Views on Wicca

[Heathen_Dawn]

Marcellinus:

But you overlook the fact that one doesn’t need to be a Christian/Muslim/Jewish theist to be a theist.

You mean “monotheist.” Yes, there are Sikhs and Baha’is as well.

One could believe that paganism is the worship of false gods from purely philosophical abstract reasoning.

But never proof. What utterly shocked me when, after a lifetime of atheism and Judaism, I investigated the case against polytheism, was the lack of any.

Yes, but you seem to be the exception, rather than the rule.

That must be backed up with evidence.

Really? What, do you guys like have excommunications or something?

*CODEX WICCANI LEGIS:

1. Let anyone who prays only to goddesses to the exclusion of gods be anathema.*

No excommunications. But as in all religions, there are some essentials without which the religion would not be. Just as a Catholic who does not believe in the authority of the Pope ceases to be a Catholic, one cannot be a Wiccan and worship only the Goddess, since male-female polarity is a Wiccan essential.

What on earth do you mean by that? Is God some sort of schizophrenic or something?

GOD: I am God, and so am I.

Wow, talk about multiple personality disorder!

This coming from a believer in the Trinity is very ironic.

 

[Marcellinus]

chrisb:

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace Marcellinus,

Let me start by saying:

Knowledge makes us proud of ourselves, while love makes us helpful to others. - 1 Corinthians

I would completely agree, if only Metaphysical Constructs describing the unseen were as simple as counting seen objects. If reducing the knowledge of God and His Hosts to such simple claims where acceptable, I would be the first to stand at your side and agree with you. Unfortunately, such claims “reduce” God and the unseen to so many contrite little containers (i.e. mental constructs) which only reside nicely within your heads yet point to nothing concrete outside of us to prove them.

I think you totally misunderstand the point I was trying to make. I’m not trying to say that knowing God is easy, all I am saying is that either God is one or many. He cannot be both for that is a contradiction.

A humble knowledge of yourself is a surer way to God than an extensive search after knowledge. - Theresa of Avilia

Let me know myself, O God, that I may know thee. St. Augustine of Hippo

No one can know God who has not first known himself. God to the depths of the soul, the secret place of the Most High, to the roots, to the heights; for all that is God is focused there. - The Cloud of Unknowing

Although we cannot have knowledge of God, we can love him; by love he may be touched and embraced, by thought, never - the Cloud of Unknowing

Well, friend, with all due respect, I dare say that we don’t even know enough about God and the unseen in all the tomes in the world to make such a claims with any certainity.

Really, because both St. Teresa of Avila and St. Augustine of Hippo claimed to know God with certainty. If you want proof that you can know God with certainty I recomend a book called “The Handbook of Christian Apologetics” by Dr. Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald K. Tacelli.

chrisb:

Are there Angels and Demons? How many? Why are they here? So the argument for polytheism could also be a problem of ignorance or a failure of us to understand their process of intercession to the All-mighty. Remember we are a sacramental people and we recognize the presence of God in the mundane. How easy for any of us to mistake His presence for the manifestation of a different personification of Godhood. Surely, an error but is praise to God in any other name is praise none-the-less? This is a valid question.

If it is praise to Satan or demons then it is much less.

chrisb:

In all honestly, friend, we’ve been through all of this if you were to backtrack a bit further. Spirits, divine or demonic, can be easily mistaken as Gods in the sense that Heathen Dawn is using the term. Even the manifestations of God’s Will can be personified with person-hood and then mistaken as something separate from Himself.

But even if one did worship angels it would still be worshipping a creature unworthy of the adoration we are giving him.

chrisb:

Yet, we pray to Mary and all the Saints for intercession. Why? Why does Heathen Dawn pray to stars or trees or valleys? Is there a differences? Perhaps but is it wrong? I’m working that out right now.

Well the Church, fortunately, has already “worked it out”. Worshipping anything but the one true God is wrong.

Delivera nos a subjectivistis. Amen

 

[BlessedBe13]

Marcellinus:

Yes, but you seem to be the exception, rather than the rule.

Other than my boyfriend, no-one knows. I know several others that are the same.

Marcellinus:

Really? What, do you guys like have excommunications or something?

No, it just would be another path that one would be following, not Wicca.

Marcellinus:

What on earth do you mean by that? Is God some sort of schizophrenic or something?

I believe that every religion is worshipping the same God/Goddess/Divine Creator - each religion is just worshiping him/her/it in a different form.

 

[Marcellinus]

Heathen Dawn:

You mean “monotheist.” Yes, there are Sikhs and Baha’is as well.

Really? I thought they were pantheists. Oh well, you learn something new everyday.
Heathen Dawn:

But never proof. What utterly shocked me when, after a lifetime of atheism and Judaism, I investigated the case against polytheism, was the lack of any.

Wait just one minute, here! You yourself just admitted that there is one cause of all being, motion, perfection, and change. Now for some reason you believe that this God has many “faces” which you believe should worshipped seperately. But to blame someone for just worshipping that one God altogether and say that there is no “proof” for doing so is absolutely inconsistent and ridiculous.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Marcellinus:

You yourself just admitted that there is one cause of all being, motion, perfection, and change.

There can only be one Infinite Being.

Now for some reason you believe that this God has many “faces” which you believe should worshipped seperately.

The faces can be related to. They’re personal, anthropomorphic, close to us, our kin. The Infinite Creator-God is abstract and formless and partly impersonal.

But to blame someone for just worshipping that one God altogether and say that there is no “proof” for doing so is absolutely inconsistent and ridiculous.

My complaint with monotheism is its elevation of one personal God to the status of Infinite Creator-God, and its insistent that all other personal Gods are false. Both are arbitrary actions.

 

[chrisb]

Marcellinus:

I think you totally misunderstand the point I was trying to make. I’m not trying to say that knowing God is easy, all I am saying is that either God is one or many. He cannot be both for that is a contradiction.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace,

…or we call Him by many names and don’t realize we are all speaking about the same God. If the error is in our reasoning, then it’s not a contradiction but simply an error in understanding.

Really, because both St. Teresa of Avila and St. Augustine of Hippo claimed to know God with certainty.

Do you mean know God as in believe in Him or know Him as one knows a neighbor? Now, who’s being subjective? I think my quotes illustrated “how” they knew God. It was through knowing themselves.

If you want proof that you can know God with certainty I recomend a book called “The Handbook of Christian Apologetics” by Dr. Peter Kreeft and Fr. Ronald K. Tacelli.

Actually, I own this book and it’s a very good one but you must admit that he’s using Aristotelian Logic which “assumes” that “words” point to “essences” which most modern philosophers reject as true. Now, don’t take this the wrong way as I am not refuting the existence of God I am merely pointing out the fact that under different philosophic methods of logic God’s existence is difficult if not impossible to prove. The current most effective philosophic method to prove the existence of God is are “modified” Process Philosophic one.

If it is praise to Satan or demons then it is much less.

Ah, sure. Tell me something I don’t know?

But even if one did worship angels it would still be worshipping a creature unworthy of the adoration we are giving him.

At that point, we’d have to determine what worship means to him before we assume such.

Well the Church, fortunately, has already “worked it out”. Worshipping anything but the one true God is wrong.

What is not God according to St. Augustine?

Delivera nos a subjectivistis. Amen

I, personally, resent your assumption that I am being subjective and you are not. I am reasonably attempting to rule out the difference between St. Francis and Heathen Dawn. Your bulldozing is honestly not helping me at all.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Exporter]

Heathen Dawn,

You wrote:“It is written that Christ said he was God. It is written that he performed miracles.”

In John 14:9, we read the words credited to Jesus by John. John was one disciple who was close to Jesus for several years. One of the very best sources of what Jesus did say, would be John. John 14:9. “Jesus answered: Don’t you know me, Phillip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say show us the Father? Don’t you believe that I am the Father”.
Yes this is written. John said these are Jesus’ words. If one doesn’t believe these words are true - then that one must throw all of the Bible away. Why? Because all of the Bible is written! What a foolish reason to throw the entire Bible away.

That book the nation of Islam is also written. And since it is written - using your rational , they must throw it away. All history is written. You’d say to throw all history books away. How foolish.

 

[Marcellinus]

chrisb:

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace,

…or we call Him by many names and don’t realize we are all speaking about the same God. If the error is in our reasoning, then it’s not a contradiction but simply an error in understanding.

A contradiction is an error in reasoning. God cannot be both one and many. I really am having a hard time understanding why you are responding this statement. Do you disagree? Also I think your assumption that most people worship the same God but give him a different name is problematic. This is certainly true when Muslims worship Allah (“Allah” in arabic means “God”) but it is not true when the definition of what they are worshipping is starkly different from that of the one God.

chrisb:

Do you mean know God as in believe in Him or know Him as one knows a neighbor? Now, who’s being subjective? I think my quotes illustrated “how” they knew God. It was through knowing themselves.

I mean they knew God as in, they recognized that God exists, and indeed tried to proove it to others. And you keep on talking about knowing yourself, how well can you know yourself if you don’t even know if there is a God? Knowing yourself comes with the assumption of a worldview not the otherway around.

chrisb:

Actually, I own this book and it’s a very good one but you must admit that he’s using Aristotelian Logic which “assumes” that “words” point to “essences” which most modern philosophers reject as true. Now, don’t take this the wrong way as I am not refuting the existence of God I am merely pointing out the fact that under different philosophic methods of logic God’s existence is difficult if not impossible to prove. The current most effective philosophic method to prove the existence of God is are “modified” Process Philosophic one.

If words do not point to essences then responding to me by using words is essentially pointless.

chrisb:

At that point, we’d have to determine what worship means to him before we assume such.

The meaning of the word “worship” is very clear. It means giving reverence which is due to a deity.

chrisb:

What is not God according to St. Augustine?

God’s creation is not God according to St. Augustine, the Church, and reason.

chrisb:

I, personally, resent your assumption that I am being subjective and you are not. I am reasonably attempting to rule out the difference between St. Francis and Heathen Dawn. Your bulldozing is honestly not helping me at all.

I’m sorry, but the difference between St. Francis and Heathen Dawn is paramount, whether you wish to admit it or not.

I repeat, delivera nos a subjectivistis, O Domine!, and Pax Christi tecum as well.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Marcellinus:

I’m sorry, but the difference between St. Francis and Heathen Dawn is paramount, whether you wish to admit it or not.

There is one who tries to build a bridge and one who opposes it.

 

[Marcellinus]

Heathen Dawn:

There is one who tries to build a bridge and one who opposes it.

I meant it as no insult, its simply that your beliefs and St. Francis’ beliefs about the most important things are irreconcilable.

 

[Marcellinus]

Heathen Dawn:

There can only be one Infinite Being.

The faces can be related to. They’re personal, anthropomorphic, close to us, our kin. The Infinite Creator-God is abstract and formless and partly impersonal.

How can this be? The part cannot be greater than the whole, nor could God create something more personal than Himself. If God is so impersonal then why should he give existence to anything at all?
Heathen Dawn:

My complaint with monotheism is its elevation of one personal God to the status of Infinite Creator-God, and its insistent that all other personal Gods are false. Both are arbitrary actions.

As I proved above the Infinite Being must be personal. Also, why do you believe in “personal gods”? You keep on talking about them but you have yet to shed light on why you think they exist.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Marcellinus:

How can this be? The part cannot be greater than the whole, nor could God create something more personal than Himself. If God is so impersonal then why should he give existence to anything at all?

God is partly personal and partly impersonal.

As I proved above the Infinite Being must be personal.

You proved it? Where?

Also, why do you believe in “personal gods”? You keep on talking about them but you have yet to shed light on why you think they exist.

If I don’t believe in personal Gods then I might as well go back to atheism.

 

[Marcellinus]

Heathen Dawn:

God is partly personal and partly impersonal.

That’s impossible. Its like saying someone partly has free will and partly doesn’t have free will. One is either personal or impersonal, there is no in between. Unless you would care to explain how?
Heathen Dawn:

If I don’t believe in personal Gods then I might as well go back to atheism.

Either that or maybe you could consider the proposition that the Infinite Being is personal. Does it really seem that unlikely? I mean so far you have told me a lot of things which may or may not be possible about the “faces” of God, but doesn’t it just seem a bit more likely that the infinite being is personal?

You have come up with no reason to believe in the “faces” of God and I’ve been able to refute all of your reasons against the idea of one personal God. Wouldn’t that be an indicator that maybe you should rethink your position?

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Marcellinus:

That’s impossible. Its like saying someone partly has free will and partly doesn’t have free will. One is either personal or impersonal, there is no in between. Unless you would care to explain how?

The Creator-God is not a person, not a glorified human as many fancy Him to be, but He is nothing less than personal, as those who encounter Him testify.

Either that or maybe you could consider the proposition that the Infinite Being is personal.

This is a partial truth. The main thing is I don’t believe the Infinite Being is the one who parted the Red Sea for the Israelites. It was a finite God, one among so many, who did that.

You have come up with no reason to believe in the “faces” of God

Wrong. One of the best reasons is that people have experienced Them. I have too.

and I’ve been able to refute all of your reasons against the idea of one personal God.

You haven’t.

Wouldn’t that be an indicator that maybe you should rethink your position?

First of all, the two previous things are false (that is, I do have reasons to believe in the Gods, and you haven’t refuted my reasons against monotheism). Secondly, I’m not going to change my beliefs under any circumstance, since I can’t live properly, happily, without them.

 

[Marcellinus]

Heathen Dawn:

The Creator-God is not a person, not a glorified human as many fancy Him to be, but He is nothing less than personal, as those who encounter Him testify.

Only Mormons think he is a glorified person. But you just contradicted what you had said earlier. You said that God was impersonal, then you said he was partially impersonal, now you say he is personal but not a glorified person. This latest position is in agreement with the Christian belief (though no doubt since I have said this you will try to find some way to nuance your position to make it different).
Heathen Dawn:

This is a partial truth. The main thing is I don’t believe the Infinite Being is the one who parted the Red Sea for the Israelites. It was a finite God, one among so many, who did that.

Why do you believe there are finite gods? You have yet to explain this.
Heathen Dawn:

Wrong. One of the best reasons is that people have experienced Them. I have too.

Well, people “experience” quite a lot, don’t they? Many people have hallucinations or lie. But even when the experiences that people have seem trustworthy one must compare them with what can be known through reason. For example, reason tells us that there are no monsters in a bathtub. Thus when anyone says that they see monsters in a bathtub we know that they are either lying or having hallucinations of some kind or they only thought they saw things which were monsters but really did not.
Heathen Dawn:

First of all, the two previous things are false (that is, I do have reasons to believe in the Gods, and you haven’t refuted my reasons against monotheism). Secondly, I’m not going to change my beliefs under any circumstance, since I can’t live properly, happily, without them.

Good for you! I mean in the end it really doesn’t matter what is true or untrue but just how comfortable you feel, and you feel very comfortable. Who cares if you’re living a lie, because its a comfortable lie.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Marcellinus:

You said that God was impersonal, then you said he was partially impersonal, now you say he is personal but not a glorified person.

Yes, I say all three.

This latest position is in agreement with the Christian belief (though no doubt since I have said this you will try to find some way to nuance your position to make it different).

Christian belief took a finite anthropomorphic God called Yahweh and elevated Him to Infinite Being.

Why do you believe there are finite gods? You have yet to explain this.

Why not?

Well, people “experience” quite a lot, don’t they? Many people have hallucinations or lie. But even when the experiences that people have seem trustworthy one must compare them with what can be known through reason.

Keep on that way and you’ll find yourself an atheist one of these days.

Good for you! I mean in the end it really doesn’t matter what is true or untrue but just how comfortable you feel, and you feel very comfortable. Who cares if you’re living a lie, because its a comfortable lie.

I don’t believe my beliefs are lies, but I can’t prove them to you, and anyway it’s not why I’m here. I’d play the game if I thought I could win. But I owe myself, and myself only, happiness and evidence that my beliefs are true. It was Blaise Pascal, a Catholic, who said “the heart has reasons of which Reason knows nothing.” I do not follow Reason, which has not served me well, on the contrary, has brought me nothing but tears; but I follow the call of my heart. I leave the battleground of Reason for Christians and atheists to wage war upon between each other. I do not need to conscript ratio to the aid of my fides; my fides is strong enough without it, and I will not abandon it because of any evidence to the contrary.

Blessed be.
HD

 

[chrisb]

In nomine Jesu I offer you all peace,

Well you two have been very busy this weekend, I’m sorry I was unable to join you in this continued dialog or should I say debate?

It is in silence that God is known, and through mysteries that He declares Himself. - St. Augustine

As one who desires contemplative practices and the pursuit of wisdom over reason I can’t say that I can agree with either of you in the narrowness of your arguments and I dare say that neither of you are truly making any headway. The presence of God is not found in our reason He is found in our silence; *“be silent, and know that I am God.” In our silence, we are able to hear and know more than our own conjectures and we come to know the depth of revelations “only seen through a mirror darkly”.

God is the friend of silence. Trees, flowers, grass grow in silence. See the stars, moon, and sun, how they move in silence. - Mother Teresa

I know more “of” God than I know “about” Him and more through my silence than my rational conjecture would allow me. St. Augustine and St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross were no different. In our modern age we have all but rejected the depth of their messages for the most simple of intellectual constructs.

Let knowledge be applied to a kind of scaffolding, making it possible for the edifice of wisdom to rise, to endure for ever, even when knowledge is done away with. - St. Augustine

A man may be theologically knowing and spiritually ignorant. - Stephen Charnock

The Father uttered one Word; that Word is his Son, and he utters him for ever in everlasting silence; and in silence the soul has to hear it. St. John of the Cross

Please take the time to reflect on these before continuing to argue and debate in this manner. Pride leads before the fall, be not arrogant in your reasoning.

Peace, Love and Blessings,*

 

[Marcellinus]

^ Your gift for giving long-winded speeches which say nothing is amazing.

You really are good at giving the impression that you are some sort of enlightened yoga who is above such rank argumentation, but after that you really have nothing enlightening to say, except vague references to “silence”. Maybe it would be wise for you to take leaf out of your own book, and let those who have something to say debate in peace.
Heathen Dawn:

Yes, I say all three.

But that really doesn’t make sense.
Heathen Dawn:

Christian belief took a finite anthropomorphic God called Yahweh and elevated Him to Infinite Being.

I suppose you’re beyond giving reasons for what you believe.
Heathen Dawn:

Why not?

For the same reason that anything which has no evidence for its existence should not be believed. You have supplied no evidence, therefore no one should believe it.
Heathen Dawn:

Keep on that way and you’ll find yourself an atheist one of these days.

Atheists have a lot more fides and a lot less ratio than you might think.
Heathen Dawn:

and I will not abandon it because of any evidence to the contrary.

Does the truth really mean that little to you?

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

I suppose you’re beyond giving reasons for what you believe.

I would owe you evidence of my belief if and only if I wanted to convert you to it. Since I don’t want to, then I don’t need to prove anything.

For the same reason that anything which has no evidence for its existence should not be believed. You have supplied no evidence, therefore no one should believe it.

See above.

Atheists have a lot more fides and a lot less ratio than you might think.

I know. But the reliance on reason and the insistence on Truth Above All is common to Christians and atheists

Does the truth really mean that little to you?

There are those who hold to Wahrheit über alles, while I value happiness above all things. Not that I hold that my beliefs are lies—I have proven to myself the truth of my beliefs. But you go on your way, and may it bring you the utmost of happiness.

 

[BlessedBe13]

Marcellinus:

You really are good at giving the impression that you are some sort of enlightened yoga who is above such rank argumentation

Are you implying that he is…1 : capitalized : a Hindu theistic philosophy teaching the suppression of all activity of body, mind, and will in order that the self may realize its distinction from them and attain liberation
2 : a system of exercises for attaining bodily or mental control and well-being
???

Marcellinus:

For the same reason that anything which has no evidence for its existence should not be believed. You have supplied no evidence, therefore no one should believe it.

By your reasoning, the whole world should become athiest since there is ***no ***evidence to prove that any God exists or is the “one true God”. And the Bible, Koran, etc. are not evidence.