Attn: Mountain Man. Where the rubber hits the road: Wicca vs. Christianity

[tmancour]

I can understand that seeing all of your past lives would be a better lense to view your last past life. But this does not settle the question about a spirit who chooses evil and continues to choose evil. Or is there some over riding pressure to not do evil? If on the earth we have people who choose good or evil then what prevents someone from doing evil in all lives? Is there some kind of knowledge acquired after death that prevents a continuation of an evil path? Is the evil manifest in the nature of man? If so is the Goddess who has a hand in making the man making a predestined path for some to be evil? In Christianity even evil is used by God to bring some to faith. Is there a similar thing happening in the pagan belief. Has the Goddess set the stage for some to become evil so others may be tested?

I think you're too hung up on the good/evil duality. Not that I deny the existence of both, but I also recognize that they are not absolutes. To the mice, the cat is evil. To the cat, the mice are lunch. It's important on the Path of Wisdom not to lose sight of the matter of perspective. That's not to excuse the needless cruelty and contempt for life that evil displays, but it is important to remember that in the complex swirl of existence there are many perspectives that color our actions and reactions. It's also important to remember that we learn best through our own mistakes -- so that a lifetime devoted to "evil" might result in a dramatic improvement of the moral bearing of a soul over his/her future lifetimes. While that sucks for those who were the victims of that evil, the experiences and perspectives gained during their ordeals ultimately instruct and inform them. We are all bit characters in each others' plays, and some, by necessity, must play the villain. Ultimately the questions of good and evil isn't the struggle between unseen spiritual forces, but the struggle in our own souls to recognize and respect the rights of other souls. I wouldn't call this path "predestined", but it is strongly encouraged by the way our lives are structured. Does the Goddess get involved? Sure . . . but she's not a general in a war, she's the rector of a university.


Again, that's not to excuse evil in any way, but it does lend perspective that can keep you from knee-jerk condemnation, as well as understanding the process of tempering our souls.

Remembering past lives must be an experience. But how do you know that it is actually a past life?

Well, because we get trained in how to recognize it for what it is. I've learned things about my past lives that I really shouldn't know -- and couldn't know -- any other way. But there are protocols and processes for preparing yourself for this kind of exploration that should be done long before you make the first attempt.

In the Christian model there are millions of demons and fallen angels that have been here since the start of the universe. They know many people who lived in the past. If you ask for a spirit to enter you then from a Christian perspective you could just be allowing a fallen spirit to tell you of some other life. I have a feeling that it would be impossible to know the difference. I actually know a thing or two about the spirit world. For those who don't believe in it are missing the great struggle of the universe and are missing out on a major part of our existence.

At some point you have to believe in yourself and trust your heart. My interactions with malicious spirits, while brief and rare, have never blinded me to what they were. In my experience such critters are incapable of producing an experience that would lead a strong-minded witch astray, due to their single-mindedness and lack of originality. Since I don't subscribe to the Christian belief in the Fall, I don't consider non-malicious spirits as inherently evil or intent on subverting my path. Indeed some can be quite helpful. Again, a focus on the extreme duality of the Christian or Moslem cosmologies is needlessly broad and not particularly useful. Such absolutes get in the way of real spiritual development in my opinion.

I am just placing the two beliefs (pagan , Christianity) next to each other to see where they are the same and where they are different. To be honest with you they are not that far apart.

I'd say they differ on several key conceptualizations, but they are both systems of mystical knowledge.

[tmancour]

You didn’t exactly disagree, but I wonder if you do realize that if one investigates something with strongly fixed preconceptions, he is pretty much apt to miss evidence against them and see only evidence for them. I see the Bible and the universe as evidence of a loving almighty creator.

I agree completely . . . which is one reason I abandoned Christianity, because most of the people I knew who were into it were there because of their own preconceptions ("Christianity is Good", "The Bible is true", "If I don't believe I'll be sorry"). When they actually were forced to study the issue, they were far too willing to cling to their preconceptions and ignore any evidence that might contradict them. I found that intellectually dishonest to the point of an epic fail for them to make their case. And while I see the universe as evidence of the loving nature of the gods, I can't say I see the same in the Bible. Too much suffering and unnecessary bloodshed in there for that. I find far more inspirational evidence of the divine in something elegant and simple, like the Tao Te Ching.

Ritual can be empty or misleading.

Sure it can. So can preaching and prayer. If your ritual is empty, though, you're doing it wrong. Ritual is never done just for the sake of ritual in Paganism, each one has a specific purpose and goal. Some of us are really good at it, some of us not so much. But I think you'll find that true of all religions.

H’mm. I’m afraid I need an example or more for the bolded and italicized sentence above. Note that most Christians don’t really understand ‘faith’ if James Patrick Holding is correct. Again, you shouldn’t judge Christianity by what most people in it do. Look for the best people if you insist on judging Christianity by the actions of its members.

Faith is "absolute belief in something without proof". And when the tough questions get asked, most Christians are far too willing to defer to "faith" rather than tackle the issues. Which is one more way of avoiding responsibility. And avoiding responsibility is something I abhor. I do look for the best in people, regardless of religion. It's just that Christianity makes a big deal about how righteous and well-informed Christians are about what the Divine wants, likes, and doesn't like, yet when the rubber meets the road they shrug off their failure to live up to the code with "God will forgive me" and "You just have to have faith that, eventually, God will work in his mysterious ways and all of this mess we've created will be fixed."

I did not define Christianity. I was just pointing out that it’s supposed to be not emotional in the sense that one MUST think. You complain that the Bible is not easy to understand. Phooey, you are complaining that you have to think. Shame on you, lazy in using your noggin. I can’t say I’m impressed by the mental brilliance of y’all witches on display in this thread.

Lazy? I've read over five hundred books in the pursuit of my Wiccan training, with at least six different versions of the Bible among them. I had to read and study over a hundred just to get my first degree initiation, not to mention all of the practice, meditation, ritual preparations, and deep spiritual introspection. When compared to most Christians, who (at most) have read selected passages of the Bible and a couple of commentaries as part of their confirmation classes, I'd say that I find most Christians to be the intellectually lazy ones. How many have read the Nag Hammadi scrolls, which are from their own body of sacred literature? How many have studied the intricacies of other religions in any depth at all? I'm not the intellectually lazy one. My spiritual tradition wouldn't allow it. Just because I've read the Bible a dozen or so times and didn't happen to agree with it's supposedly "obvious" message and gave my life to Jesus does NOT imply that I'm intellectually lazy. And in point of fact, I'm not here to display my intellectual brilliance, I'm here to answer basic questions about Neo-Pagan belief and practice. Intellectual brilliance will cost ya more . . .

‘Overthinking’ - ugh! Of course maybe you meant that the emotions are suppressed. That is a problem, all right. However, I don’t think so. You would give in to your rage. You would give in your inclination to be lazy especially in using your noggin. You would wallow in self-pity. You would over-daydream of some Never-never land where all persons are witches like you. And so on, unto chaos and a sea of meaninglessness.

Then you have misunderstood just about everything I've told you. Your own preconceptions have determined that your path is the "right" one, and you are determined to undermine my arguments against that proposition by attacking my intellectual rigor. Nor is it required that I give up my feelings in order to understand my religion -- that would place me implicitly out-of-balance, and that's not something we seek. We don't try to suppress our emotions, we seek to understand them and use them. Religion is a profoundly emotional matter, and I consider the efficacy and usefulness of a religion as being inherently bound up in the its ability to allow a practitioner to use it to make their lives better. I know a lot of people who suppress their emotions. I know of none who do this and live happier lives because of it. Ideally intellect and emotion work in harmony with spirit to the betterment of the individual. Anything less than that means you're doing it wrong.

‘Tis true, parts of the Bible are not easy to understand. Other parts are even hard to swallow, such as the pharaoh’s magicians duplicating Moses’ feats (I theorize that it was really God’s doing, though). Contradictions? Someone did give some examples, but I don’t regard them as true contradictions. Examples of the failure to think things through–yea!

Which is another convenient way of dismissing thoughtful criticism of your religion and your religious text without actually addressing it. Which smacks of real intellectual laziness.

I did not explicitly call you or any other witch crazy. If you disagree, show me where.

You've called me looney a couple of times in previous posts. It doesn't bother me that much, but it does detract from the seriousness of the conversation. Perhaps I mistook "looney" for some non-crazy epithet, but where I come from the two words are related.

All things are possible to God.

Including dividing the divine in smaller, easier-to-understand pieces? Including being conceived and perceived as female? Including welcoming all well-meaning seekers of spiritual truth without judgement and condemnation? Including taking responsibility for his/her actions, even if it means exposing oneself to the criticism of his/her creations? Including suffering a dozen or more "one true ways" to duke it out on this planet with no clear evidence to support any of them? Including constructing an internally consistent natural cosmology untainted by the cultural prejudices of desert-dwelling mystics? Just asking.

Besides, you can’t say you have an adequate understanding of the universe. Science does seem to have theories that work, but philosophers so far have been unable to establish their relationship to the truth. The Bible could still be more true than science for all we know.

"True" in what way? That the Earth is only 6000 years old? Still awaiting the slightest shred of objective evidence on that one. Sure, science doesn't have all the answers, but neither does the Bible. Not by a mile.

You still think it’s OK to murder someone. It’s OK for Obama to murder yet more Mideasterners.

Where did you draw that conclusion from? Murder is almost never OK. For anyone. That includes the murder of heretics, infidels and non-believers. Just because we don't have the prohibition given to us from On High and engraved in stone doesn't mean we don't have a well-established and internally consistent moral code.

The teacher should have some power. The village elders should. The business owner. The manager. A boss. The director of a charitable organization. Why go beyond that? Now this is getting off topic, so I will let you have the last word, and I’ll have nothing more to say on this subject in this thread. There’s another thread going on now, but I won’t mention it.

I appreciate that. It's been an interesting discussion.

[Augustine2004]

How to know if this past-lives-reincarnation thing is not a gigantic con job by Satan and his minions? Related questions later.

If people are gradually becoming less evil as time goes on as they learn their lessons throughout the reincarnation cycles, why does there still seem to be so much evil yet? Sure, you said villainy has to be done so that people may learn. That seems to mean either that we will never see the end of evil or we ought to see things improve from say decade to decade.

I have to hand it to you franktalk. Wiccans prefer your posts to mine. Congratulations, you win the popularity contest.

I agree completely . . . which is one reason I abandoned Christianity, because most of the people I knew who were into it were there because of their own preconceptions ("Christianity is Good", "The Bible is true", "If I don't believe I'll be sorry").

Bah! Maybe if you were with the finest Christians in the world then, you would still have left [the comma is correctly placed, please read carefully].

When they actually were forced to study the issue, they were far too willing to cling to their preconceptions and ignore any evidence that might contradict them. I found that intellectually dishonest to the point of an epic fail for them to make their case.

It’s all too common a failing. Most Christians hardly know the Bible and can’t argue their way out of a paper bag.

And while I see the universe as evidence of the loving nature of the gods, I can't say I see the same in the Bible. Too much suffering and unnecessary bloodshed in there for that.

You’d say the same thing about a history of World War II with those nukes and fire-bombing in Japan, I suppose.

I find far more inspirational evidence of the divine in something elegant and simple, like the Tao Te Ching.

Maybe your mind is simple. Elegant? I like elegance myself. I prefer people who can do stuff, though.

Sure it can. So can preaching and prayer. If your ritual is empty, though, you're doing it wrong. Ritual is never done just for the sake of ritual in Paganism, each one has a specific purpose and goal. Some of us are really good at it, some of us not so much. But I think you'll find that true of all religions.

OK. What I wrote was a reply to a question. The passage above could have been an answer itself.

Faith is "absolute belief in something without proof".

OK, but are you disputing James Patrick Holding’s view of what the Bible means? You had better give a pretty good answer, I think JPH is right.

And when the tough questions get asked, most Christians are far too willing to defer to "faith" rather than tackle the issues. Which is one more way of avoiding responsibility. And avoiding responsibility is something I abhor. I do look for the best in people, regardless of religion. It's just that Christianity makes a big deal about how righteous and well-informed Christians are about what the Divine wants, likes, and doesn't like, yet when the rubber meets the road they shrug off their failure to live up to the code with "God will forgive me" and "You just have to have faith that, eventually, God will work in his mysterious ways and all of this mess we've created will be fixed."

Ouch! We do deserve that.

Lazy? I've read over five hundred books in the pursuit of my Wiccan training, with at least six different versions of the Bible among them. I had to read and study over a hundred just to get my first degree initiation, not to mention all of the practice, meditation, ritual preparations, and deep spiritual introspection. When compared to most Christians, who (at most) have read selected passages of the Bible and a couple of commentaries as part of their confirmation classes, I'd say that I find most Christians to be the intellectually lazy ones. How many have read the Nag Hammadi scrolls, which are from their own body of sacred literature? How many have studied the intricacies of other religions in any depth at all? I'm not the intellectually lazy one. My spiritual tradition wouldn't allow it. Just because I've read the Bible a dozen or so times and didn't happen to agree with it's supposedly "obvious" message and gave my life to Jesus does NOT imply that I'm intellectually lazy. And in point of fact, I'm not here to display my intellectual brilliance, I'm here to answer basic questions about Neo-Pagan belief and practice. Intellectual brilliance will cost ya more . . .

Your criticism of Christians is justified. I have to admit that the amount of work that you claimed you did makes me feel I’m lazy. But, I’m not impressed by your reason for leaving Christianity, that most Christians are not worthy to kiss any spot where Jesus Christ may have trod.

Then you have misunderstood just about everything I've told you. Your own preconceptions have determined that your path is the "right" one, and you are determined to undermine my arguments against that proposition by attacking my intellectual rigor. Nor is it required that I give up my feelings in order to understand my religion -- that would place me implicitly out-of-balance, and that's not something we seek. We don't try to suppress our emotions, we seek to understand them and use them. Religion is a profoundly emotional matter, and I consider the efficacy and usefulness of a religion as being inherently bound up in the its ability to allow a practitioner to use it to make their lives better. I know a lot of people who suppress their emotions. I know of none who do this and live happier lives because of it. Ideally intellect and emotion work in harmony with spirit to the betterment of the individual. Anything less than that means you're doing it wrong.

No, I don’t think so. Man is at once both thinking and emotional–should be anyway. Balance between intellect and emotion–phooey! To be sure, too many people give free rein to their emotions, and then you can talk all you want about imbalance.

Which is another convenient way of dismissing thoughtful criticism of your religion and your religious text without actually addressing it. Which smacks of real intellectual laziness.

You’ve yet to come up with an example of true contradiction in the Bible and to show that it is real. Let’s go through the definition again. Let A = statement of fact. A true contradiction = A and not A, or any pair of passages that can be put in that form. As for not-quite-contradictions, I thought I’d adequately addressed those examples that you gave? If not, would you please show how they fit the ‘A and not A form’? Or you can give yet another example. Maybe that’s the better way to go now.

You've called me looney a couple of times in previous posts. It doesn't bother me that much, but it does detract from the seriousness of the conversation. Perhaps I mistook "looney" for some non-crazy epithet, but where I come from the two words are related.

I entered ‘looney’ in the thread search box. You’re the only one to use that word. Try again.

Including dividing the divine in smaller, easier-to-understand pieces? Including being conceived and perceived as female? Including welcoming all well-meaning seekers of spiritual truth without judgement and condemnation? Including taking responsibility for his/her actions, even if it means exposing oneself to the criticism of his/her creations? Including suffering a dozen or more "one true ways" to duke it out on this planet with no clear evidence to support any of them? Including constructing an internally consistent natural cosmology untainted by the cultural prejudices of desert-dwelling mystics? Just asking.

Sure, ask any what-if question. Isn’t there some way for you to demonstrate in public the reality of past lives? Something that’s easy for us to believe. Scientifically demonstrative. Maybe an experiment that can be done easily in one’s home.

"True" in what way? That the Earth is only 6000 years old? Still awaiting the slightest shred of objective evidence on that one. Sure, science doesn't have all the answers, but neither does the Bible. Not by a mile.

Guth’s inflation idea was for the space part only. However, a suggestion was made that time is involved also. Hence the universe may be 10,000 years old when time is measured one way, and billions of years when measured another way. Objective evidence? No such thing and will never be in science.

Where did you draw that conclusion from? Murder is almost never OK. For anyone. That includes the murder of heretics, infidels and non-believers. Just because we don't have the prohibition given to us from On High and engraved in stone doesn't mean we don't have a well-established and internally consistent moral code.

That was the satirical end of an argument. I’ll not repeat myself ad infinitum.

[franktalk]

tmancour ,

Yes, I am hung up on the dual evil/good split. The reasons for it are many. Even in your beliefs evil is somehow necessary for a person to experience some things in a particular life. Without evil I am not sure we would have choice. There always has to be that thing we know we should not do. And of course given choice then we could do it. So evil will always exist in this world.

Now in Christianity we have a picture of the future and we expect events to happen that will lead to that future. Prophecy is a major part of Christianity. We have the expectation of a promised future. You of course have a promised future as well but it is coming back here and learning some more. Where is the end of all of this?

As for evil demons and such. I would not know if a visiting spirit is evil or not unless they are tested. They being on the world for ages can fool me completely. I must seem as a babe to them. So I have to say I find it hard to believe that you can discern a bad spirit with out a test of some kind. Now in Christianity we are told to use the name of Christ in dealing with evil spirits. Is there some method / statement that can be used to control or cast off an evil spirit in your belief system? In Christianity the Church has fallen down on the job when it comes to discussing spirits other than the Holy Ghost. I think the Church is leading most to believe they don't exist. I think that the spiritual nature of man must be satisfied and if not by Christianity then it may happen by some other faith. I have talked to many people who used to be Christians. I think this is because of the Church and not scripture. But that of course is another discussion.

[Augustine2004]

Yes, I am hung up on the dual evil/good split.

Manichaeism?

The reasons for it are many. Even in your beliefs evil is somehow necessary for a person to experience some things in a particular life. Without evil I am not sure we would have choice. There always has to be that thing we know we should not do. And of course given choice then we could do it. So evil will always exist in this world.

It's nevertheless true that everyone has his own system of ethics that differs from everyone else's. In particular, like what tman says, what seems evil to one may seem good to another. God and his true subjects are the only entities who sees the universe as good (overall?).

[franktalk]

Manichaeism?

Why would I follow some dead Persian?

It's nevertheless true that everyone has his own system of ethics that differs from everyone else's. In particular, like what tman says, what seems evil to one may seem good to another. God and his true subjects are the only entities who sees the universe as good (overall?).

I do not believe in relative morality. It is the contrast I am looking for between pagans and Christianity. I think there is ground for discussion. Each faith should be able to stand on it's beliefs. In some way even faith must be reasonable.

[Augustine2004]

Why would I follow some dead Persian?

I may be wrong, is it not the Christian term for the heresy that the universe is the battleground between two opposing ‘armies,’ one good and the other evil?

[Augustine2004]

I do not believe in relative morality. It is the contrast I am looking for between pagans and Christianity. I think there is ground for discussion. Each faith should be able to stand on it's beliefs. In some way even faith must be reasonable.

That's fine. However, that's not the way the world is. Everyone has his own system of morality, though you may be able to discern broad similarities.

[Augustine2004]

I did some reviewing of prior posts. The neoPagans, tmancour in particular, do not seem to have much of memory training. False memories and forgetfulness. I thought for a while maybe the witches were using a debate trick, making me repeat myself endlessly to bore out readers, but I see now the stupidity of that thought.

What good can come out of reading hundreds of books if most of the contents is forgetten totally? At first 'hundreds of books' seems impressive, but when it turns out that their contents are mostly lost . . .

[franktalk]

I may be wrong, is it not the Christian term for the heresy that the universe is the battleground between two opposing ‘armies,’ one good and the other evil?

We are not pawns. But we can choose to join in with powers on both sides. To deny that spiritual good and bad exist is to ignore the Bible. I now wonder what you are talking about?

[Augustine2004]

We are not pawns. But we can choose to join in with powers on both sides. To deny that spiritual good and bad exist is to ignore the Bible. I now wonder what you are talking about?

Oy vey, is your memory as bad as those of the neoPagans who are apparently now lurkers or non-participants? Manichaeism was declared to be a heresy by the early Church. Yes or no?

[franktalk]

Oy vey, is your memory as bad as those of the neoPagans who are apparently now lurkers or non-participants? Manichaeism was declared to be a heresy by the early Church. Yes or no?

We must be talking past each other. It is not a problem. That there are good and bad spirits is a given. It is the nature of the interaction that defines doctrine. I think that is clearly laid out in scripture. Spirits are more controlled than we are. So they exist at the mercy of God is evident.

[Augustine2004]

The continued absence of the neoPagans in this thread so bothered me that I again reviewed recent posts. Perhaps I did something that ticked them off that was a blunder. Maybe they decided I was too much an idiot . . . Lurkers, your thoughts, please?

[technomage]

The continued absence of the neoPagans in this thread so bothered me that I again reviewed recent posts. Perhaps I did something that ticked them off that was a blunder. Maybe they decided I was too much an idiot . . . Lurkers, your thoughts, please?

I cannot speak for the others, but while I do not consider you an idiot, I also do not consider you to be interested in honest discourse. Your tendency towards derision is far too quickly demonstrated for me to place great faith in your earnestness.

[franktalk]

I did some reviewing of prior posts. The neoPagans, tmancour in particular, do not seem to have much of memory training. False memories and forgetfulness. I thought for a while maybe the witches were using a debate trick, making me repeat myself endlessly to bore out readers, but I see now the stupidity of that thought.

What good can come out of reading hundreds of books if most of the contents is forgetten totally? At first 'hundreds of books' seems impressive, but when it turns out that their contents are mostly lost . . .

What you read you read one way, others read it another. Both people come away from reading a book with ideas. Somehow you assume that all people will come to the same understanding. That is so false. Because we all come to the starting page with beliefs already in place. Then as we read we organize and evaluate each page based on how we see the world. All of us are different.

Chatting with someone in order to understand their basic beliefs is simple. But you must be willing to see things in their light. If you do not you will always talk past the other person and never get anywhere. The discussion is a waste of time. The same points are discussed over and over with no understanding. Unless both parties to a discussion are able to set their own view aside and try and see things from the other's perspective then the conversation falls apart.

I am trying to understand why someone picks Wicca as a belief. It is just as real to them as Christianity is to me. I ask questions to get to the core of their beliefs. Everyone has some kind of foundation in which their faith rest. So far I see a strong tie in with science for the people who believe in Wicca. (not sure if I am using that word right) They also are naturalist and see God in nature. There is logic and reason in this belief.