think of the Divine as so vast as to have little connection with the individual ... so you will also from time to time hear the phrase

"From the One came the Two, from the Two came the Many." This is also the rational that is used by Cristo-Wiccans that Jesus and Mary for example are simply aspects of the God and Goddess. An thus from them we are to draw lessons and learn.

FreezBee

November 3rd 2008, 11:19 AM

Seri

November 3rd 2008, 11:32 AM

:lol: Yes, Wicca doesn't seem to be particularly concerned about orthodoxy.

It is a path of orthopraxy, yes.

That's fitting for a monist :smile:

So you don't think that the genders are absolute, they are symbolic polarities, not strictly related to differences between the biological genders?

I've understood than many religious denominations take that view, does that go for Wicca as well?

- FreezBee

I take that view, at least. I can't speak for the rest of us.

Durthorin

November 3rd 2008, 01:02 PM

Ok, if I understand you correctly, the Divine is One, but can be split up in two deities (the God and the Goddess) each covering certain aspects of the divine, and these can in turn be spit up in the individual aspects.

Usually the two greater aspects are creation/destruction, life/death, order/chaos or male/female

I suppose that means that the 'concrete' deities (those in third line, e.g. Brighid, Danu and Athena) are not considered to exist on their own, only as aspects of the Divine.

Is that correct understood?

To many Wiccans that would be correct. But nailing what -all- Wiccans believe would be on par with nailing jello to a tree with a rubber duck.

What you state as "concrete" I refer to as the Personal Aspect of Deity. Since they are the ones that call to us on a personal level. I point to Jesus as an example, Christan's do not have a personal relationship with God the all powerful creator of the Universe, they have a personal relationship with an aspect of God who lived and died as a mortal human. Jesus Christ.

Blessed Be, Dur

FreezBee

November 3rd 2008, 01:11 PM

It is a path of orthopraxy, yes.

Now, there's an interesting distinction :thumb.

Between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Is Wicca more about doing the right things rather than about having the right doctrines?

I take that view, at least. I can't speak for the rest of us.

I haven discussed this earlier with Durthorin and tmancour, and as I understand them, that appears to be their view as well. You would have to ask them though for certainty.

But then from where are derived which aspects of the Divine are considered female, and which are considered male?

- FreezBee

Seri

November 4th 2008, 01:17 PM

Now, there's an interesting distinction :thumb.

Between orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Is Wicca more about doing the right things rather than about having the right doctrines?

Exactly.

I haven discussed this earlier with Durthorin and tmancour, and as I understand them, that appears to be their view as well. You would have to ask them though for certainty.

But then from where are derived which aspects of the Divine are considered female, and which are considered male?

- FreezBee

It's all in the perspective of the believer. Common beliefs about what is considered male/female tend to place male things as direct, logical, and possessing greater tendency for destruction, with female things as indirect, emotional, and with a greater tendency for nurturing/creating. This isn't to say that there aren't exceptions to these categorizations. We tend to say that water is a feminine element, but we've also seen the destruction of tidal waves. Similarly, we tend to say that fire is a masculine element, but it is essential to the life-cycle of many regions, such as the redwood forests or high desert, where the fire burns away brush that otherwise chokes out different plants in the area and, in doing so, fertilizes the ground for new growth.

Some tend to take this view with the approach that it's a sliding scale rather than a dichotomy. In that case, certain things are more masculine or feminine than others, which is designed to reconcile the perceived exceptions. I tend to say that this is unnecessary, but rather that each male and female is capable of anything, but through different methods. This is another case of the "As many Pagan beliefs as there are Pagans" phenomenon.

FreezBee

November 4th 2008, 01:53 PM

It's all in the perspective of the believer. Common beliefs about what is considered male/female tend to place male things as direct, logical, and possessing greater tendency for destruction, with female things as indirect, emotional, and with a greater tendency for nurturing/creating. This isn't to say that there aren't exceptions to these categorizations. We tend to say that water is a feminine element, but we've also seen the destruction of tidal waves. Similarly, we tend to say that fire is a masculine element, but it is essential to the life-cycle of many regions, such as the redwood forests or high desert, where the fire burns away brush that otherwise chokes out different plants in the area and, in doing so, fertilizes the ground for new growth.

Yes, quite true -- a consistent interpretation of destructive/nurtering is difficult, which is one of the reasons why I am not too happy about attaching certain characteristics to the two genders.

Some tend to take this view with the approach that it's a sliding scale rather than a dichotomy. In that case, certain things are more masculine or feminine than others, which is designed to reconcile the perceived exceptions. I tend to say that this is unnecessary, but rather that each male and female is capable of anything, but through different methods. This is another case of the "As many Pagan beliefs as there are Pagans" phenomenon.

:lol: We always return to that: Wicca is a very individualistic religion concerned with personal growth. Isn't there a community aspect to Wicca?

- FreezBee

Durthorin

November 4th 2008, 02:52 PM

:lol: We always return to that: Wicca is a very individualistic religion concerned with personal growth. Isn't there a community aspect to Wicca?

- FreezBee

A very strong one, but Pagan's tend to small groups. There are no mega-covens. I think the largest I have seen is in the 20 people category and within them there is a strong sense of internal support and community. There is also a tolerance of differences between covens, groves and circles. I think personally one of the strongest community standards in Pagan belief is that tolerance for each other. When you have Native American Shamanic, Wiccans, Reclaiming, Druids and Astura all gathered at a Festival together and happily getting along.. it shows to me one of the greatest strength sof the community.

Brighid Bless, Dur

one_lost_coin

November 5th 2008, 10:27 AM

This is the sticking point. You believe the world to be running on objective morality. Durthorin and I believe the world to be running on subjective morality. In fact, Durthorin and I claim that every society and its constituent parts are built upon this system of morality.

no in fact it doesn't matter what I believe as I am asking you to show me a society that acknowledges a subjective morality and is thriving.

Durthorin

November 5th 2008, 12:46 PM

no in fact it doesn't matter what I believe as I am asking you to show me a society that acknowledges a subjective morality and is thriving.

An thus you make our point. To us you are living by subjective morality in a society that runs on subjective morality. That you acknowledge it is no more important than you acknowledge gravity.

It is.

Brighid Bless, Dur

Seri

November 5th 2008, 02:59 PM

no in fact it doesn't matter what I believe as I am asking you to show me a society that acknowledges a subjective morality and is thriving.

The Pagan community doubles in size every 18 months and accepts subjective morality. I'm not quite sure on the atheists, but many of them accept subjective morality and they seem to be doing quite well for themselves. Both are societies.

one_lost_coin

November 6th 2008, 09:40 AM

The Pagan community doubles in size every 18 months and accepts subjective morality. I'm not quite sure on the atheists, but many of them accept subjective morality and they seem to be doing quite well for themselves. Both are societies.

and

An thus you make our point. To us you are living by subjective morality in a society that runs on subjective morality. That you acknowledge it is no more important than you acknowledge gravity.

It is.

Brighid Bless, Dur

Actually your group lives and thrive in a country that is based on objective morality. The United States explicitly states in its constitution that our rights come from God. You benefit by living in such a place. I already know the value of such a system and it is only in the truth of it that man is required to do good and take care of the weak.

I am asking you to provide me any soveriegn society that basis its laws and life on subjective morality and truth. There are some. Just want to hear you list them. The list is quit impressive.

Its not a hard question. Why make avoiding the truth so difficult? You are after all only interested in truth right?

Ironic don't you think that in denying the existance of objective truth you appeal to your belief as being objectively true.

Is what you are saying true? (the answer to that question is yes or no)

Seri

November 6th 2008, 03:30 PM

Actually your group lives and thrive in a country that is based on objective morality. The United States explicitly states in its constitution that our rights come from God. You benefit by living in such a place. I already know the value of such a system and it is only in the truth of it that man is required to do good and take care of the weak.

If you take a look at the United States, you'll find that very few people genuinely believe and act upon the Constitution. If we did, there wouldn't be such a screaming-for-changes Constitutionalist party and candidates for that party would likely be doing significantly better in politics than they currently do. Similarly, how many people have you met that call themselves Christian, yet do not follow through on the entailment by acting upon the teachings of the Bible?

I am asking you to provide me any soveriegn society that basis its laws and life on subjective morality and truth. There are some. Just want to hear you list them. The list is quit impressive.

Oh, you mean sovereign nation. You've been confusing me with this "society" thing, which only implies a collection of like-minded people, such as the Society for Creative Anachronism.

What you say you believe and what you actually act upon are two different things. How do you reconcile Islamic honor killings with your morality, when it is morally justified (not just acceptable, but justified) in Islamic cultures? Which is the objective truth, when both Christianity and Islam claim that they hold exclusivity on truth?

Its not a hard question. Why make avoiding the truth so difficult? You are after all only interested in truth right?

Ironic don't you think that in denying the existance of objective truth you appeal to your belief as being objectively true.

Is what you are saying true? (the answer to that question is yes or no)

You're making the classic teapot argument here. All evidence I have seen points to subjective morality, but you claim that the possibility of objectivity necessitates belief in objectivity. I have seen no particularly persuasive evidence for objective morality. As such, it is highly probable to me that there is no such thing. I cannot say that with absolute certainty by definition.

What I can say with certainty is that things are relatively certain: that is, I can claim that there are degrees of certainty to all things, and that the claim here is so highly certain based on evidence that there is nearly no point in refuting it. As such, I do not appeal to objectivity in the least. I can make the claim that I believe you to be making false assertions regarding objectivity on that basis and not violate subjectivity, as well.