Should Wicca be illegal?

  • Thread starter Thread starter HabemusFrancis
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
All this talk of “the divil”…the devil is a Christian belief Wiccan are not “Christian”…NOW Satanism is a Christian denomination. It’s belief structures and imagery are definitely Christian.

To the poster who spoke about the inverted pentagram being “satanist” has embraced the caricature of modern Hollywoodles portrays…the inverted pentagram IS a Wiccan SYMBOL, it is a symbol of the second degree.

The inverted symbol represents thr Element balanced by spirit, the so called “rightly displayed” symbol represents the four Elements governed by principle of spirit.

Wiccans on’t worship one of the “dieties” of Christianity, they have their own pantheon, no need to draw from the religions of the desert god of the Hebrews…there are pagans who do seek to reestablish connection with the ancient gods of the desert…but they don’t embrace the Christian" portrayal of their dieties either.🤷
 
Padres1969 said:
Care to elaborate?
Click to expand...
Search for “once catholic, always catholic” and you’ll bring up some threads on the topic. Basically, the Catholic Church teaches that it is not possible to leave: once you’ve been baptised Catholic or otherwise taken into the Catholic Church, you will always be Catholic and therefore subject to canon law. Not a huge deal, but it comes to mind when people speak of Catholicism being a nation’s official religion. And sometimes it matters with regard to marriage.
 
masuwerte said:
Search for “once catholic, always catholic” and you’ll bring up …
Click to expand...
… a lot of amateur apologetics websites.
masuwerte said:
some threads on the topic. Basically, the Catholic Church teaches that it is not possible to leave: once you’ve been baptised Catholic or otherwise taken into the Catholic Church, you will always be Catholic and therefore subject to canon law. Not a huge deal, but it comes to mind when people speak of Catholicism being a nation’s official religion. And sometimes it matters with regard to marriage.
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between an ex-Catholic and a current Catholic, but there is also a difference between an ex-Catholic and a never-been-Catholic.

Look at it this way: I have never been Orthodox, so if an Orthodox called me an ex-Orthodox then I would correct him/her, since there is a difference between an ex-Orthodox and a never-been-Orthodox.
 
Kaninchen said:
It’s good to see that you’d have been opposed to secular Papal power in Rome and the rest of the Papal States.
Click to expand...
Of course you’d get it Kaninchen…but I wonder if anyone else reading did…😦
 
Peter_J said:
Can somebody say “Give me a break.”
Click to expand...
I think a better way to formulate Seeker’s statement without transgressing into the realm of the ridiculous is…

In order to be a Satanist (and a specific sort, since apparently there are folks who just use the term i suppose to be “edgy” but follow some watered-down version of Gnosticism) or are in fact just another brand of atheist looking to “be cool”), you kind of have to accept certain principles unique to the Christian worldview.

Otherwise it just doens’t really make much sense…
 
TheAtheist said:
I think a better way to formulate Seeker’s statement without transgressing into the realm of the ridiculous is…

In order to be a Satanist (and a specific sort, since apparently there are folks who just use the term i suppose to be “edgy” but follow some watered-down version of Gnosticism) or are in fact just another brand of atheist looking to “be cool”), you kind of have to accept certain principles unique to the Christian worldview.
Click to expand...
No argument there.
 
Kaninchen said:
It’s good to see that you’d have been opposed to secular Papal power in Rome and the rest of the Papal States.
Click to expand...
It’s bad form to make assumptions about other users. The point was any big government is a recipe for tyranny and corruption.
 
TheAtheist said:
Of course you’d get it Kaninchen…but I wonder if anyone else reading did…😦
Click to expand...
What is “it” that we are supposed to “get”.

I don’t follow the logic as this comment leads back to my one-sentence post. 🤷
 
SuperLuigi said:
What is “it” that we are supposed to “get”.

I don’t follow the logic as this comment leads back to my one-sentence post. 🤷
Click to expand...
Well, it’s sort of that you, unknowingly, built a trap for yourself in your initial (big government) response and then promptly walked into it.

The post you were responding to wasn’t outlining some naughty Marxist/Fascist/Liberal/Democrat/Socialist tyranny but was a description of aspects of Jewish life in Pontifically-ruled Rome and the Papal States.
The point was any big government is a recipe for tyranny and corruption.
Click to expand...
Lots of people thought that about the Papal States.
 
TheAtheist said:
Of course you’d get it Kaninchen
Click to expand...
Being a Jew from an Italian background helped, of course. 😉

Mind you, the old Ghetto in Rome has gone from ‘prison’ to ‘tourist trap’.
…but I wonder if anyone else reading did…😦
Click to expand...
Oddly, it’s often people who would like to return to the old certainties who do ‘get’ such histories.
 
Peter_J said:
… a lot of amateur apologetics websites.

There’s a difference between an ex-Catholic and a current Catholic, but there is also a difference between an ex-Catholic and a never-been-Catholic.

Look at it this way: I have never been Orthodox, so if an Orthodox called me an ex-Orthodox then I would correct him/her, since there is a difference between an ex-Orthodox and a never-been-Orthodox.
Click to expand...
This is irrelevant to what I posted. Catholicism can’t claim to support freedom of religion while they deny that people can leave their ecclesial community, and reserve the right to punish those who do. This would be a bigger concern if Catholicism were the state religion, as many here wish it to be.
 
masuwerte said:
This is irrelevant to what I posted. Catholicism can’t claim to support freedom of religion while they deny that people can leave their ecclesial community, and reserve the right to punish those who do. This would be a bigger concern if Catholicism were the state religion, as many here wish it to be.
Click to expand...
Hadn’t considered that but it is a reasonable concern. I mean if you look at the only countries who have the kind of religious government that some on here would advocate, yes most tend to be Muslim, but they’re not all Saudi Arabia. Some are countries we’d consider to be progressive Muslim countries like Indonesia and Jordan have laws that punish apostasy and/or heresy as the Catholic Church would define them. It’s not unreasonable to fear a Catholic nation of the same vein would enact similar laws. After all, it did happen in the past when we had Christian religious governments.
 
masuwerte said:
This is irrelevant to what I posted. Catholicism can’t claim to support freedom of religion while they deny that people can leave their ecclesial community, and reserve the right to punish those who do. This would be a bigger concern if Catholicism were the state religion, as many here wish it to be.
Click to expand...
In practice, anyone can stop being a Catholic at any time. Just walk away, attend another church or none. No one has any power to compel you to stay.

That Christian baptism is permanent and cannot be undone is a theological position that should be almost irrelevant to those who believe differently.

That a person might be endangering his or her soul by leaving a particular community is, again, a theological belief that presumably has already been rejected by anyone who decides to leave.

That one may be held to be under certain provisions of canon law has no effect unless and until one seeks to return to the Catholic Church, and generally (as in matters of marriage) has the effect of easing rather than hindering the transition.

That such things might be different in a Catholic theocracy is obvious (and is one of many reasons I do not support any Catholic theocracy short of Heaven), but you seem to be referring to present-day conditions.

Usagi
 
Medawlinno said:
No, of course not – what do you find illegal about it as opposed to other religions??

The phrase in the Bible, by the way, in its original Hebrew/Aramaic form is - “m’khashephah lo tichayyah” – “may a m’khashephah not live”. M’khashephah in this case happens to be the feminine form, so a woman. A m’khashephah was someone, in this case a woman, who used evil against another person. “Evil sorceress” might be a better translation, but sorceress is not quite the same as the Hebrew word either.

The phrase was mistranslated (or, as some would argue, very deliberately “translated”) as “witch” during the Middle Ages and Renaissance as another way to justify the persecution of many innocent people.
Click to expand...
The Greek translation used were “pharmakon and pharmakois”, so keep your shank sharpened next time you pick up your cold meds… but seriously, this term was used in regard to banning female priestess for the Jewish religion. Women chanters/sorceress/priestess were a pagan practice - not Jewish (or Christian)… many performed abortions with roots and concoctions… hence the strongly worded ban
 
Usagi said:
In practice, anyone can stop being a Catholic at any time. Just walk away, attend another church or none. No one has any power to compel you to stay.

That Christian baptism is permanent and cannot be undone is a theological position that should be almost irrelevant to those who believe differently.

That a person might be endangering his or her soul by leaving a particular community is, again, a theological belief that presumably has already been rejected by anyone who decides to leave.

That one may be held to be under certain provisions of canon law has no effect unless and until one seeks to return to the Catholic Church, and generally (as in matters of marriage) has the effect of easing rather than hindering the transition.

Usagi
Click to expand...
Just out of curiosity, when census numbers are given, does the Catholic church state members are all baptized members, practicing or not? Do the numbers come from the rolls of parish baptisms?
 
ComplineSanFran said:
Just out of curiosity, when census numbers are given, does the Catholic church state members are all baptized members, practicing or not? Do the numbers come from the rolls of parish baptisms?
Click to expand...
The Vatican’s numbers when talking about how many Catholics there are, are the baptismal numbers. Other sources like Pew and census’ use self identifying statistics. So basically all those that consider themselves a part of a religion currently. These numbers are typically always lower than what the Vatican puts out. And in reality the real numbers are smaller still as many people who self identify as part of a religion are no longer active practicing members of that religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top