|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:14 am
You asked me where I got my information on Wicca. My information is gathered from a variety of sources. It is not a "see this page here, or that page there". It is taking everything that I have learned, using my own critical thinking skills and making valid judgments from there. It is not up to me to hand everything to you on a silver platter (especially since it is not based on any single source). Yes A&J is a private list - it's not a matter of pointing to one post or a couple of posts. It's a matter of you searching the archives and learning whatever it is you are wanting to know. The point is that the information contained in those archives is one of the best resources on Wicca, because there is a large number of BTW initiates and Elders who are members of the list. If anyone is going to be able to answer questions regarding BTW it is they. We are all well aware that Murray has been debunked, however Gardner is still a primary source on Wicca - it is his "baby". So other than the whole "Wicca is an ancient religion" crap - what he says goes. So that I don't take up the whole page... What Gardner Said. Quote: Your own source, the google book, "Triumph of the Moon", on page 228 acknowledges that there is no evidence that Gardner wrote the original text that Wicca is based on. The exact quote is Quote: My personal opinion is that the text does not provide any conclusive evidence for the of whether Gardner composed those entries which have no known provenance, or copied them from pre-existing source; in other words whether he was initiated into an existing religion or created one himself. The overall conclusion of the book is that Wicca did not exist before Gardner, even if he was initiated into a Witchcult - what he learned from them was added to other practices to form what is known as Wicca. Gardner is the ultimate "authority" (if ever there was going to be one) on what Wicca is (despite the historical inaccuracies, which are well documented). The historical info contained in his books is almost irrelevant - what one is really looking at is the description of the practices/aspects of the religion itself.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:20 pm
rmcdra PrometheanSet Reducto ad absurdum? Reduction is one thing, but too far neglects the particulars of the situation. True but that wasn't done in this case. Please demonstrate if I have or drop it. PrometheanSet Again, this is still a simple matter. Yes, they can be prevented from joining *a* guild, but good luck convincing *every* pagan guild on Gaia to take up such a practice. Not trying to, just saying that guilds can be exclusive but if they want to be they can. PrometheanSet Yeah, me either. At least we've got some common ground now! Yay. PrometheanSet You have a way of trying to mock the evidence I present as though I were trying to be special. Is that the only way you can address the issues I presented there? Okay well it didn't seem like evidence. It seemed like you were trying to somehow set yourself apart for some off-topic reason. What does you having good relations with other religious affiliates have to do with this topic, since I can say pretty much the same thing. PrometheanSet About the mods - they're sorting it out. All of the specifics seem to make it a sticky situation. Out of respect for others involved, I won't trash them by airing their personal business here. Wasn't asking for you to. PrometheanSet This is not exclusively a debate board. Debate AND discuss religion. The thread in question was visibly geared towards a discussion, which was inhibited. Debate is part of discussion. Why such a negative view of debate? PrometheanSet Traditionally in the US, it's considered "impolite" to discuss something as personal as politics or religion in public. If we're going to move beyond that, we need to remember and carry out the respect the old way had built in. How was I being disrespectful or impolite about question why he wished to call himself something that not only inaccurately described his beliefs system but a title for a role he could not fulfill? Example why call yourself a carpenter if you cut meat as your profession. PrometheanSet If you're so interested in correcting misinformation, do it yourself. I do, one person at a time though. PrometheanSet You can sow these sources like seeds. It's not that hard to do or understand. Thing is though is that most people won't look at these sources because it would tell them that they are wrong. Such dumps would not confirm the bias most people already have. Most people don't like being told they are wrong. PromeatheanSet On the - "How to be Wiccan in 30 minutes" - if you were to manufacture such nonsense, I'd say you missed the point of this debate. If you're coming across it, then make your own site that points to how that's "not Wicca". No I'm pointing out that it's not unusual to see such nonsense out there. Hence all the misinformation. PrometheanSet And the idea of using someone's religious beliefs in an "academic" debate with them is still disrespectful. If we are discussing or debating something within one's belief system, how is is disrespectful? You just did it with EternallyBlue concerning Baptism. PrometheanSet Outright calling someone out to invalidate their beliefs is not okay. I'll remember that when some says that child molestation is a holy act. Or that "God hates fags". Or that you have to be a white supremacist to be an Asatru. It's best not to invalidate such views right? PrometheanSet You keep trying to force others to look at evidence, and choose accordingly. This isn't school. My posts don't have to be read, the links I provide don't have to be clicked on. Even you had the option of ignoring me but you chose not to. PrometheanSet I hate to say that "evidence has no place in religion", but the way we have total freedom of religion... unless the person wants it, they really don't have to take it. Within the laws of the land of course. Anyway about there being no evidence. Yes there is evidence in pre-established religion or those claiming to be a part of a pre-established religion. Typical evidence is in the writings of a pre-established religion and confirmed gnosis of individuals within the religion in question. PrometheanSet Both with debate and the internet, people can and do just tune you out. Exactly another reason why I have a hard time believing that I am forcing one to believe what I do. Alright, I concede I had reducto ad absurdum confused. You were not reducing my argument to be pointless simply out of it's own sake, even when it's relevant to the topic. Regardless, in the context of that thread, it was irrelevant to the topic of debate. I want to relate it to ad hominem somehow, but that's taking some time to dig up, so I'll leave it alone in that form. My point on the guilds - this guild, and much of the Pagan guilds on Gaia are fairly open, as a reflection of the Neopagan communities. Yes, there is the anti-fluffy backlash. However, that non-Pagans such as you and I can integrate into these communities, with or without a close association with a previous member of the community, displays the openness I speak of. If discussion is a form of debate, it's not the form of debate that has winners, losers, or sides - its simply the form where we explore new aspects and solutions to an issue. The form typically understood as "classic" debate is a (typically) two-sided logical argumentative conflict to determine which of the solutions should be implemented, even if one such solution is inaction at the moment, and is often considered reminiscent of the legislative process. To do this with someone's beliefs - unless they open it up to debate themselves - is forceful. And out of respect for the board, I would ask that if it would clog up the other thread, that you start a single topic-specific "debate thread". Furthermore, if one reads through enough of the threads in this guild, you will find many instances where "change what religion you have" is off the table as a solution. And I fail to see how a negative conversion (causing the relevant person to stray from a Celtic-based path), with no specified direction afterwards (as would be respectful - I am *not* saying you're looking for new converts, as in positive conversion) necessarily helps with "having a hard time being Pagan in _______ town or school". You saw the reaction towards that one post in this thread where an individual effectively said "the bible has answers!" and walked off. While they didn't necessarily mean to imply that there are no answers in Paganism, or that the bible is the only way, participants in this thread reacted in an accordingly defensive manner - literally in defense of the topic. Lady Tsukiyo was very respectful in the matter when she pointed out that the Bible has little to do with Paganism, but I'm not using the particular definition of "defensive" that includes hostility. I'm sure you've seen the hostility come out when the occasional evangelical spammer/troll wanders into an internet pagan group. Earned or not, the response often includes hostility from the group. If I held a negative view of debate, I would not be debating with you all smile I actually find this debate among equals to be quite invigorating. Eternally blue is not Catholic, but rather was looking for clarity on Catholicism. So I wasn't debating her own beliefs with her. And that wasn't the sort of debate we have going, or where you attempt to convince someone that their version of Wicca or Celtic beliefs is not valid. I considered the particular form of debate that I discussed as disrespectful to be implicit in this debate. My proposed solution still involves discussion of the evidence - thus debate in some form, as you've pointed out, but not the form of debate we know of in the colloquial sense. Directly questioning someone's religion in a thread where they've already participated, in which the particulars of faith is only tangentially related to the topic is calling someone out. The rough time of being a Pagan - a minority religion in a school or society which the predominate, established religion is Christianity - does not necessitate calling their beliefs into question. The thread topic was not designed to accommodate this debate. With regards to your examples of Asatru white supremacy, "holy" child molestation, and religious gay-bashing: neglecting that such things are against the terms of service, the guild and community's social standards, et al... alright, you've forced me to explicitly amend my position. My solution only applies when there is no physical or emotional harm being done to people, or implicitly accepted as "what should be done". Note that the rare Asatru white supremacist who simply says "I'm white, and I hold my race in higher regard than others" does not meet the criteria for this exemption unless it spreads throughout the board in such a way that harms the board and/or people on it. Examples include if *they* permeate it throughout the board in a way that is not conducive to discussion or that makes others uncomfortable. Then again, if such a thing happens, the white supremacist usually opens that particular stance to debate by the nature of their actions and posting patterns. At which point, you can use some academically-viable sources to slap down the idea of Asatru as a white-supremacist ideology and invalidate the idea of white supremacy. Especially when they start the debate or use it as evidence in another debate, have at 'em! I've met self-proclaimed white supremacists that take a stance that they have nothing against other races, but wish to explore their own cultural heritage at the expense of taking part in the larger multicultural community. While odd that these rare people need to use the word "white supremacist" to describe themselves, I see no harm in this. If their "white supremacy" is just finding their roots, Asatru fits the bill for many who choose it (but not universally; so it is not, even in this softened definition, "white supremacist" in nature). xLady Tsukiyox One last thing. I have read sources on Wicca, being Drawing Down the Moon by Margot Adler. Nowhere in that book does it claim Gardner was an oathbreaker. You keep repeating the same thing without backing it up. Either back it up or shut up. biggrin Yeah, *proof by repeated assertion!* :p xd With Gardner's heavy involvement with the Golden Dawn, the OTO and Crowley and his post mortem works previous to the founding of Wicca, you won't be able to prove this assertion wrong. It may be lazy, but an attempt to show Gardner as an oathbreaker doesn't seem necessary right now. Enough other ideas about Wicca are on the table to encourage an open mind when it comes to teaching others. Until I dig out that one source or rebuild it's reasoning with other sources, I'll concede that point as unbacked, and thus inadmissible. On mentioning that Alder said nothing about it: the absence of evidence is not evidence of itself. That's why I haven't implied that the absence of a Wiccan in this thread supporting your point means that Wiccans disagree with you. If a traditional Wiccan jumps in on either side, that gives that side disputable merit; as it stands, my fallacious claim would be "Wiccans are disinterested in supporting you". Until you find a way to apply Statistics in a meaningful, applicable way (both in method and in the inherent reasoning), this point still stands. And even then, Statisticians understand they're not working with absolute truth, but measures of probability. ncsweet You asked me where I got my information on Wicca. My information is gathered from a variety of sources. It is not a "see this page here, or that page there". It is taking everything that I have learned, using my own critical thinking skills and making valid judgments from there. It is not up to me to hand everything to you on a silver platter (especially since it is not based on any single source). Yes A&J is a private list - it's not a matter of pointing to one post or a couple of posts. It's a matter of you searching the archives and learning whatever it is you are wanting to know. The point is that the information contained in those archives is one of the best resources on Wicca, because there is a large number of BTW initiates and Elders who are members of the list. If anyone is going to be able to answer questions regarding BTW it is they. We are all well aware that Murray has been debunked, however Gardner is still a primary source on Wicca - it is his "baby". So other than the whole "Wicca is an ancient religion" crap - what he says goes. So that I don't take up the whole page... What Gardner Said. Quote: Your own source, the google book, "Triumph of the Moon", on page 228 acknowledges that there is no evidence that Gardner wrote the original text that Wicca is based on. The exact quote is Quote: My personal opinion is that the text does not provide any conclusive evidence for the of whether Gardner composed those entries which have no known provenance, or copied them from pre-existing source; in other words whether he was initiated into an existing religion or created one himself. The overall conclusion of the book is that Wicca did not exist before Gardner, even if he was initiated into a Witchcult - what he learned from them was added to other practices to form what is known as Wicca. Gardner is the ultimate "authority" (if ever there was going to be one) on what Wicca is (despite the historical inaccuracies, which are well documented). The historical info contained in his books is almost irrelevant - what one is really looking at is the description of the practices/aspects of the religion itself. In order to support an argument in an "academic" debate such as this hopes to approximate, you don't just throw a book down on the table. If you want to remove all doubt, you'll give me no excuse to continue the debate and deny your assertion. If you ask me for a source, I need to provide it, and vice versa. Unless the information is considered "common knowledge" by everyone involved, and thus mutually agreed upon as beyond reproach, we both need to hand the info to each other as directly as possible. One example of common knowledge to this debate is when Wicca was started, though we're not your average joes and janes walking in with absolutely no understanding of the topic. You've shown me how I misinterpreted that one source from Gardner, but you haven't shown me where these claims are made in these entire books - both as far as which book says what, or where within each book. In your own source, What Thou Wilt on page i (3 of the pdf) details lieaged Wicca as "the Traditional Perspective", where my word "Neo-Wicca" fits his "Innovative Perspective". Would you be offended if I used the worlds "Traditional Wicca" and "Innovative Wicca" to describe these things, to reflect a more academic nomenclature? If I find no objections, I will do so in my following posts. The author of the text in question, Jon Hanna, at first criticizes the idea of Innovative Witches claiming the word "Wicca" for their own (page 116; pdf page 130), saying that Wicca needs a firm definition to mean something rather than strangely anything. However, on the next page, he then acknowledges the impossibility of constraining the definition this way when it has such a large colloquial base among non-traditional "Wiccans". Here, Hanna scales back his argument, suggesting that as the "Innovative Witches" that claim "Wiccan" establish structures which can contribute meaning to the word, it will no longer come to mean practically anything. While I find his assertion - that lineaged Wicca will be excluded in such a definition - to be absurd, avoiding this absurdity with such a definition would lead to a solution that is just as amicable as his solution of two mutually exclusive definitions. As Wicca is a new religion that is struggling to form an undisputed definition of itself, either solution is possible. During this selection of the text, Hanna also states, "the Wicca are still Her hidden children, and as such complaining loudly about a practice by outsiders that is not active persecution, is perhaps not an appropriate stance" (page 117, pdf 131). This author, a Traditional Wiccan, effectively invalidates the idea that Lineaged Wiccans need to go out of their way to share their definition of Wicca with outsiders. No one is persecuting them, and these Traditional Wiccans still know who they are, so they don't need to run around in a futile struggle to keep outsiders from using "Wicca" to describe a more eclectic practice. Let them have their alleged misnomer, as long as we have the real thing. I'll also use this to say that the dispute is too ongoing for someone who wants to claim an unbiased teaching role within the whole of Paganism (afterall, the inciting incident wasn't about Wicca!) to then claim there is an absolute solution. That is my whole point behind this thread, afterall - advocating "softer" teaching methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:41 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Semiremis Quote: You neglect my display of the diversity of Christianity, both in practices and in beliefs, where I present information that even core ideas and rites may differ. Do you mean to imply in this fashion that Christianity is openminded compared to Wicca? Unfortunately stare Personally I have no problem calling only Catholics Christian since it is the religion that all of the others have stemmed off of and changed (for the most part). I didn't read the whole discussion but if this is about that whole, 'True Wiccan's are only those who have been initiated' argument then I'm with those who call bull s**t on it. Traditional Christianity is largely orthopraxic and historically you were not a Christian until you were baptized into the Catholic Church. Sound familiar? Wicca is a baby religion going through what we did a long time ago. That doesn't mean tradition and history were correct. All that orthopraxy isn't in the Bible, which is one of the problems other Christians have with Catholics. huh? It's littered throughout the bible! Matt. 25:31-46 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [6] you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”I don't know how you can pick up a bible, read it and not see that the entire book touches on good conduct and actions. It's all over the bible. Catholicism is completely in line with what the bible teaches.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:04 am
PrometheanSet To do this with someone's beliefs - unless they open it up to debate themselves - is forceful. But again I never question anyone's beliefs. Only a few people here do. Most of us that have issues are not with what they believe but rather what they wish to call their beliefs. Quote: Furthermore, if one reads through enough of the threads in this guild, you will find many instances where "change what religion you have" is off the table as a solution. Really more often I see change what you are calling your beliefs rather than change what you believe. Quote: I'm sure you've seen the hostility come out when the occasional evangelical spammer/troll wanders into an internet pagan group. Earned or not, the response often includes hostility from the group. Usually this hostility is a sign of insecurity in one's religion. In FPRG, there was a Christian girl that came to the guild trying to convert people. She was treated very respectfully and even given advice how she could be polite in her proselyting endeavors. Quote: If I held a negative view of debate, I would not be debating with you all smile I actually find this debate among equals to be quite invigorating. Eternally blue is not Catholic, but rather was looking for clarity on Catholicism. So I wasn't debating her own beliefs with her. And that wasn't the sort of debate we have going, or where you attempt to convince someone that their version of Wicca or Celtic beliefs is not valid. But those religions are based on orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. You could even be an atheist in Wicca because it's not believing in the God and Goddess. I'm sure those that have researched Wicca better could explain it then I could. I remember asking this question but I don't remember the details on why this is true. On the note of orthopraxic religions, if one cannot preform the right actions or meet the requirements to perform the right actions, why should they call their beliefs such and such, especially when the reason they are using such and such names are because of romanticism and sensationalism promoted by the media, authors looking to make a quick buck, and other well-meaning but misinformed individuals. Quote: With regards to your examples of Asatru white supremacy, "holy" child molestation, and religious gay-bashing: neglecting that such things are against the terms of service, the guild and community's social standards, et al... alright, you've forced me to explicitly amend my position. My solution only applies when there is no physical or emotional harm being done to people, or implicitly accepted as "what should be done". Okay but some paths require harm and are acceptable by social standards. An it harm none, is advice but that's about it, in some extremes it can be quite harmful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:26 am
Semiremis xxEternallyBluexx Semiremis Quote: You neglect my display of the diversity of Christianity, both in practices and in beliefs, where I present information that even core ideas and rites may differ. Do you mean to imply in this fashion that Christianity is openminded compared to Wicca? Unfortunately stare Personally I have no problem calling only Catholics Christian since it is the religion that all of the others have stemmed off of and changed (for the most part). I didn't read the whole discussion but if this is about that whole, 'True Wiccan's are only those who have been initiated' argument then I'm with those who call bull s**t on it. Traditional Christianity is largely orthopraxic and historically you were not a Christian until you were baptized into the Catholic Church. Sound familiar? Wicca is a baby religion going through what we did a long time ago. That doesn't mean tradition and history were correct. All that orthopraxy isn't in the Bible, which is one of the problems other Christians have with Catholics. huh? It's littered throughout the bible! Matt. 25:31-46 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [6] you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”I don't know how you can pick up a bible, read it and not see that the entire book touches on good conduct and actions. It's all over the bible. Catholicism is completely in line with what the bible teaches. Helping the needy is in line. But where does it say you're supposed to pray for saints, where is an infant baptized, purgatory exists, and that the Pope is supposed to represent Jesus on earth, priests can forgive your sins, etc. in the Bible?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:25 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Semiremis xxEternallyBluexx Semiremis Quote: You neglect my display of the diversity of Christianity, both in practices and in beliefs, where I present information that even core ideas and rites may differ. Do you mean to imply in this fashion that Christianity is openminded compared to Wicca? Unfortunately stare Personally I have no problem calling only Catholics Christian since it is the religion that all of the others have stemmed off of and changed (for the most part). I didn't read the whole discussion but if this is about that whole, 'True Wiccan's are only those who have been initiated' argument then I'm with those who call bull s**t on it. Traditional Christianity is largely orthopraxic and historically you were not a Christian until you were baptized into the Catholic Church. Sound familiar? Wicca is a baby religion going through what we did a long time ago. That doesn't mean tradition and history were correct. All that orthopraxy isn't in the Bible, which is one of the problems other Christians have with Catholics. huh? It's littered throughout the bible! Matt. 25:31-46 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [6] you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”I don't know how you can pick up a bible, read it and not see that the entire book touches on good conduct and actions. It's all over the bible. Catholicism is completely in line with what the bible teaches. Helping the needy is in line. But where does it say you're supposed to pray for saints, where is an infant baptized, purgatory exists, and that the Pope is supposed to represent Jesus on earth, priests can forgive your sins, etc. in the Bible? I’ll erase this feeling…
I still have a long life don’t I?
kono omoi wo keshiteshimau ni ha
mada jinsei nagai deshou? Actually it's in the Bible. The Catholic Bible was one of the first Bible's that was translated used, etc. All other Bible's etc got their stuff from the Catholics. In other words bibles like KJV are a copypasta of the latin transcripts used by the Catholic monks. Taking bits and pieces used during the Council of Nicea and applying it to their own trad. In actuality the reference to Gehenna which is where souls wait to be saved, could actually be more of purgatory/limbo. Paul was the one who came up with the Pope idea. He was the one who established the first Church. Take it up with him. The praying of saints could be a method used to convert the pagans who had a polytheistic pantheon. However since the Protestant Reformation it seems the purpose of this has been lost along with other things. Which causes the rift within Christianity to be greater, and cause great headaches between denominations. I’m missing the feeling…
so this pain is also welcomed!
natsukashiku naru
konna itami mo kangeijan
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:51 pm
Praying to the Saints The historic Christian practice of asking our departed brothers and sisters in Christ—the saints—for their intercession has come under attack in the last few hundred years. Though the practice dates to the earliest days of Christianity and is shared by Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, the other Eastern Christians, and even some Anglicans—meaning that all-told it is shared by more than three quarters of the Christians on earth—it still comes under heavy attack from many within the Protestant movement that started in the sixteenth century. Can They Hear Us? One charge made against it is that the saints in heaven cannot even hear our prayers, making it useless to ask for their intercession. However, this is not true. As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of "golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints." But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us. Some might try to argue that in this passage the prayers being offered were not addressed to the saints in heaven, but directly to God. Yet this argument would only strengthen the fact that those in heaven can hear our prayers, for then the saints would be aware of our prayers even when they are not directed to them! In any event, it is clear from Revelation 5:8 that the saints in heaven do actively intercede for us. We are explicitly told by John that the incense they offer to God are the prayers of the saints. Prayers are not physical things and cannot be physically offered to God. Thus the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God mentally. In other words, they are interceding. One Mediator Another charge commonly levelled against asking the saints for their intercession is that this violates the sole mediatorship of Christ, which Paul discusses: "For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Tim. 2:5). But asking one person to pray for you in no way violates Christ’s mediatorship, as can be seen from considering the way in which Christ is a mediator. First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in the least by the fact that others intercede for us. Furthermore, Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19–20). The intercession of fellow Christians—which is what the saints in heaven are—also clearly does not interfere with Christ’s unique mediatorship because in the four verses immediately preceding 1 Timothy 2:5, Paul says that Christians should interceed: "First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. This is good, and pleasing to God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:1–4). Clearly, then, intercessory prayers offered by Christians on behalf of others is something "good and pleasing to God," not something infringing on Christ’s role as mediator. "No Contact with the dead" Sometimes Fundamentalists object to asking our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us by declaring that God has forbidden contact with the dead in passages such as Deuteronomy 18:10–11. In fact, he has not, because he at times has given it—for example, when he had Moses and Elijah appear with Christ to the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3). What God has forbidden is necromantic practice of conjuring up spirits. "There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. . . . For these nations, which you are about to dispossess, give heed to soothsayers and to diviners; but as for you, the Lord your God has not allowed you so to do. The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed" (Deut. 18:10–15). God thus indicates that one is not to conjure the dead for purposes of gaining information; one is to look to God’s prophets instead. Thus one is not to hold a seance. But anyone with an ounce of common sense can discern the vast qualitative difference between holding a seance to have the dead speak through you and a son humbly saying at his mother’s grave, "Mom, please pray to Jesus for me; I’m having a real problem right now." The difference between the two is the difference between night and day. One is an occult practice bent on getting secret information; the other is a humble request for a loved one to pray to God on one’s behalf. Overlooking the Obvious Some objections to the concept of prayer to the saints betray restricted notions of heaven. One comes from anti-Catholic Loraine Boettner: "How, then, can a human being such as Mary hear the prayers of millions of Roman Catholics, in many different countries, praying in many different languages, all at the same time? "Let any priest or layman try to converse with only three people at the same time and see how impossible that is for a human being. . . . The objections against prayers to Mary apply equally against prayers to the saints. For they too are only creatures, infinitely less than God, able to be at only one place at a time and to do only one thing at a time. "How, then, can they listen to and answer thousands upon thousands of petitions made simultaneously in many different lands and in many different languages? Many such petitions are expressed, not orally, but only mentally, silently. How can Mary and the saints, without being like God, be present everywhere and know the secrets of all hearts?" (Roman Catholicism, 142-143). If being in heaven were like being in the next room, then of course these objections would be valid. A mortal, unglorified person in the next room would indeed suffer the restrictions imposed by the way space and time work in our universe. But the saints are not in the next room, and they are not subject to the time/space limitations of this life. This does not imply that the saints in heaven therefore must be omniscient, as God is, for it is only through God’s willing it that they can communicate with others in heaven or with us. And Boettner’s argument about petitions arriving in different languages is even further off the mark. Does anyone really think that in heaven the saints are restricted to the King’s English? After all, it is God himself who gives the gift of tongues and the interpretation of tongues. Surely those saints in Revelation understand the prayers they are shown to be offering to God. The problem here is one of what might be called a primitive or even childish view of heaven. It is certainly not one on which enough intellectual rigor has been exercised. A good introduction to the real implications of the afterlife may be found in Frank Sheed’s book Theology and Sanity, which argues that sanity depends on an accurate appreciation of reality, and that includes an accurate appreciation of what heaven is really like. And once that is known, the place of prayer to the saints follows. "Directly to Jesus" Some may grant that the previous objections to asking the saints for their intercession do not work and may even grant that the practice is permissible in theory, yet they may question it on other grounds, asking why one would want to ask the saints to pray for one. "Why not pray directly to Jesus?" they ask. The answer is: "Of course one should pray directly to Jesus!" But that does not mean it is not also a good thing to ask others to pray for one as well. Ultimately, the "go-directly-to-Jesus" objection boomerangs back on the one who makes it: Why should we ask any Christian, in heaven or on earth, to pray for us when we can ask Jesus directly? If the mere fact that we can go straight to Jesus proved that we should ask no Christian in heaven to pray for us then it would also prove that we should ask no Christian on earth to pray for us. Praying for each other is simply part of what Christians do. As we saw, in 1 Timothy 2:1–4, Paul strongly encouraged Christians to intercede for many different things, and that passage is by no means unique in his writings. Elsewhere Paul directly asks others to pray for him (Rom. 15:30–32, Eph. 6:18–20, Col. 4:3, 1 Thess. 5:25, 2 Thess. 3:1), and he assured them that he was praying for them as well (2 Thess. 1:11). Most fundamentally, Jesus himself required us to pray for others, and not only for those who asked us to do so (Matt. 5:44). Since the practice of asking others to pray for us is so highly recommended in Scripture, it cannot be regarded as superfluous on the grounds that one can go directly to Jesus. The New Testament would not recommend it if there were not benefits coming from it. One such benefit is that the faith and devotion of the saints can support our own weaknesses and supply what is lacking in our own faith and devotion. Jesus regularly supplied for one person based on another person’s faith (e.g., Matt. 8:13, 15:28, 17:15–18, Mark 9:17–29, Luke 8:49–55). And it goes without saying that those in heaven, being free of the body and the distractions of this life, have even greater confidence and devotion to God than anyone on earth. Also, God answers in particular the prayers of the righteous. James declares: "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects. Elijah was a man of like nature with ourselves and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. Then he prayed again and the heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth its fruit" (Jas. 5:16–1 cool . Yet those Christians in heaven are more righteous, since they have been made perfect to stand in God’s presence (Heb. 12:22-23), than anyone on earth, meaning their prayers would be even more efficacious. Having others praying for us thus is a good thing, not something to be despised or set aside. Of course, we should pray directly to Christ with every pressing need we have (cf. John 14:13–14). That’s something the Catholic Church strongly encourages. In fact, the prayers of the Mass, the central act of Catholic worship, are directed to God and Jesus, not the saints. But this does not mean that we should not also ask our fellow Christians, including those in heaven, to pray with us. In addition to our prayers directly to God and Jesus (which are absolutely essential to the Christian life), there are abundant reasons to ask our fellow Christians in heaven to pray for us. The Bible indicates that they are aware of our prayers, that they intercede for us, and that their prayers are effective (else they would not be offered). It is only narrow-mindedness that suggests we should refrain from asking our fellow Christians in heaven to do what we already know them to be anxious and capable of doing. In Heaven and On Earth The Bible directs us to invoke those in heaven and ask them to pray with us. Thus in Psalms 103, we pray, "Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21). And in Psalms 148 we pray, "Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2). Not only do those in heaven pray with us, they also pray for us. In the book of Revelation, we read: "[An] angel came and stood at the altar [in heaven] with a golden censer; and he was given much incense to mingle with the prayers of all the saints upon the golden altar before the throne; and the smoke of the incense rose with the prayers of the saints from the hand of the angel before God" (Rev. 8:3-4). And those in heaven who offer to God our prayers aren’t just angels, but humans as well. John sees that "the twenty-four elders [the leaders of the people of God in heaven] fell down before the Lamb, each holding a harp, and with golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints" (Rev. 5: cool . The simple fact is, as this passage shows: The saints in heaven offer to God the prayers of the saints on earth. Source: Praying to the SaintsWorshiping the saints is not supported by the theology.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 5:14 am
rmcdra: Not praying to them like gods but asking for advice and giving respect to the dead. Which is apart of many different cultures. neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 6:22 am
xLady Tsukiyox rmcdra: Not praying to them like gods but asking for advice and giving respect to the dead. Which is apart of many different cultures. neutral And your point?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Dec 17, 2009 12:41 pm
rmcdra PrometheanSet To do this with someone's beliefs - unless they open it up to debate themselves - is forceful. But again I never question anyone's beliefs. Only a few people here do. Most of us that have issues are not with what they believe but rather what they wish to call their beliefs. [...] edited to make page more readable, but illustrate that I'm replying to this post[...] Quote: With regards to your examples of Asatru white supremacy, "holy" child molestation, and religious gay-bashing: neglecting that such things are against the terms of service, the guild and community's social standards, et al... alright, you've forced me to explicitly amend my position. My solution only applies when there is no physical or emotional harm being done to people, or implicitly accepted as "what should be done". Okay but some paths require harm and are acceptable by social standards. An it harm none, is advice but that's about it, in some extremes it can be quite harmful. As to the notion that nobody's questioning anyone's beliefs - why do you neglect the inciting incident behind this thread? Also, as to "having issues with what they call themselves" - we have a traditional definition based on Gardner. However, we have an emergent religion claiming the title for itself which has yet to lay down a cohesive definition. In practice, we have "two Wiccas". The way that such a title affects the subject's concept of their own self-created identity, I find it hard to believe that you could expect anything but hostility in even this venture. Psychologically, either conversion or relabeling produce the same effect - "I have to be this instead of what I was". When we call something as personal as claiming a Neopagan path into question, it intentionally or otherwise becomes an attack on the other person's identity. If there is insecurity behind the hostility you meet, it is more than possible that you helped create (or at the very least, contribute to) that insecurity. In this particular board, we heartily discourage proselytizing. If that's a part of your faith, you're welcome to do it elsewhere. But such a thing interferes with the way this group carries on discussion. We don't necessarily need to abandon politeness to be hostile. Lady Tsukiyo and I were reasonably polite when addressing the individual who suggested the bible as the solution to our problems, but we were definitely opposed in feeling and action. And we conveyed the thought that "this isn't the place". About your PFRC example of the proselytizing Christian - I'm curious, now that you've brought it up. What suggestions did the guild give her? If it's too many to list here, I'm okay with a simplified summary, but I would like as much detail as can be provided within reason. I again assert that there is no such thing as a pure orthodoxy, nor a pure orthopraxy. Such a thing would not have the tools to survive as an ideology. A pure orthopraxy would dissolve into (or already be) folk traditions; a pure orthodoxy, similarly, would be or become folklore. Neither of these form a cohesive religion in the absence of other elements. Even without these two different forms of Wiccas as I've discussed briefly, sticking to a definition of Wicca that neglects its growth (as I've also discussed in a more lengthy way) or beliefs (again....) just doesn't fit the reality. Let me examine your assertion that an Atheist Wiccan may exist. An Atheist holds a disbelief in any gods or goddesses (dictionary.com). Yet, as ncsweet pointed out, through the practices of Wicca, one establishes a relationship with a Lord and Lady. But the Lord and Lady are a God and Goddess, negating the premise of this person still being an Atheist.
So, either this Atheist Wiccan cannot exist, or we were mistaken in our premise that Wicca must lead to the Lord and Lady, as Gardner himself outlined in his lineage. If you keep asserting that an Atheist Wiccan is possible, you negate Lady Tsukiyo and ncsweet's idea that everything must trace itself back to Gardner. This opens the door to a more eclectic practice, up to and including Celtic-based, Innovative Wicca.
If you concede that such a belief structure as "Atheist Wicca" cannot be consistent enough with both traditions to be both Atheist and Wicca, then you concede either Atheism or Wicca is not in this "Atheist Wicca". Thus it becomes either Atheism or Wicca (or neither but with elements of each). Also, unless you negate ncsweet's assertion of Gardnerian lineages, Wicca thus has an orthodoxy.
And orthodoxies fracture, creating a diverse realm of beliefs which all attribute to themselves all the credibility of the whole of Christianity, or Wicca, or Islam, or Buddhism... Or, your orthopraxy that *doesn't* need Gardner wouldn't need to fracture - all those "Innovative Wiccans" are included by default.
Therefore, unless you wish to challenge my three assertions: 1 - atheism is a disbelief in any gods or goddesses, 2 - Wicca' practices lead to the Lord and Lady, and 3 - belief structures evolve, a la the Anthropologist Talal Asad, then you are forced to include some Innovative Wiccans into one's definition of Wicca. But remember another assertion - if you have nothing but Orthopraxy, it isn't a religion or won't be for long. Thus, Wicca is evolving into a more diverse religious group. QED. As to the "harm" thing - if we are to be something approaching rational and reasonable with this internet forum, then even those "socially acceptable" forms of harm must be discouraged. There is playing, which really looks harmful; but when one really understands what's going on, the distinction is clear. There is also the fact that laying down to take a beating is unacceptable either - allowing abuse towards themselves (or another) can often be equated with practically taking part. But we cannot blame the victim, just encourage them to stand up - this is the only humane, effective way to do things. On the Christian diversity (that so wonderfully illustrates my point about Wicca, Neopaganism, etc which are still forming themselves): And traditionally, Saint Peter was the first pope. Jesus basically says "Peter, you are the rock on which I will build my church" in Matthew 16:17-19. Thus, this whole "pope" thing is not entirely without a basis. And even if the Saints are interpreted as Demigods, they are below the one Supreme God by the fact that these Saints worshiped that God in life (for example). "I am the Lord, thy God: though shalt have no other gods before me" (emphasis mine). Thus, the First Commandment is not violated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:59 am
PrometheanSet As to the notion that nobody's questioning anyone's beliefs - why do you neglect the inciting incident behind this thread? Never said nobody did. I said most don't. Quote: Also, as to "having issues with what they call themselves" - we have a traditional definition based on Gardner. However, we have an emergent religion claiming the title for itself which has yet to lay down a cohesive definition. In practice, we have "two Wiccas". The way that such a title affects the subject's concept of their own self-created identity, I find it hard to believe that you could expect anything but hostility in even this venture. Psychologically, either conversion or relabeling produce the same effect - "I have to be this instead of what I was". When we call something as personal as claiming a Neopagan path into question, it intentionally or otherwise becomes an attack on the other person's identity. If there is insecurity behind the hostility you meet, it is more than possible that you helped create (or at the very least, contribute to) that insecurity. The issue is one of self-entitlement. What right does one have to a rank or title one has not earned? On the note of insecurities, why should I assume that someone is insecure with their beliefs? How am I show a person respect by assuming that they have issues? And again what does calling a path a certain thing have to do with what they believe and practice? Quote: About your PFRC example of the proselytizing Christian - I'm curious, now that you've brought it up. What suggestions did the guild give her? If it's too many to list here, I'm okay with a simplified summary, but I would like as much detail as can be provided within reason. Summary 'Proselytizing isn't welcome here. Respect the rules of where you are at. In the future, if you really are concerned about "saving" someone, you should get to know the people you are talking to personally as individuals and not just drop a mass info dump.' Quote: I again assert that there is no such thing as a pure orthodoxy, nor a pure orthopraxy. Such a thing would not have the tools to survive as an ideology. A pure orthopraxy would dissolve into (or already be) folk traditions; a pure orthodoxy, similarly, would be or become folklore. Neither of these form a cohesive religion in the absence of other elements. Even without these two different forms of Wiccas as I've discussed briefly, sticking to a definition of Wicca that neglects its growth (as I've also discussed in a more lengthy way) or beliefs (again....) just doesn't fit the reality. Let me examine your assertion that an Atheist Wiccan may exist. An Atheist holds a disbelief in any gods or goddesses (dictionary.com). Yet, as ncsweet pointed out, through the practices of Wicca, one establishes a relationship with a Lord and Lady. But the Lord and Lady are a God and Goddess, negating the premise of this person still being an Atheist.
So, either this Atheist Wiccan cannot exist, or we were mistaken in our premise that Wicca must lead to the Lord and Lady, as Gardner himself outlined in his lineage. If you keep asserting that an Atheist Wiccan is possible, you negate Lady Tsukiyo and ncsweet's idea that everything must trace itself back to Gardner. This opens the door to a more eclectic practice, up to and including Celtic-based, Innovative Wicca.
If you concede that such a belief structure as "Atheist Wicca" cannot be consistent enough with both traditions to be both Atheist and Wicca, then you concede either Atheism or Wicca is not in this "Atheist Wicca". Thus it becomes either Atheism or Wicca (or neither but with elements of each). Also, unless you negate ncsweet's assertion of Gardnerian lineages, Wicca thus has an orthodoxy.
And orthodoxies fracture, creating a diverse realm of beliefs which all attribute to themselves all the credibility of the whole of Christianity, or Wicca, or Islam, or Buddhism... Or, your orthopraxy that *doesn't* need Gardner wouldn't need to fracture - all those "Innovative Wiccans" are included by default.
Therefore, unless you wish to challenge my three assertions: 1 - atheism is a disbelief in any gods or goddesses, 2 - Wicca' practices lead to the Lord and Lady, and 3 - belief structures evolve, a la the Anthropologist Talal Asad, then you are forced to include some Innovative Wiccans into one's definition of Wicca. But remember another assertion - if you have nothing but Orthopraxy, it isn't a religion or won't be for long. Thus, Wicca is evolving into a more diverse religious group. QED. I take it you haven't heard of psychological constructs or archetypes. Anyway for now I will retract this claim until I can get more information. Quote: As to the "harm" thing - if we are to be something approaching rational and reasonable with this internet forum, then even those "socially acceptable" forms of harm must be discouraged. There is playing, which really looks harmful; but when one really understands what's going on, the distinction is clear. There is also the fact that laying down to take a beating is unacceptable either - allowing abuse towards themselves (or another) can often be equated with practically taking part. But we cannot blame the victim, just encourage them to stand up - this is the only humane, effective way to do things. So if it makes you feel bad it should be avoided. Nice. Quote: On the Christian diversity (that so wonderfully illustrates my point about Wicca, Neopaganism, etc which are still forming themselves): And traditionally, Saint Peter was the first pope. Jesus basically says "Peter, you are the rock on which I will build my church" in Matthew 16:17-19. Thus, this whole "pope" thing is not entirely without a basis. And even if the Saints are interpreted as Demigods, they are below the one Supreme God by the fact that these Saints worshiped that God in life (for example). "I am the Lord, thy God: though shalt have no other gods before me" (emphasis mine). Thus, the First Commandment is not violated. Okay Christianity like Neo-Paganism is a diverse super-group. In Christianity though there are specific groups. These groups have their rules for being a part of this group. The Catholics have their rules. The Lutherans have their rules. The Jehovah Witnesses have their rules. The Mormons have their rules. In some groups the idea of a pope flies. In others it doesn't. In some monolateralism is acceptable. In other it is not. Also why should a Mormon call themselves an Anglican? Why should a Catholic call themselves a Jehovah's Witness? Neo-Paganism is similar in that there are very diverse groups but many of those groups have specific rules so that one can be a part of those groups. Why should one claim to be of a religion they are not practicing or believe in?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 10:18 am
rmcdra PrometheanSet As to the notion that nobody's questioning anyone's beliefs - why do you neglect the inciting incident behind this thread? Never said nobody did. I said most don't. Quote: Also, as to "having issues with what they call themselves" - we have a traditional definition based on Gardner. However, we have an emergent religion claiming the title for itself which has yet to lay down a cohesive definition. In practice, we have "two Wiccas". The way that such a title affects the subject's concept of their own self-created identity, I find it hard to believe that you could expect anything but hostility in even this venture. Psychologically, either conversion or relabeling produce the same effect - "I have to be this instead of what I was". When we call something as personal as claiming a Neopagan path into question, it intentionally or otherwise becomes an attack on the other person's identity. If there is insecurity behind the hostility you meet, it is more than possible that you helped create (or at the very least, contribute to) that insecurity. The issue is one of self-entitlement. What right does one have to a rank or title one has not earned? On the note of insecurities, why should I assume that someone is insecure with their beliefs? How am I show a person respect by assuming that they have issues? And again what does calling a path a certain thing have to do with what they believe and practice? You see, there's the difference in mentality - when you take out the exclusivity of a priesthood, it becomes less of a title and more of... well, just a description for their path. Right or wrong, if you try to take it from them, they're going to get defensive. rmcdra PrometheanSet About your PFRC example of the proselytizing Christian - I'm curious, now that you've brought it up. What suggestions did the guild give her? If it's too many to list here, I'm okay with a simplified summary, but I would like as much detail as can be provided within reason. Summary 'Proselytizing isn't welcome here. Respect the rules of where you are at. In the future, if you really are concerned about "saving" someone, you should get to know the people you are talking to personally as individuals and not just drop a mass info dump.' Interesting. Well, if you're that concerned about saving someone from misinformation... rmcdra PrometheanSet I again assert that there is no such thing as a pure orthodoxy, nor a pure orthopraxy. Such a thing would not have the tools to survive as an ideology. A pure orthopraxy would dissolve into (or already be) folk traditions; a pure orthodoxy, similarly, would be or become folklore. Neither of these form a cohesive religion in the absence of other elements. Even without these two different forms of Wiccas as I've discussed briefly, sticking to a definition of Wicca that neglects its growth (as I've also discussed in a more lengthy way) or beliefs (again....) just doesn't fit the reality. Let me examine your assertion that an Atheist Wiccan may exist. An Atheist holds a disbelief in any gods or goddesses (dictionary.com). Yet, as ncsweet pointed out, through the practices of Wicca, one establishes a relationship with a Lord and Lady. But the Lord and Lady are a God and Goddess, negating the premise of this person still being an Atheist.
So, either this Atheist Wiccan cannot exist, or we were mistaken in our premise that Wicca must lead to the Lord and Lady, as Gardner himself outlined in his lineage. If you keep asserting that an Atheist Wiccan is possible, you negate Lady Tsukiyo and ncsweet's idea that everything must trace itself back to Gardner. This opens the door to a more eclectic practice, up to and including Celtic-based, Innovative Wicca.
If you concede that such a belief structure as "Atheist Wicca" cannot be consistent enough with both traditions to be both Atheist and Wicca, then you concede either Atheism or Wicca is not in this "Atheist Wicca". Thus it becomes either Atheism or Wicca (or neither but with elements of each). Also, unless you negate ncsweet's assertion of Gardnerian lineages, Wicca thus has an orthodoxy.
And orthodoxies fracture, creating a diverse realm of beliefs which all attribute to themselves all the credibility of the whole of Christianity, or Wicca, or Islam, or Buddhism... Or, your orthopraxy that *doesn't* need Gardner wouldn't need to fracture - all those "Innovative Wiccans" are included by default.
Therefore, unless you wish to challenge my three assertions: 1 - atheism is a disbelief in any gods or goddesses, 2 - Wicca' practices lead to the Lord and Lady, and 3 - belief structures evolve, a la the Anthropologist Talal Asad, then you are forced to include some Innovative Wiccans into one's definition of Wicca. But remember another assertion - if you have nothing but Orthopraxy, it isn't a religion or won't be for long. Thus, Wicca is evolving into a more diverse religious group. QED. I take it you haven't heard of psychological constructs or archetypes. Anyway for now I will retract this claim until I can get more information. I take it you have a different understanding of Wicca than the others I'm debating with. I don't believe archetypes have much to do with lineaged Wicca, but more on the side of that Innovative Wicca. rmcdra PrometheanSet As to the "harm" thing - if we are to be something approaching rational and reasonable with this internet forum, then even those "socially acceptable" forms of harm must be discouraged. There is playing, which really looks harmful; but when one really understands what's going on, the distinction is clear. There is also the fact that laying down to take a beating is unacceptable either - allowing abuse towards themselves (or another) can often be equated with practically taking part. But we cannot blame the victim, just encourage them to stand up - this is the only humane, effective way to do things. So if it makes you feel bad it should be avoided. Nice. Huh? Could you explain that interpretation so I understand how you came to it? You quote a part of my post about play vs harm, and about just taking abuse, and then say that "anything that doesn't feel good should be avoided". That seems a little awkward to me. rmcdra PrometheanSet On the Christian diversity (that so wonderfully illustrates my point about Wicca, Neopaganism, etc which are still forming themselves): And traditionally, Saint Peter was the first pope. Jesus basically says "Peter, you are the rock on which I will build my church" in Matthew 16:17-19. Thus, this whole "pope" thing is not entirely without a basis. And even if the Saints are interpreted as Demigods, they are below the one Supreme God by the fact that these Saints worshiped that God in life (for example). "I am the Lord, thy God: though shalt have no other gods before me" (emphasis mine). Thus, the First Commandment is not violated. Okay Christianity like Neo-Paganism is a diverse super-group. In Christianity though there are specific groups. These groups have their rules for being a part of this group. The Catholics have their rules. The Lutherans have their rules. The Jehovah Witnesses have their rules. The Mormons have their rules. In some groups the idea of a pope flies. In others it doesn't. In some monolateralism is acceptable. In other it is not. Also why should a Mormon call themselves an Anglican? Why should a Catholic call themselves a Jehovah's Witness? Neo-Paganism is similar in that there are very diverse groups but many of those groups have specific rules so that one can be a part of those groups. Why should one claim to be of a religion they are not practicing or believe in? Rather, I am relating Wicca with Christianity. Maybe it's just the hour in which you post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:57 pm
An atheist Wicca can exist because Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. With Wicca being orthopraxic beliefs in a deity aren't necessarily needed per say. You can do the practices without believing in the deities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:17 pm
xLady Tsukiyox An atheist Wicca can exist because Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. With Wicca being orthopraxic beliefs in a deity aren't necessarily needed per say. You can do the practices without believing in the deities. That you respond to this indicates that you read my post, but... Listed in ncsweet's "practices" was a relationship with this Lord and Lady. The practices, as she said, "lead one to this relationship". I find it hard to believe that we could have much of a relationship with a pair of deities in which we disbelieve. And once again, a pure orthopraxy cannot be a religion. While the deities and cosmology of it all doesn't have to be the most central thing in a religion, they do exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 9:24 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Semiremis xxEternallyBluexx Semiremis Quote: You neglect my display of the diversity of Christianity, both in practices and in beliefs, where I present information that even core ideas and rites may differ. Do you mean to imply in this fashion that Christianity is openminded compared to Wicca? Unfortunately stare Personally I have no problem calling only Catholics Christian since it is the religion that all of the others have stemmed off of and changed (for the most part). I didn't read the whole discussion but if this is about that whole, 'True Wiccan's are only those who have been initiated' argument then I'm with those who call bull s**t on it. Traditional Christianity is largely orthopraxic and historically you were not a Christian until you were baptized into the Catholic Church. Sound familiar? Wicca is a baby religion going through what we did a long time ago. That doesn't mean tradition and history were correct. All that orthopraxy isn't in the Bible, which is one of the problems other Christians have with Catholics. huh? It's littered throughout the bible! Matt. 25:31-46 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left. 34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, [6] you did it to me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ 44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ 45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”I don't know how you can pick up a bible, read it and not see that the entire book touches on good conduct and actions. It's all over the bible. Catholicism is completely in line with what the bible teaches. Helping the needy is in line. But where does it say you're supposed to pray for saints, where is an infant baptized, purgatory exists, and that the Pope is supposed to represent Jesus on earth, priests can forgive your sins, etc. in the Bible? Two who have already lived on the earth an passed on (Onias and Jeremiah) pray for those on earth. Rev. 5:6-8 6 And I saw: and behold in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures and in the midst of the ancients, a Lamb standing, as it were slain, having seven horns and seven eyes: which are the seven Spirits of God, sent forth into all the earth. 7 And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat on the throne. 8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints.
Rev. 8:3-8 3 And another angel came and stood before the altar, having a golden censer: and there was given to him much incense, that he should offer of the prayers of all saints, upon the golden altar which is before the throne of God. 4 And the smoke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel. Infant Baptism:
Acts 16:15 15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she constrained us.
Acts 18:8 8 And Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, with all his house. And many of the Corinthians hearing, believed and were baptized.
Luke 18:15-17 15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he might touch them. Which when the disciples saw, they rebuked them. 16 But Jesus, calling them together, said: Suffer children to come to me and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 17 Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child shall not enter into it.Entire households are baptized without mention of any exclusions, Jesus calls even the infants to him. The icing on the cake would be the information we have from early Christians which show that infant baptism was being practiced then. Purgatory:The Catholic Church does not take the official position that purgatory as a place exists, it's recognized as a purification that some undergo: 1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607
As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.6081 Cor. 3:15 15 If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.Purification is that fire. 2 Macc. 12:44-46 44 (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead), 45 and because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. 46 It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.Color code: Me BibleCatechismI'm stopping here for now and I'll go on to the rest later (either tonight or tomorrow).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
