a little understanding about wicca, its not bad

[AgnosTheist]

Agreed. I’m an atheist.

alright! highfive!

 

[Keikiolu]

Keikiolu;2906188:

As I said before, since you’re 3/4 of the way to being a Catholic

If it makes you happy to so believe,

It does,… because it’s true.

The thing that so many people forget is that Christianity, or rather “the Church” (Catholic), is not only the culmination and fulfillment of Judaism (Adam-Noah-Abraham-Etc’s line) but is also the culmination and fulfillment of true old paganism.

Since I do truly believe that you are relatively close to a version of old paganism and rather distant from the neo-pagan sludge which is commonly know these days, from your (rather cursory but apparently heartfelt) descriptions of your beliefs, and I also believe that you’re following your well-formed conscience in obeyance of natural law, you’re actually much closer to God than a vast number of the “agnostic”, even the agnostic pseudo-Christian, out there.

But that said,… I may well be totally hallucinating about you.

I’m pretty confident that I’m not though.

Quote:

your “traditionalism” is (no doubt) treated almost EXACTLY like a Catholic is treated by his protestant brothers.

YOU are the intolerant close-minded “imperialist” rule-bound killjoy to them… There are some parallels. I am much less “rule-bound” than many, however.

Well, by “rule-bound” I’m refering to the “perception” by non-Catholics that there are huge numbers of strictures which “limit our freedom”, which they don’t like.

That’s not really true, but a lovely illusory “hammer” with which (witch!?) to bash Catholics.

…and I imagine that you may have less “legalism” than many neo-pagans, you actually hold and apply your “rules” in your life, as opposed to merely having a bunch of free-floating ceremonial “spells” (formulae) to impress the local wildlife with your powers of memorization.

Quote:…and if you’re not, you’re not talking loudly enough. NOT something of which I have usually been accused!

Well, that WAS a conditional statement I made…!

Congratulations on your vociferousness…! My great applause to you.

Quote:Like I said,… typical Catholic mom who knows where she’s coming from, and who’s only “fault” is in misidentifying the persons that she talks to while “in the Spirit”. Again, if it makes you happy to think that…

Yeah,… I can see this is going to be an ongoing “inside” joke.

Quote:Sounds like you’ve got much MUCH more angel dealings than demon dealings, which is probably very odd indeed for a neo-pagan, Why would you assume that the majority of those following Neopagan religions have “demon dealings”?

Due to the effect of their “spiritual communications” on their psyches.

The overwhelming amount of “wants” that they receive, which is the result of dealings with demons, as opposed to the “needs” that people receive from the angels, gives them the “smell” of the “unreal” and “baselessly optimistic”, or actually “perversely libertine”.

Angels give true “needs”, things we NEED to do and learn, and that “grounding” in reality is SO much different from the “woo-woo” that even you would recognize in the vast majority of neo-pagans.

Personally, I have had no dealings with what I understand Christianity to refer to as either angels or demons. I have had dealings with my Gods and the spirits of the places in which I have lived.

That is appropriate as your experience are defined your way, and not “my way”.

Demons will always agree with you in your giving them attributes which you would see as “gods and spirits”.

Angels, because they know that having SOME contact with you is better than having NO contact with you, will condescend to accept (to some extent) your preferred appearances as “gods and spirits”, because if they were completely informative to you of their real nature, you would reject them as “counter-defined” within your “system” and they would disappear and lose all contact with you,… so as not to violate your free will.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[inthecloud]

If you want to go pagan why do not go for a actual ancient Nigerian pagan religion like Santeria. There you could adore multiple gods (orishas) and make animal sacrifices to them. Be possed by spirits, do white magic to help yourself and others, do black magic to hurt your enemies. Be sexually and drug enlightened if you want it. Most santeros I know are regular persons anyways. And adopt a karma like attutide towards salvation. The life you lead here will decide your future life in the other world. Know the future using empty sea shells. Defend yourself from curses. And mock catholics by using their Saints images to hide your orishas when they are really contained in cauldrons.
Or is you are really cutting edge you could go to de Congolese Guinean religion of Palo Mayombe. Then you could call the spirits of dead people by stealing their remains from cementeries, make the Nganga in a cauldron and enslave their spirits to be used for your own good. Or raise the dead and make them your slaves (zombies). Most santeros and christians I know regard the Paleros as satanic. Many latino drug dealers practice that religion.
Why go pagan with XX century made up religions when you can go by truly time tested pagan religions.

 

[KarenNC]

…and I imagine that you may have less “legalism” than many neo-pagans, you actually hold and apply your “rules” in your life, as opposed to merely having a bunch of free-floating ceremonial “spells” (formulae) to impress the local wildlife with your powers of memorization.

Don’t actually have much use for ceremonial magic and spells personally and such doesn’t really fit into my theological framework, I have to admit. One of the reasons I am not Wiccan.

Due to the effect of their “spiritual communications” on their psyches.

The overwhelming amount of “wants” that they receive, which is the result of dealings with demons, as opposed to the “needs” that people receive from the angels, gives them the “smell” of the “unreal” and “baselessly optimistic”, or actually “perversely libertine”.

Angels give true “needs”, things we NEED to do and learn, and that “grounding” in reality is SO much different from the “woo-woo” that even you would recognize in the vast majority of neo-pagans.

Could you be a bit more specific?

Demons will always agree with you in your giving them attributes which you would see as “gods and spirits”.

Angels, because they know that having SOME contact with you is better than having NO contact with you, will condescend to accept (to some extent) your preferred appearances as “gods and spirits”, because if they were completely informative to you of their real nature, you would reject them as “counter-defined” within your “system” and they would disappear and lose all contact with you,… so as not to violate your free will.

So, demons will deceive you about their true nature by saying that they have the attributes that you would use to describe “God”, and angels will likewise decieve you about their true nature though their lies are more of omission?

 

[KarenNC]

If you want to go pagan why do not go for a actual ancient Nigerian pagan religion like Santeria. There you could adore multiple gods (orishas) and make animal sacrifices to them. Be possed by spirits, do white magic to help yourself and others, do black magic to hurt your enemies. Be sexually and drug enlightened if you want it. Most santeros I know are regular persons anyways. And adopt a karma like attutide towards salvation. The life you lead here will decide your future life in the other world. Know the future using empty sea shells. Defend yourself from curses. And mock catholics by using their Saints images to hide your orishas when they are really contained in cauldrons.
Or is you are really cutting edge you could go to de Congolese Guinean religion of Palo Mayombe. Then you could call the spirits of dead people by stealing their remains from cementeries, make the Nganga in a cauldron and enslave their spirits to be used for your own good. Or raise the dead and make them your slaves (zombies). Most santeros and christians I know regard the Paleros as satanic. Many latino drug dealers practice that religion.
Why go pagan with XX century made up religions when you can go by truly time tested pagan religions.

Well, we can start with the fact that the Gods of these religions have not called to me in the way that the Hellenic Gods have. This is perhaps because I have neither an ethnic nor a cultural connection to them, don’t know.

I would consider that we have a fairly “time-tested” religion in the Hellenic one. As to Wicca, I am afraid you will have to ask silver as s/he appears to be the only adherent of such that I have seen on this thread.

Then we can move on to the fact that any God that asks me to do something that I consider unethical or immoral is not a God that I consider worthy of worship. Period. Regardless of what that God says will be offered in return. Many of the behaviors you describe above fall into that category. I have no interest in things like making zombies, mocking Catholics, stealing corpses, being “drug and sex enlightened” (if I understand properly what you mean by that), using magic to attack my enemies (or to help my friends, I will content myself with petitioary prayer and libations, thanks very much), etc.

I will say that all religions that Catholics consider pagan are not interchangable to their followers.

That said, I think there is something that modern followers of religions like mine can learn from some of the religions that did not have a break in practice, like Shinto, in terms of what such religion looks like in the modern world.

 

[deb1]

I still believe that 99% of wiccans are

1.) Teenagers who are simply attracted by another religion that they can upset their parents over

2.) People who simply find all the rituals cool. (I get to use amulets! Like a movie!)

In reply to your point number two. People need rituals. If it is an empty ritual with no meaning then there is a problem. But if the ritual has meaning and the practioner understand that meaning then the ritual can lead to a deeper understanding of their faith.

I find some Protestants and atheists like to feel superior to the practice of rituals. But they to have rituals. What is placing one’s hand over one’s heart during the national anthem but a ritual?

Rituals aren’t bad, but of course, I think that anyone who wants meaningful rituals should become Catholic.

 

[deb1]

KarenNC, you realize the fact that you are intelligent, well informed and very charitable means that we Catholics want you on our side? So, of course, we are going to try and convert you. Take it as a compliment.:yup:

 

[RebeccaJ]

In reply to your point number two. People need rituals. If it is an empty ritual with no meaning then there is a problem. But if the ritual has meaning and the practioner understand that meaning then the ritual can lead to a deeper understanding of their faith.

I find some Protestants and atheists like to feel superior to the practice of rituals. But they to have rituals. What is placing one’s hand over one’s heart during the national anthem but a ritual?

Rituals aren’t bad, but of course, I think that anyone who wants meaningful rituals should become Catholic.

Good Lord, humans are nothing but ritual…what is done every morning and every evening before bed, in the exact same order day after day. Our entire lives are ritual. The only difference with religious ritual is that they are done for God, to be closer to God, to understand God, to show love for God…all about God (or gods as the case may be).

 

[dove51]

Wicca is a relatively new religion. It really came about in the 1950s, thanks to Gerald Gardner. I’m sorry, but modern-day wicca and ancient paganism do not share all things in common, and not all pagans are wiccans.

 

[Ahimsa]

Wicca is a relatively new religion. It really came about in the 1950s, thanks to Gerald Gardner. I’m sorry, but modern-day wicca and ancient paganism do not share all things in common, and not all pagans are wiccans.

And not all pagans are “pagans”.

 

[VociMike]

So you are content to let the majority rule? At what point in the history of Christianity did it amass enough followers to become “right” and “true”? What will happen if (as seems possible) Islam becomes “the biggest thing”? Will that negate Christianity?

You completely misunderstand what Chesterton meant by the terms “bigger” and “biggest”. He was most emphatically not referring to number of adherents, territory controlled, armies massed or any other such measure.

And BTW, when I comment that Wicca etc. appeal to a nostalgic impulse, I don’t see that as a bad thing per se. Christianity also appeals to a nostalgic impulse. It appeals to the impulse within us to go back to where we know we belong, which is in perfect union with our Creator and Father. So I am sympathetic to the impulse even while I am certain that pagan and neo-pagan religion is not the answer to it.

 

[Keikiolu]

…{snip}…

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keikiolu forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
Due to the effect of their “spiritual communications” on their psyches.

The overwhelming amount of “wants” that they receive, which is the result of dealings with demons, as opposed to the “needs” that people receive from the angels, gives them the “smell” of the “unreal” and “baselessly optimistic”, or actually “perversely libertine”.

Angels give true “needs”, things we NEED to do and learn, and that “grounding” in reality is SO much different from the “woo-woo” that even you would recognize in the vast majority of neo-pagans.

Could you be a bit more specific?

That would be difficult because it’s a very individual “affliction”, based on individual beliefs, dealt with by individual personal histories, etc, etc, etc…

You can probably find more and better examples of “demented” neo-pagans warped by their particular “demons” than I can, as I don’t travel in those circles terribly much.

I can certainly find nominal Christians who are warped into dementia by their “demons”,… but I was talking about the odd effects of neo-paganism and not nominal “Christianity”.

Quote:
Demons will always agree with you in your giving them attributes which you would see as “gods and spirits”.

Angels, because they know that having SOME contact with you is better than having NO contact with you, will condescend to accept (to some extent) your preferred appearances as “gods and spirits”, because if they were completely informative to you of their real nature, you would reject them as “counter-defined” within your “system” and they would disappear and lose all contact with you,… so as not to violate your free will.

So, demons will deceive you about their true nature by saying that they have the attributes that you would use to describe “God”, and angels will likewise decieve you about their true nature though their lies are more of omission?

If you choose to attribute the ability to lie to angels, that merely tells me that your definition of “angel” includes the ability to lie. Since that is not correct for my definition of “angel”, I’m lead to see it in another light.

Angels needn’t tell all they know,… in fact that would almost always be more harmful than helpful.

Angels are there to help lead one toward God. They tend to be very good “pastors” (shepards) in this regard, and frightening the sheep into permanently running away is seldom a good idea.

Demons are there to help lead one away from God. They tend to lay breadcrumbs that are “tasty” and what one wants, to get their sheep securely into the most comfortable snare possible that seems like a nice comfy pasture,… until it’s time to make a choice to be butchered by their captor, or be only shorn by the unknown creator of all pastures.

The comfy sheep likes his generous captor, and knows nothing of this supposed “creator”, and tends to choose his “old friend” in the end.

Even the sheep in his “old friend’s” comfy snare can still rely on the angels to TRY to let them know of their great Father who created all, and give hints of the consequences of all the “gifts” given by their “old friend”.

And,… since you tend to listen to many more angels than demons, you’re quite a bit ahead of the game compared to your neo-pagan brethren.

Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaikai ia oe. Aloha nui.

 

[KarenNC]

I’m not going to argue the point with you because there’s no way of proving it.

There’s no way to prove demographic information???

If you choose to make a habit of making blanket pronouncements on subjects about which you flatly state you refuse to learn anything, not much I can do about it. Kind of surprising, really. Most atheists that I know put more stock in their own reputation for credibility than that.

Takes all kinds, I guess.

 

[KarenNC]

You completely misunderstand what Chesterton meant by the terms “bigger” and “biggest”. He was most emphatically not referring to number of adherents, territory controlled, armies massed or any other such measure.

Ok, waiting for the part where you discuss what you believe he does mean…

 

[Keikiolu]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarenNC forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
So you are content to let the majority rule? At what point in the history of Christianity did it amass enough followers to become “right” and “true”? What will happen if (as seems possible) Islam becomes “the biggest thing”? Will that negate Christianity?

You completely misunderstand what Chesterton meant by the terms “bigger” and “biggest”. He was most emphatically not referring to number of adherents, territory controlled, armies massed or any other such measure.

Karen,… you would enjoy the HELL (gahhh! can I say that here!?) out of reading Chesterton (G.K.)…!!!

He’d be some great stuff to chew on to develop your “why Chesterton is WRONG!” muscles.

…lots of fun.

 

[KarenNC]

That would be difficult because it’s a very individual “affliction”, based on individual beliefs, dealt with by individual personal histories, etc, etc, etc…

You can probably find more and better examples of “demented” neo-pagans warped by their particular “demons” than I can, as I don’t travel in those circles terribly much.

I can certainly find nominal Christians who are warped into dementia by their “demons”,… but I was talking about the odd effects of neo-paganism and not nominal “Christianity”.

Then I guess there’s nothing much to actually discuss on that topic.

If you choose to attribute the ability to lie to angels, that merely tells me that your definition of “angel” includes the ability to lie.

Since that is not correct for my definition of “angel”, I’m lead to see it in another light.

Angels needn’t tell all they know,… in fact that would almost always be more harmful than helpful.

Angels are there to help lead one toward God. They tend to be very good “pastors” (shepards) in this regard, and frightening the sheep into permanently running away is seldom a good idea.

Demons are there to help lead one away from God. They tend to lay breadcrumbs that are “tasty” and what one wants, to get their sheep securely into the most comfortable snare possible that seems like a nice comfy pasture,… until it’s time to make a choice to be butchered by their captor, or be only shorn by the unknown creator of all pastures.

The comfy sheep likes his generous captor, and knows nothing of this supposed “creator”, and tends to choose his “old friend” in the end.

Even the sheep in his “old friend’s” comfy snare can still rely on the angels to TRY to let them know of their great Father who created all, and give hints of the consequences of all the “gifts” given by their “old friend”.

And,… since you tend to listen to many more angels than demons, you’re quite a bit ahead of the game compared to your neo-pagan brethren.

Sorry, nope, don’t think this is going to lead to a productive discussion either----

I think we are going to need to leave it at you think that my Gods are either angels or demons, but either way are subservient to your God. I know you are mistaken and that the evidence of my experience and the recorded experience of millions of others throughout known history points to your God as merely one more being among the class “Gods”, but am not sure if the idea that He is the only one originates from Him or from human misinterpretation.

If you believed otherwise you would not be a monotheist. If I believed otherwise I would not be a polytheist. I think that we have hit an irreducible difference of worldview and belief. Again

Having spent decades desparately trying to find a way to convince myself that I did indeed believe as you do (because that was the only way I thought one could believe) and failing utterly, I don’t think it likely that it’s going to happen here.

 

[VociMike]

Ok, waiting for the part where you discuss what you believe he does mean…

Sorry, it seemed so obvious. He was referring to the power of ideas, worldviews, to shape not only individuals but civilizations and in turn the entire human race.

 

[KarenNC]

Karen,… you would enjoy the HELL (gahhh! can I say that here!?) out of reading Chesterton (G.K.)…!!!

He’d be some great stuff to chew on to develop your “why Chesterton is WRONG!” muscles.

…lots of fun.

I have read Chesterton, as well as many other authors, theologians and philosophers, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, etc. In some cases, it has been quite a while since I read a particular work.

 

[KarenNC]

Sorry, it seemed so obvious. He was referring to the power of ideas, worldviews, to shape not only individuals but civilizations and in turn the entire human race.

Certainly Christian ideas and worldviews have altered our Western civilization for both good and ill. The same can be said for many other religions, both in the West and the East and at many points in history. Christianity is hardly unique in that respect and I see no evidence to claim that it is the ultimate.

 

[VociMike]

Certainly Christian ideas and worldviews have altered our Western civilization for both good and ill. The same can be said for many other religions, both in the West and the East and at many points in history. Christianity is hardly unique in that respect and I see no evidence to claim that it is the ultimate.

No, Christianity did not alter Western civilization. Christianity brought forth Western civilization. Even intellectually honest atheists know this plain truth. But if you want to minimize the historical, intellectual and moral impact of Christianity on the world, I won’t try and stop you. Note that I did not (nor did Chesterton) in turn try to minimize the historical, intellectual and moral impact of paganism on the world. So why the instinctive (defensive?) reaction on your part to diminish the historical, intellectual and moral legacy of Christianity? I am not threatened by acknowledging the depth and breadth of your “roots”. Why do you act as though threatened in acknowledging the depth and breadth of ours?