Views on Wicca

[hlgomez]

**

It is written

that Christ said he was God. It is written that he performed miracles.

Yes it is written, but is not written “alone.” There are witnesses to His Passion, death, and resurrection, and those were the apostles and disciples of Christ. First, this truth was orally conveyed by the witnesses themselves, and then later one was WRITTEN. Get it?

BTW, do you write diaries? If you do, then figure out why you wrote it.

Pio**

 

[hlgomez]

Heather,

And I would like to add: It doesn’t mean that because it is written, then it follows that is is not true (are you trying to imply this?). Writing is another form of communication, aside from the “oral” form of communication.

It is more easy to recall something that has been said in writing, rather than put something in memory alone. And is also a way to preserve it from any divergence to the actual detailed fact that had happened.

Pio

 

[pnewton]

Heathen Dawn:

“Mythologised, Misquoted, Misrepresented” is the trilemma I would espouse. I think Jesus never said he was God, but this claim was falsely attributed to him. I do not regard the Gospel of John as a recording of Jesus’s words.
.

Whatevet you want to call it, I still do not buy that, 1) so many people were willing to undergo persecution and martyrdom for lies that they perpetrated. 2) neither the Jewish or Romans were able to combat a conspiracy of misinformation when they were the ones in power.

 

[LaSalle]

I had no idea what Wicca was all about … I thought it was just another American thang.

So I visited their web site.

Man … these people are a confused bunch. They believe in either 1, 2, many or no God at all. They can’t seem to spell the word ‘magic’ , have no real theology. It seems so made up of a hodge potch of whatever-I-wanna-believe.

They do however, try to direct all their energy to doing ‘good’. That can’t be bad, I guess. They mean well.

There was one quote that really gave me the giggles bad.

“If you take the Christian Bible and put it out in the wind and the rain, soon the paper on which the words are printed will disintegrate and the words will be gone. Our bible IS the wind and the rain.” Herbalist Carol McGrath as told to her by a Native-American woman.

… so like … what does the wind and rain tell you?
“Go for shelter” probably.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Yes it is written, but is not written “alone.” There are witnesses to His Passion, death, and resurrection, and those were the apostles and disciples of Christ. First, this truth was orally conveyed by the witnesses themselves, and then later one was WRITTEN. Get it?

We don’t have those witnesses with us today.

BTW, do you write diaries? If you do, then figure out why you wrote it.

No, I don’t. And even if I did, it could not be trustworthy in and of itself. Anyone can write anything.

And I would like to add: It doesn’t mean that because it is written, then it follows that is is not true (are you trying to imply this?).

It means I don’t trust scriptures in human language. Pagans hold to nulla scriptura for a reason.

It is more easy to recall something that has been said in writing, rather than put something in memory alone. And is also a way to preserve it from any divergence to the actual detailed fact that had happened.

Of course writing is better than memory, but even writing is not immune to the twisting of politicking. And politicking certainly did go into the decision as to which books would be placed in the Christian canon.

pnewton:

Whatevet you want to call it, I still do not buy that, 1) so many people were willing to undergo persecution and martyrdom for lies that they perpetrated.

Then you would have to say Islam is true as well, as so many people have been willing to undergo persecution and martyrdom for it.

1. neither the Jewish or Romans were able to combat a conspiracy of misinformation when they were the ones in power.

Perhaps they were not willing. People have a need to believe, especially in a risen Godman-Saviour whose sacrificial act provides them with eternal life.

LaSalle:

I had no idea what Wicca was all about … I thought it was just another American thang.

So I visited their web site.

I didn’t know Wicca had a website. Next you’ll be telling me Wicca is a church, with ordained bishops and a central authority.

Man … these people are a confused bunch. They believe in either 1, 2, many or no God at all.

We call it peaceful diversity. Realising that doctrinal unity is impossible (as Christianity shows), we opt for tolerance of the differences among us.

They can’t seem to spell the word ‘magic’

The spelling “magick” derives from Aleister Crowley’s use of gematria (he added the K to fit his gematric correspondences). It isn’t mandatory.

have no real theology.

That is a false statement.

They do however, try to direct all their energy to doing ‘good’. That can’t be bad, I guess. They mean well.

We do. And we protest against the notion that good people are going to end up in eternal torment.

… so like … what does the wind and rain tell you?

Ages past, Gods present, Mysteries future.

 

[kjvail]

Heathen Dawn:

We don’t have those witnesses with us today.

We have hundreds of records of their observations - which brings us to…

No, I don’t. And even if I did, it could not be trustworthy in and of itself. Anyone can write anything.

True enough, which is why the books of the Bible are the most studied, cross-referenced and dissected written words in human history.

Of course writing is better than memory, but even writing is not immune to the twisting of politicking. And politicking certainly did go into the decision as to which books would be placed in the Christian canon.

Since you were not there I assume your impressions of what happened would be based on what? Why it must be someone’s written words

Then you would have to say Islam is true as well, as so many people have been willing to undergo persecution and martyrdom for it.

There is a very different history in Islam, the writings of Mohammad have essentially been affected by a fideism, it is heretical to even critically analyze them and heresy is punishable by death. Kinda discourages scholarship you know?

Perhaps they were not willing. People have a need to believe, especially in a risen Godman-Saviour whose sacrificial act provides them with eternal life.

Yep, which is why Gardiner borrowed so much from Angelicanism (which is about 1/2 a step removed from Catholicism). I was writing on this the other day and a real obvious similarity jumped out at me. Wiccan’s *usually *(of course not always since no one can say much of anything about what all Wiccans do) “earth the power” after the manipulation of energies in ritual circle magic. This part of the ritual involves eating cakes and drinking wine or juice for those of you that don’t know - I don’t know how I missed this *glaring *similarity Can anyone say eucharist?
I haven’t thought much about it lately but perhaps it would be interesting to go thru some of the published rites of Starhawk, Cunningham, Crowley and the Farrars and check out the similiarites. I predict that the closer I get to Gardinarian and Alexanderian Wicca the most similiar the rites become to High Angelicanism, wanna make a bet? LOL.

I didn’t know Wicca had a website. Next you’ll be telling me Wicca is a church, with ordained bishops and a central authority.

Got me, only thing I can think of is Covenent of the Goddess (www.cog.org)

We call it peaceful diversity. Realising that doctrinal unity is impossible (as Christianity shows), we opt for tolerance of the differences among us.

Christianity was alot more civilized when it had nearly complete doctrinal unity

We do. And we protest against the notion that good people are going to end up in eternal torment.

Good by whose standard?
Here the moral relativist has to really jump thru some hoops to simultaneously make a value judgement of behavior and reject the basis for that value judgement.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

kjvail:

True enough, which is why the books of the Bible are the most studied, cross-referenced and dissected written words in human history.

And this dissection has not done them much good. We have found out, for example, that the five books of Moses (Pentateuch) are of multiple authorship, and that the book of Ecclesiastes could not have been written by its purported author, King Solomon.

Since you were not there I assume your impressions of what happened would be based on what? Why it must be someone’s written words

Easy: we know there were lots of Christian books, but not all are in the canon, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip, and so many more. Why are they not included? Politicking, of course.

There is a very different history in Islam, the writings of Mohammad have essentially been affected by a fideism, it is heretical to even critically analyze them and heresy is punishable by death. Kinda discourages scholarship you know?

I’m a student of Islam and this statement betrays ignorance. During the 9th–13th centuries, schools of Islamic philosophy and theology flourished in the Abbasid Khalifate. The famed Kalam Cosmological Argument comes from them. True, some like Ibn Sina were tried as heretics, but so then was the Christian Meister Eckhart.

This part of the ritual involves eating cakes and drinking wine or juice for those of you that don’t know - I don’t know how I missed this *glaring *similarity Can anyone say eucharist?

Yes indeed! I find it very agreeable!

I predict that the closer I get to Gardinarian and Alexanderian Wicca the most similiar the rites become to High Angelicanism, wanna make a bet? LOL.

Gardner took a lot of sources for his new religion: Catholicism as you say, Freemasonry, Italian folk-witchcraft, the Hindu Tantra and Shakti cults, and some more.

Christianity was alot more civilized when it had nearly complete doctrinal unity

I’m sure the Cathars benefitted from that civility.

Good by whose standard?

There is no standard needed. We all instinctively called 9/11 evil on that fateful day, the very moment we saw it.

 

[kjvail]

Heathen Dawn:

And this dissection has not done them much good. We have found out, for example, that the five books of Moses (Pentateuch) are of multiple authorship, and that the book of Ecclesiastes could not have been written by its purported author, King Solomon.

Which has nothing to do with the theological messages in those books.

Easy: we know there were lots of Christian books, but not all are in the canon, such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Phillip, and so many more. Why are they not included? Politicking, of course.

I honestly don’t know what the process was for determining the canon, I know it occured in fits and starts over serveral centuries. I’m learning about the Bible slowly.

There is no standard needed. We all instinctively called 9/11 evil on that fateful day, the very moment we saw it.

All but those that were dancing in the streets across the Middle East.
There most certainly is a standard, has to be or nothing could be regarded as good unless one has something to compare it to. I can’t be more simple than that - CS Lewis has an excellent discussion on this in Mere Christianity
**
**

 

[hlgomez]

We don’t have those witnesses with us today.

Of course the original witnesses died a long time ago, BUT they handed down to their successors the deposit of faith to which they are witnesses. Their witnessing to Christ didn’t died out after they passed away, but was faithfully carried out generation after generation by their successors, guided by the holy Spirit up to the present time.

No, I don’t. And even if I did, it could not be trustworthy in and of itself. Anyone can write anything.

Of course anyone can write anything! But the truthfulness of the writings being put to record depends on the person who wrote it. Consider the trial in the courtroom. There the stenographer writes down what transpires in the court, the way the witnesses tell their testimonies orally. And it’s trustworthy, given the circumstances at that time. There can be no dispute.

It means I don’t trust scriptures in human language. Pagans hold to nulla scriptura for a reason.

As Christians, we differ ourselves from pagans. You cannot equate Christianity to paganism. Holy Scriptures are inspired written word of God, not coming from human beings but were written by human beings thru the inspiration of the holy Spirit (Divine Being). If you don’t trust Scriptures in human language, it’s because you think of scriptures as solely authored by human beings–there you missed the point.

Of course writing is better than memory, but even writing is not immune to the twisting of politicking. And politicking certainly did go into the decision as to which books would be placed in the Christian canon.

How did you know that the Church did enter into politicking when they determined the Canon of Scriptures? You are just assuming or judging your conclusions and most certainly you haven’t read the history as to what transpired at the Council of the Church during that time. The Church is very much different from politics of this world. It’s affairs is not focused on the things of this world but God’s Kingdom.

Pio

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

kjvail:

Which has nothing to do with the theological messages in those books.

Doesn’t it disturb you that Ecclesiastes was falsely attributed to King Solomon? That’s a lie in the Bible!

All but those that were dancing in the streets across the Middle East.

Immoral people, all of them. They think obedience to Allah is more important than human compassion. Just like Abraham thought when he lowered his knife to slaughter Isaac.

hlgomez:

Of course anyone can write anything! But the truthfulness of the writings being put to record depends on the person who wrote it. Consider the trial in the courtroom. There the stenographer writes down what transpires in the court, the way the witnesses tell their testimonies orally. And it’s trustworthy, given the circumstances at that time. There can be no dispute.

And I don’t agree that the writers of the Bible were trustworthy.

If you don’t trust Scriptures in human language, it’s because you think of scriptures as solely authored by human beings–there you missed the point.

Exactly. I have read no scripture that I find worthy of being called Inspired Word of God, nor do I think there can ever be such. That, incidentally, is the heart of paganism: that the Divine Mysteries cannot be communicated by words in human language, but the Gods communicate them to Their worshippers by telepathy, by direct thought transfer. Human language, like the physical body, is a veil that covers spiritual realities.

How did you know that the Church did enter into politicking when they determined the Canon of Scriptures? You are just assuming or judging your conclusions and most certainly you haven’t read the history as to what transpired at the Council of the Church during that time. The Church is very much different from politics of this world. It’s affairs is not focused on the things of this world but God’s Kingdom.

I see this as great naïveté. The reality is, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No man, and no organisation composed of men, is immune to that law. And the Church used the power of the state to suppress rivals (such as the Gnostics) as soon as Emperor Constantine granted it power.

Here is my article summarising my thoughts about the play between religion and politics:

Closing the Canon, Closing the Soul

Plenty about the Catholic Church there too.

 

[Ghosty]

So the more high-flying the claim, the more you take it seriously?

You seem to have a real problem with putting forth ideas that nobody ever claimed. I said that I wouldn’t take seriously a philosophy that claimed purely human origin; in such a circumstance the “salesman” is telling you not to take them seriously. That’s a big leap from saying that the more high-flying the claim, the more I take it seriously.

If someone says “this is just from my mind, and reveals no higher revelation” then why should I take it as something even remotely Divine?

It also seems that you aren’t very familiar with the development of Biblical canon. I recommend doing some scholarly research, and starting by checking out:

ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS3.HTM

The Canon of the Bible was inclusive, not exclusive. Books such as the Gospel of Thomas were rejected immediately upon their creation by the Church, and didn’t even enter into the discussion.

 

[hlgomez]

And I don’t agree that the writers of the Bible were trustworthy

then that’s your problem.

Pio

 

[hlgomez]

I see this as great naïveté. The reality is, power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. No man, and no organisation composed of men, is immune to that law. And the Church used the power of the state to suppress rivals (such as the Gnostics) as soon as Emperor Constantine granted it power.

Heather,

The Church has to always defend the truth of the Gospel. This is what precisely Christians are called for–to battle with the lies of the Evil one.

 

[RBushlow]

Syrokal:

Hi there i was just wondering what peoples veiws are on the Wiccan religion. What people think of there practicies and the way they conduct there lives and what relation it has to christianity.

Witchcraft and sorcery are condemned in the holy scripture.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Ghosty:

You seem to have a real problem with putting forth ideas that nobody ever claimed. I said that I wouldn’t take seriously a philosophy that claimed purely human origin; in such a circumstance the “salesman” is telling you not to take them seriously. That’s a big leap from saying that the more high-flying the claim, the more I take it seriously.

If someone says “this is just from my mind, and reveals no higher revelation” then why should I take it as something even remotely Divine?

The question I ask is why I should take John 14:6 seriously. So he said he was the way, truth and life, so what? I can say that too.

The Canon of the Bible was inclusive, not exclusive. Books such as the Gospel of Thomas were rejected immediately upon their creation by the Church, and didn’t even enter into the discussion.

I wonder why.

then that’s your problem.

No, it’s not my problem, it’s the problem of the missionary who’s set out to convert me.

The Church has to always defend the truth of the Gospel. This is what precisely Christians are called for–to battle with the lies of the Evil one.

And the “truth of the Gospel” always used to coïncide with ecclesial tithes. Come on, everybody knows organised religion is a money-making industry!

 

[Ghosty]

The question I ask is why I should take John 14:6 seriously. So he said he was the way, truth and life, so what? I can say that too.

That’s a question for a different topic, I’m afraid. We’re discussing Wicca, here, not the merits of Christianity. If you want to start another topic, feel free and I’ll participate. My point is simply this: I will not take seriously that which tells me to not take it seriously. It has nothing to do with how seriously I take things that tell me to take them seriously.

I wonder why.

I take it you are familiar with the fact that it was written by Gnostics, not Christians, and was written long after any of the Scriptural writings, and it was never circulated as Scripture in Christian circles. If you are familiar with all these facts, then I don’t understand why your statements on the matter. It would be like rolling your eyes at the writings of L. Ron Hubbard not being included in Biblical canon.

And the “truth of the Gospel” always used to coïncide with ecclesial tithes. Come on, everybody knows organised religion is a money-making industry!

Must be why the Catholic Bishops drink the finest champagne each night and bathe in the finest imported bottled water.
The donations are used by the Church to fund the basic day to day functions and upkeep of churches, and to fund countless charities and hospitals. If you don’t believe me then take a look into the costs of the numerous Catholic-run hospitals alone, and see just how much such projects cost. If the Church is a “for profit industry”, then I ask you to give us some demonstration of vast profits being tossed around. You’ll be hard pressed to find evidence of such decadence in the modern Church.

 

[siamesecat]

Wiccan is another religion…when used seriously and not to just be against Christianity…theres no sense in hating them. As they are not Christians it is not a sin to them as the Christian god is not theres. Just leave them alone, let them practice what they want to, just as you let Hindus and Jews practice their beliefs.

 

[kjvail]

Heathen Dawn:

Doesn’t it disturb you that Ecclesiastes was falsely attributed to King Solomon? That’s a lie in the Bible!

The sacred writers didn’t write history the way we think of it, as recitations of events. No one in that time period documented history in that way, they wrote to illustrate .
I think you misunderstand the Chruch’s teaching on the Bible itself, perhaps this would help:

"DEI VERBUM"DOGMATICCONSTITUTIONDIVINE****REVELATION

There were so many things I thought I knew when I was a pagan, I couldn’t have been more wrong.

Immoral people, all of them. They think obedience to Allah is more important than human compassion.

Glad we agree.
God teaches us not to do things because the things are in and of themselves bad. It is in the character of the act itself - adultery, fornication, sodomy, idolatory, etc…
There is a school of theology that says even God himself is not beyond the reach of the Natural Law.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

RBushlow:

Witchcraft and sorcery are condemned in the holy scripture.

Do these modern day “witches” actually practice witchcraft and sorcery. It’s just a self-centered feel good feminist way of thinking, right? They should grow out of it by the time they’re around 20. So I wouldn’t worry about these kids using sorcery or any kind of craft.

But seriously, without the help of the goblins and orcs witches cannot cast spells…and I know that the goblins will not cooperate with these modern day witches. LOL

wait…wait…unless the elves want to pitch in…oh no…the elves could enable the witches to cast magical spells…oh no…be careful everyone…be very careful

 

[Jermosh]

Syrokal:

Hi there i was just wondering what peoples veiws are on the Wiccan religion. What people think of there practicies and the way they conduct there lives and what relation it has to christianity.

I rented a room in a big old mansion that was owned by a active covent. In reality their beliefs are not that far from Christian beliefs. There “Magic” is nothing more then prayers. They have a guiene desire for spirituality and quest for a devine being. But then they are also very sexualy open, not chaste by anmeans, and frequently party allot with drugs and alchohol. But then again so do allot of “Christians”.