Ask a Wiccan

[divineseraph]

-xXLady RaiXx-

Quote:

Okay: Lady Raixx,
What entitiy(ies) give you the most amount of energy that you commonly use for your practices? Which divine energy sources grant you the ability to perform your daily duties to give you your beneficial control of the universe around you?

I never said I practiced did I?

Quote:

Can you show any documentation that Paganistic Practices have been around longer than Judaism, let alone Christianity? Stonehenge is not an example as it is a structure. Documentation, please.

How bloody hard is it to freaking do some bloody research.

Quote:

Hinduism can be traced back to the time of Abraham, thereby being shown as a possible link up to the Kabbalistic teachings often associated with the early Hebraic practices. In fact, its interesting to note that early Hindu practices focused on the one who walked among us (Brahma) and (Abram) the one who wandered to the West.

Prove it.

Rofl, I like how bad you are at debating logically.

First someone asks you to cite a source, and you ask how "bloody hard it is to freaking do some research".

Then, when someone brings up a point, you ask them to... drumroll... cite a source! Great job!

The appropriate response, then, is a nice old NO U.  

[TN_Lark]

divineseraph

TN_Lark

Quote:

How do you account for the source of the universe being a singular, infinite entity as described by physical equation?

I do not believe that there is any sort of scientific formula that can prove or disprove the existence of either the Christian God or the Gods of all of the other religions. Although I do acknowledge that numbers and statistics can be warped to prove almost anything.

The last that I knew is that current science does not ascribe the creation of the universe to any divine being but rather to a physical event called the Big Bang.

-Lark-

That's the how, not the why.

You didn't ask "why" the universe was created. You asked how I accounted for a physical equation showing that the universe was created by a singular entity. And my response is still that to the best of my knowledge the only physical equation describes a process rather than an entity.

If that is not what you meant me to answer perhaps you should clarify your original question.

-Lark-  

[divineseraph]

TN_Lark

divineseraph

TN_Lark

Quote:

How do you account for the source of the universe being a singular, infinite entity as described by physical equation?

I do not believe that there is any sort of scientific formula that can prove or disprove the existence of either the Christian God or the Gods of all of the other religions. Although I do acknowledge that numbers and statistics can be warped to prove almost anything.

The last that I knew is that current science does not ascribe the creation of the universe to any divine being but rather to a physical event called the Big Bang.

-Lark-

That's the how, not the why.

You didn't ask "why" the universe was created. You asked how I accounted for a physical equation showing that the universe was created by a singular entity. And my response is still that to the best of my knowledge the only physical equation describes a process rather than an entity.

If that is not what you meant me to answer perhaps you should clarify your original question.

-Lark-

You've just stated what I meant-Science can only prove the process. That is the how, not the why. We know HOW it happened. We don't know WHO did it or for WHAT reason.

By science, we can prove the chemical makeup of a painting. Given that the painting is unsigned and has no others like it, science can not place a WHO, a WHY or give subjective opinions as of the reason of the painting, be it political or emotional or practice. So it goes with the universe- We can see the means, not the maker.  

[Neferet -House of Night-]

divineseraph

TN_Lark

divineseraph

TN_Lark

Quote:

How do you account for the source of the universe being a singular, infinite entity as described by physical equation?

I do not believe that there is any sort of scientific formula that can prove or disprove the existence of either the Christian God or the Gods of all of the other religions. Although I do acknowledge that numbers and statistics can be warped to prove almost anything.

The last that I knew is that current science does not ascribe the creation of the universe to any divine being but rather to a physical event called the Big Bang.

-Lark-

That's the how, not the why.

You didn't ask "why" the universe was created. You asked how I accounted for a physical equation showing that the universe was created by a singular entity. And my response is still that to the best of my knowledge the only physical equation describes a process rather than an entity.

If that is not what you meant me to answer perhaps you should clarify your original question.

-Lark-

You've just stated what I meant-Science can only prove the process. That is the how, not the why. We know HOW it happened. We don't know WHO did it or for WHAT reason.

By science, we can prove the chemical makeup of a painting. Given that the painting is unsigned and has no others like it, science can not place a WHO, a WHY or give subjective opinions as of the reason of the painting, be it political or emotional or practice. So it goes with the universe- We can see the means, not the maker.

Divine, do we need to give you glasses? I bolded and underlined your question for you. You didn't ask why, you asked how.  

[TN_Lark]

divineseraph

Quote:

How do you account for the source of the universe being a singular, infinite entity as described by physical equation?

You've just stated what I meant-Science can only prove the process. That is the how, not the why. We know HOW it happened. We don't know WHO did it or for WHAT reason.

By science, we can prove the chemical makeup of a painting. Given that the painting is unsigned and has no others like it, science can not place a WHO, a WHY or give subjective opinions as of the reason of the painting, be it political or emotional or practice. So it goes with the universe- We can see the means, not the maker.

Exactly. We cannot prove WHO created the universe, we can't even prove it was created by intelligent design. That is where faith and belief come in.

But I must say that your position now about who did what makes no sense in conjunction with your original question which seemed to imply that a physical equation could answer the question. Perhaps I was misunderstanding the point you were trying to arrive at.

-Lark-  

[divineseraph]

-xXLady RaiXx-

divineseraph

TN_Lark

divineseraph

TN_Lark

Quote:

How do you account for the source of the universe being a singular, infinite entity as described by physical equation?

I do not believe that there is any sort of scientific formula that can prove or disprove the existence of either the Christian God or the Gods of all of the other religions. Although I do acknowledge that numbers and statistics can be warped to prove almost anything.

The last that I knew is that current science does not ascribe the creation of the universe to any divine being but rather to a physical event called the Big Bang.

-Lark-

That's the how, not the why.

You didn't ask "why" the universe was created. You asked how I accounted for a physical equation showing that the universe was created by a singular entity. And my response is still that to the best of my knowledge the only physical equation describes a process rather than an entity.

If that is not what you meant me to answer perhaps you should clarify your original question.

-Lark-

You've just stated what I meant-Science can only prove the process. That is the how, not the why. We know HOW it happened. We don't know WHO did it or for WHAT reason.

By science, we can prove the chemical makeup of a painting. Given that the painting is unsigned and has no others like it, science can not place a WHO, a WHY or give subjective opinions as of the reason of the painting, be it political or emotional or practice. So it goes with the universe- We can see the means, not the maker.

Divine, do we need to give you glasses? I bolded and underlined your question for you. You didn't ask why, you asked how.

Rai, do you need to update your subscription to "Reading Comprehension Quarterly"? I asked how he accounted for it in his reasoning, not how he thought the universe came to be. He gave me HOW the universe was made, not how he ACCOUNTED for the universe being made. He gave me- ready for it? the HOW and not the WHY, which is what I was asking for.

Language is the heart's lament, I suppose.  

[divineseraph]

TN_Lark

divineseraph

Quote:

How do you account for the source of the universe being a singular, infinite entity as described by physical equation?

You've just stated what I meant-Science can only prove the process. That is the how, not the why. We know HOW it happened. We don't know WHO did it or for WHAT reason.

By science, we can prove the chemical makeup of a painting. Given that the painting is unsigned and has no others like it, science can not place a WHO, a WHY or give subjective opinions as of the reason of the painting, be it political or emotional or practice. So it goes with the universe- We can see the means, not the maker.

Exactly. We cannot prove WHO created the universe, we can't even prove it was created by intelligent design. That is where faith and belief come in.

But I must say that your position now about who did what makes no sense in conjunction with your original question which seemed to imply that a physical equation could answer the question. Perhaps I was misunderstanding the point you were trying to arrive at.

-Lark-

I wasn't implying that a physical equation could determine everything... I was giving the real implication scientific backing. The point was, science says that the universe started from one point. One. A singular entity. See where I'm going with this?  

[TN_Lark]

Quote:

I wasn't implying that a physical equation could determine everything... I was giving the real implication scientific backing. The point was, science says that the universe started from one point. One. A singular entity. See where I'm going with this?

I will agree with you that current science suggests that the Universe came into being from a single point/event, the Big Bang. But I do not agree that that single event means that a single entity was responsible for it. I see the Creators as having existed prior to the creation of the Universe. Where you see that Creator as Yaweh, I see the Universe as the child of the relationship between the Gods. My Gods were not created by the event which made the Universe, they are what caused that event to happen.

You also see your Deity as having created the Universe, but being apart from it. I see my Deities as having both created the Universe and also being present within their creation.

-Lark-  

[Neferet -House of Night-]

Hey Lark,

Are the Gods and Goddess bound by oaths? And in order to be Wiccan do you have to be initiated or is there a such thing as a solitary Wiccan?  

[ferret658]

TN_Lark

To answer your last question first. I believe that the teachings of Christianity as are attributed to Jesus are a lovely religion..just not for me. However, it seems to me that many Christians today are forgetting that at the heart of Jesus' teachings was the admonition to love others. I believe that he meant for each of us to love ALL others (as he showed in the stories regarding both the tax collector and the prostitute), but that it has come to mean love others ONLY IF THEY ARE JUST LIKE ME. So I hear Christian churches who preach hate against homosexuals, Catholics, Pagans like me, and anyone else that they see as not being in accord with their particular beliefs. Is this the message that you believe Jesus died to teach?

I love you for saying this. Jesus, as you must know from studying the Bible while you were in school, hung out with the whores and tax collectors! Jesus loved them! Like He loves you. I agree with you that churches do preach against those sorts of people, when in reality, they are twisting God's word and preaching against the sinner, not the sin.

It's unbelievable to me how intolerable Christians can be, and also how misinformed about their own relationship with God. (I refuse to say religion)  

[Crimson Raccoon]

diabolical_ferret658

TN_Lark

To answer your last question first. I believe that the teachings of Christianity as are attributed to Jesus are a lovely religion..just not for me. However, it seems to me that many Christians today are forgetting that at the heart of Jesus' teachings was the admonition to love others. I believe that he meant for each of us to love ALL others (as he showed in the stories regarding both the tax collector and the prostitute), but that it has come to mean love others ONLY IF THEY ARE JUST LIKE ME. So I hear Christian churches who preach hate against homosexuals, Catholics, Pagans like me, and anyone else that they see as not being in accord with their particular beliefs. Is this the message that you believe Jesus died to teach?

I love you for saying this. Jesus, as you must know from studying the Bible while you were in school, hung out with the whores and tax collectors! Jesus loved them! Like He loves you. I agree with you that churches do preach against those sorts of people, when in reality, they are twisting God's word and preaching against the sinner, not the sin.

It's unbelievable to me how intolerable Christians can be, and also how misinformed about their own relationship with God. (I refuse to say religion)

Of course, we really shouldn't forget that these sinners who Jesus hung out with, had turned away from their sinful lifestyles in order to follow Him. Mary Magdalene for example, used to be a prostitute, but she left that lifestyle of sin and instead followed Christ's teachings for the rest of her life. In the eyes of the Pharisees, she was still a prostitute, but in the eyes of Christ she had been forgiven because she left that lifestyle and followed Him.

So that doesn't mean we should all hang out with prostitutes since Jesus did. It means we should, if confronted by a prostitute, try to guide them to follow Christ. Jesus was brought a woman caught in adultery, and the Pharisees wanted to stone her to death. He forgave her, and yet his words to her were "Go and sin no more." His actions of love toward her weren't a free pass to continue in her sinful lifestyle. Rather, it was a command to stop sinning.

So just because a preacher says prostitution, or homosexuality, or whatever is sinful, doesn't mean they aren't following Christ's teachings. Christ said plenty of things were sinful. It's just a matter of whether we will accept a person once they have abandoned their sinful ways and turned to Christ. Christ's message wasn't that it's ok to be a prostitute and we should all be accepting of them; his message was that you can be forgiven of it and given a new life, when you put your faith in Him. And that is the cause that he died for.  

[Kupo-Sama]

Crimson Raccoon

diabolical_ferret658

TN_Lark

To answer your last question first. I believe that the teachings of Christianity as are attributed to Jesus are a lovely religion..just not for me. However, it seems to me that many Christians today are forgetting that at the heart of Jesus' teachings was the admonition to love others. I believe that he meant for each of us to love ALL others (as he showed in the stories regarding both the tax collector and the prostitute), but that it has come to mean love others ONLY IF THEY ARE JUST LIKE ME. So I hear Christian churches who preach hate against homosexuals, Catholics, Pagans like me, and anyone else that they see as not being in accord with their particular beliefs. Is this the message that you believe Jesus died to teach?

I love you for saying this. Jesus, as you must know from studying the Bible while you were in school, hung out with the whores and tax collectors! Jesus loved them! Like He loves you. I agree with you that churches do preach against those sorts of people, when in reality, they are twisting God's word and preaching against the sinner, not the sin.

It's unbelievable to me how intolerable Christians can be, and also how misinformed about their own relationship with God. (I refuse to say religion)

Of course, we really shouldn't forget that these sinners who Jesus hung out with, had turned away from their sinful lifestyles in order to follow Him. Mary Magdalene for example, used to be a prostitute, but she left that lifestyle of sin and instead followed Christ's teachings for the rest of her life. In the eyes of the Pharisees, she was still a prostitute, but in the eyes of Christ she had been forgiven because she left that lifestyle and followed Him.

So that doesn't mean we should all hang out with prostitutes since Jesus did. It means we should, if confronted by a prostitute, try to guide them to follow Christ. Jesus was brought a women caught in adultery, and the Pharisees wanted to stone her to death. He forgave her, and yet his words to her were "Go and sin no more." His actions of love toward her weren't a free pass to continue in her sinful lifestyle. Rather, it was a command to stop sinning.

So just because a preacher says prostitution, or homosexuality, or whatever is sinful, doesn't mean they aren't following Christ's teachings. Christ said plenty of things were sinful. It's just a matter of whether we will accept a person once they have abandoned their sinful ways and turned to Christ. Christ's message wasn't that it's ok to be a prostitute and we should all be accepting of them; his message was that you can be forgiven of it and given a new life, when you put your faith in Him. And that is the cause that he died for.

I think you may have misunderstood what ferret meant. Of course, not many are willing to hang around prostitutes and the like, neither do we necessarily have to. I think as you are, he was emphasizing the point that Jesus did not judge. So like him, we shouldn't be quick to judge them either.

At the same time it probably wouldn't be a good idea to try and preach religion to them either. But then again that's just me. I live by example and if people want to become Christian by my example, that's fine by me. If not, wipe the dust from your Sandals and move on.  

[Crimson Raccoon]

Kupo-Sama

I think you may have misunderstood what ferret meant. Of course, not many are willing to hang around prostitutes and the like, neither do we necessarily have to. I think as you are, he was emphasizing the point that Jesus did not judge. So like him, we shouldn't be quick to judge them either.

My post wasn't really disagree with anything diabolical_ferret658 said, rather I just wanted to clarify or expand a point, particularly in response to TN_Lark who I also quoted. I agree with ferret that people can be and have been intolerant. But from TN_Lark, I got the impression that anyone who preaches against homosexuality or paganism is intolerant just from that. I just wanted to clarify that Jesus didn't accept those lifestyles, rather he went around with people who abandoned those sins for faith.

Kupo-Sama

At the same time it probably wouldn't be a good idea to try and preach religion to them either. But then again that's just me. I live by example and if people want to become Christian by my example, that's fine by me. If not, wipe the dust from your Sandals and move on.

I think living a Christian example is obviously necessary, but it's only one thing; at the same time the Bible really stresses that we share our faith vocally and proactively. When it comes to wiping the dust from your sandals, that phrase is from the Bible and the example is from people who rejected the disciples' preaching, not from people who choose not to follow their example. According to the Bible, no one gains faith just by seeing someone else's example: Rather, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." As Paul asks, "how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Romans 10)  

[Kupo-Sama]

Crimson Raccoon

Kupo-Sama

I think you may have misunderstood what ferret meant. Of course, not many are willing to hang around prostitutes and the like, neither do we necessarily have to. I think as you are, he was emphasizing the point that Jesus did not judge. So like him, we shouldn't be quick to judge them either.

My post wasn't really disagree with anything diabolical_ferret658 said, rather I just wanted to clarify or expand a point, particularly in response to TN_Lark who I also quoted. I agree with ferret that people can be and have been intolerant. But from TN_Lark, I got the impression that anyone who preaches against homosexuality or paganism is intolerant just from that. I just wanted to clarify that Jesus didn't accept those lifestyles, rather he went around with people who abandoned those sins for faith.

Kupo-Sama

At the same time it probably wouldn't be a good idea to try and preach religion to them either. But then again that's just me. I live by example and if people want to become Christian by my example, that's fine by me. If not, wipe the dust from your Sandals and move on.

I think living a Christian example is obviously necessary, but it's only one thing; at the same time the Bible really stresses that we share our faith vocally and proactively. When it comes to wiping the dust from your sandals, that phrase is from the Bible and the example is from people who rejected the disciples' preaching, not from people who choose not to follow their example. According to the Bible, no one gains faith just by seeing someone else's example: Rather, "faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ." As Paul asks, "how are they to hear without someone preaching?" (Romans 10)

True. I agree with what you say. Your arguments are very logical. Its just that I've noted from quite a few people that many don't accept the Christian faith by vocalizing it, as many interpret it as, "cramming religion down their throat.", so rather than dealing with people arguing with me over that fact, I just chose the faith by example path. I guess it doesn't make me a very good Christian but that's just what I've come to understand.

It's great if it works for you though. As for the first line you mentioned, yeah you got a point. People did turn from their sins because of him. Though he did have a way with words, and did use example as a way to turn away from sins. Like you said with the woman who was about to be stoned to death from adultery and he stepped in and told the Pharisees "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.", which was an example of love in its own right, I find. In a way I guess its really just finding that balance between preaching and example.  

[Imitation Stradivarius]

Can I clarify what I meant here?

I meant, a great deal of intolerance comes out of every religion towards certain lifestyles. And often times, we hear our own pastors preaching subtle intolerance against homosexuals, pagans, Satanists.

They are seriously twisting God's words there, and the people following these preachers, pastors, fathers - whatever position they hold are the ones going out and hating gays, hating Satanists, hating all around. How many times has my youth pastor tell my youth group that she needs God's love to love the little crapp faces that come through? Countless! This is the perfect example of hate the sin, not the sinner.

I just said the same thing again - just more long winded. I'm really trying to be articulate here.