Ask a Wiccan!

[technomage]

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]

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.

[Dracula Girl]

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]

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]

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]

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)?

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]

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]

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.

[technomage]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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