Wicca is an evil, demonic power thirsty faith.

[Cerebrum123]

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



Numbers 25

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

(a) Killing members of the group; CHECK

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

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

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

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


Blessed Be, Dur

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

[Scrawly]

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

Blessed Be, Dur.

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

[headheart]

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

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

This is something I read a few years ago:

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

From: Your Confirmation by J.W.R Stott

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

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


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

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

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

A. The Celtic Connection > Wicca and Witchcraft Information Index > Wicca Concepts of Deity

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

The Supreme Creative Force:

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

Polarities of The One:

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

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

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

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

B. What is G-d? (Judaism) >

It's a very long opening post so I am only going to post the first few lines, you will have to go there to read TK's adaptation From "The Handbook of Jewish Thought" (Vol. 1) :

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

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

Along with this is the initial discussion "Is Mormonism or Wicca on your agenda?" (in Comp. Rel.) which resulted in this one; both which were sparked by "Judachrislam" (Apologetics) which are almost required reading to keep up with where this might go. Who knows where it will end up, for sure I don't.

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

Peace,
Eric

[Bill the Cat]

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

[headheart]

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

BTC,
Seeing as you know-it-all there's not much more to discuss.
Goodbye,
Eric

[Scrawly]

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

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

[Durthorin]

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

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

Blessed Be, Dur

[Durthorin]

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

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

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

Blessed Be, Dur

[Durthorin]

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

Blessed Be, Dur

[headheart]

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

Blessed Be, Dur

Hi Durthorin,

I also note that you quoted "Charles Guignebert (1867-1930)" as a source for your conclusions. (Post 84)
Is it not possible that 82 years of research since the passing of Charles Guignebert by notable scholars engaged in the quest for the historical Jesus has provided us with more than this?

Peace,
Eric

[Chrawnus]

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

Blessed Be, Dur

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

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

[Bill the Cat]

BTC,
Seeing as you know-it-all there's not much more to discuss.
Goodbye,
Eric

You're funny...

[headheart]

You're funny...

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

Peace,
Eric

[headheart]

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

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

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

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

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

Peace,
Eric