Views on Wicca

[Heathen_Dawn]

chrisb:

I assume because there exists a male and a female God in your metaphysics you recognize them as two distinct essences.

Not dualism but polarity. Not good vs evil or light vs dark but north and south, proton and electron. There’s a difference.

This is not what is taught in Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity or Islam. Even Taoism doesn’t start with the Yin/Yang which is a manifestation of the Tao, which is one essense and the source of all things.

Wicca does hold to an asexual One that is behind all things, and that One is polarised into a Goddess and God. Not different from Taoism, then.

they believe in a supreme Ground of All Being, the Brahman, who is uncreated, unborn, changeless, incorruptible, and utterly holy.

And so do I.

“‘Ekam sad vipra behudha vadanti.’ Truth is one, but is called by different names.” - The Vedas

Note that this is an affirmation of polytheism.

Sin! The ego! The lower self! The desire to see oneself as independant and separate from all things. The extend of one’s slaverly to one’s sin is the extend that one will ultimately need purification and repentance and reform. Bringing oneself to the awareness of sin and one’s own sin is the first step. There are many and few take them to the face of God.

To reach God by being kind and merciful, yes, I get that. But I don’t accept the need to renounce one’s ego, one’s individuality.

As we open up to the divine self we shed our separateness and we die in the self to be born in Christ. We are no more but Christ in us as St. Paul said.

I reject that. I’m not going to be a drop in the ocean, sorry.

Elitism is the elevation of the “Self” over others.

It’s much more than this simplistic explanation. There are selfless élitists as individuals, but they’re élitists in that they perpetuate the rule of their Machine.

Sex does create bonding pairs through chemical and emotional elements but that is to insure that the couple does not separate before the child reach adulthood. It is once again a means of survival and an ends to a means. To use it as any other means is to misuse it and to misunderstand it. many do and it is unfortunate.

Sex is for procreation and enjoyment. It is not a misuse of sex to do it for enjoyment. And it is far better to enjoy safe sex than to overpopulate the world.

Fertility Ritual. I get it. What I don’t get is why you would do it when you don’t even want children?

1. You want the fertility of other things, such as crops.
2. The ritual is symbolic for the Goddess and the God—bringing practitioners closer to Them by remembering Their action.

You see most primative culture wanted their women to be pregnant through the winter months when the tribe had stores of food and large predators were less mobile. It would also allow for late spring and early summer births when survival of children would be most high.

I know that. When were those most primitive cultures? 50,000 BC would be spot on, right? And when are we living now? AD 2004, no? Dare I say we’ve changed since? And Wicca is not a historical reënactment movement, it’s a living, breathing, modern religion. We worship the same Gods as old pagans did because Gods don’t change (essentially), but our sentiments are very, very different.

Again it’s all about survival not pair bonding as you appear to limit it.

Should be “it was all about survival” (past tense). Today, sex is about pair bonding.

 

[chrisb]

Heathen Dawn:

Not dualism but polarity. Not good vs evil or light vs dark but north and south, proton and electron. ThereÍs a difference.

Peace be with you Heathen Dawn,

Define the difference between dualism and your use of polarity? I guessing they are the same. Dualism in and of itself does not force one to define to dualism as something “vs.” something else. It simply states that there is no one essense to as the ultimate building block of reality. So I don’t think there is a difference. The nature of the dualism can be discribed as a struggle, commingling or co-oporation. It doesn’t matter in order to use the term dualism.

Wicca does hold to an asexual One that is behind all things, and that One is polarised into a Goddess and God. Not different from Taoism, then.

Actually, that is very different than Taoism. What you are stating is the action of creation by the Tao manifest as two personifications (two unique essences with person-hood) and you worship “them” instead of the Tao. I would dare say this appears to be a case of “projection of person-hood” to the act of creation and “Idolatry” of the act in place of God, or in our case the Tao. I don’t necessarily argue it is altogether ignore to do this so in one sense you have raised my understanding and appreciation of Wicca but never-the-less it does appear to be in error with it’s metaphysical claims. I don’t thing I can agree that a Wiccan is worshipping the Creator as much as Creation through the personifications of the Goddess and the God. Pretty interesting never-the-less.

Note that this is an affirmation of polytheism.

Hmmm… Let’s relook at the statement again.

“‘Ekam sad vipra behudha vadanti.’ Truth is one, but is called by different names.” - The Vedas

Okay, what we see here is a singlarity of truth. Let’s say she is a woman and her name is “truth”, but she is “called” by different names. Let say some call her “wisdom” and others call her “Gnosis” but we call her “truth”. the fact that we are use different labels for her does not make her many for she is still one. If we all took her out to lunch, we would all realize that this one woman is in reality “truth”, “wisdom” and “gnosis”. It was our ignorance that failed to put the names together with her or our desire for exclusivity of her attentions. Either way, she remains “one” and yet know by different names. So as you can see, this does not affirm polytheism but the ignorance of the one who claims it.

[to be continued]

 

[chrisb]

Peace be with you Heathen Dawn,

To reach God by being kind and merciful, yes, I get that. But I donÍt accept the need to renounce oneÍs ego, oneÍs individuality.

If one’s ego, one’s selfishness, one’s desire for distinction is one’s individuality then I can understand one’s struggle to cling to it. If individuality is the separation from the oneness of ultimate self in God then it is ultimately that one thing that must be discarded. All Kindness and Mercy is the act of service to others and the rejection of the desires of one’s self-hood. What you are telling me is there are limits to the kindness and mercy you are willing to offer.

I reject that. IÍm not going to be a drop in the ocean, sorry.

That is why “wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow is the gate that leads to life, and few will take it”.

ItÍs much more than this simplistic explanation. There are selfless ?litists as individuals, but theyÍre ?litists in that they perpetuate the rule of their Machine.

We can elaborate as much as you wish but your making such board claims that they will be unusable to offer us guidance.

What is an elitist to you? If one is a brute is one who desires kindness an elitist? In your assertion I would have to say yes. But clearly because one virtue or character distiguises oneself from others is not in oneself a claim of elitism but merely an example of virtue and character. You may find his virtue and character repulsive out of envy or out of guilt but I would leave that to you to figure out for yourself. Remember, misery loves company and the lonely desire attention. Just because they reject one who is at peace with himself does not mean necessarily speak of the state of the one who is at peace as it does the ones who are not. One should be careful in judging others for this reason.

Sex is for procreation and enjoyment. It is not a misuse of sex to do it for enjoyment. And it is far better to enjoy safe sex than to overpopulate the world.

That is a “value statement” (i.e. an opinion). Attempt to prove this and you will find that you can not.

1. You want the fertility of other things, such as crops.

Do you grow any crops?

1. The ritual is symbolic for the Goddess and the God„bringing practitioners closer to Them by remembering Their action.

This is further evidence that what you worship is the “act” of Creation and not the “Creator”. This is Idolatry of the “act”.

I know that. When were those most primitive cultures? 50,000 BC would be spot on, right? And when are we living now? AD 2004, no? Dare I say weÍve changed since? And Wicca is not a historical reÔnactment movement, itÍs a living, breathing, modern religion. We worship the same Gods as old pagans did because Gods donÍt change (essentially), but our sentiments are very, very different.

Yet, Wicca claims that these rituals have inherit power or you would be more free-form in your services. I would say that Spirits can and do change but that the Creator does not.

Should be ñit was all about survivalî (past tense). Today, sex is about pair bonding.

There are “still” tribes which continue to this day practicing such rituals you only mimic them and crudely I may add.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

chrisb:

All Kindness and Mercy is the act of service to others and the rejection of the desires of one’s self-hood.

Not necessarily.

What you are telling me is there are limits to the kindness and mercy you are willing to offer.

No, what I’m telling you is I don’t think I was created in order to strive to cancel my individuality.

That is why “wide is the road that leads to destruction and narrow is the gate that leads to life, and few will take it”.

That is your opinion.

What is an elitist to you?

Someone who looks down upon the other in spiritual matters. Elitism is nearly OK in sports. It’s not OK in religion.

That is a “value statement” (i.e. an opinion). Attempt to prove this and you will find that you can not.

And your statement that sex is only for procreation, and that sex for enjoyment is a misuse of it, is a “value statement” too.

Do you grow any crops?

Not myself, but we’re all dependent upon them. This hasn’t changed a bit with time.

This is further evidence that what you worship is the “act” of Creation and not the “Creator”. This is Idolatry of the “act”.

I don’t know where you get such an idea. Even if that’s true, then so what? I’m a pagan, and since when did pagans have any compunction about idolatry? I worship trees and stars, for goodness’s sake.

There are “still” tribes which continue to this day practicing such rituals you only mimic them and crudely I may add.

No, Wiccan ritual does not mimic ancient tribal pagan rituals. As I said, Wicca is not a historical reënactment movement.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

chrisb:

Define the difference between dualism and your use of polarity?

Dualism is conflict, polarity is complementing harmony.

What you are stating is the action of creation by the Tao manifest as two personifications (two unique essences with person-hood) and you worship “them” instead of the Tao.

Naturally, since the One or Tao or Brahman is abstract, formless and partly impersonal.

I would dare say this appears to be a case of “projection of person-hood” to the act of creation

If you want to be free of all anthropomorphism, then you’re looking in the wrong place. You’d be happy with deism, pantheism or atheism.

I don’t thing I can agree that a Wiccan is worshipping the Creator as much as Creation through the personifications of the Goddess and the God.

I worship the Creator by worshipping His creations.

Okay, what we see here is a singlarity of truth. Let’s say she is a woman and her name is “truth”, but she is “called” by different names. Let say some call her “wisdom” and others call her “Gnosis” but we call her “truth”. the fact that we are use different labels for her does not make her many for she is still one. If we all took her out to lunch, we would all realize that this one woman is in reality “truth”, “wisdom” and “gnosis”. It was our ignorance that failed to put the names together with her or our desire for exclusivity of her attentions. Either way, she remains “one” and yet know by different names. So as you can see, this does not affirm polytheism but the ignorance of the one who claims it.

I don’t see it that way. I see it as an affirmation of soft polytheism: there is one Creator-God (Truth), and He/She/It is known through many manifestations (Zeus, Belenos, Freyja, Inanna and so on). You know why India has always been more tolerant than its Islamic neighbours and invaders? Because, whereas the Muslims say “One Truth, One Name, One Way” (just like Christians, I must add), Hindus say each worshipper of his Gods and Goddesses is worshipping in spirit and truth. And … by their fruits shall ye know them.

 

[chrisb]

Heathen Dawn:

Dualism is conflict, polarity is complementing harmony.

Peace be with you Heathen Dawn,

poálaráiáty ÊÊ ÊPÊÊÊPronunciation KeyÊÊ(p-lr-t, p-) n. pl. poálaráiáties

1.) Intrinsic polar separation, alignment, or orientation, especially of a physical property: magnetic polarity; ionic polarity.

2.) An indicated polar extreme: an electric terminal with positive polarity.

3.) The possession or manifestation of two opposing attributes, tendencies, or principles: political polarity.

Do you still continue to posit that polarity and dualism is different in meaning?

I worship the Creator by worshipping His creations.

Let’s say your boyfriend or girlfriend loves the sweater you made. He or She loves it so much that they start neglecting paying attention to you. They run around the house dancing with the sweater and sleeping holding the sweater and go out for walks with the sweater all instead of doing these things with you. How would you feel? Do you think by doing this you truly give proper praise and reverence to God, the ultimate reality, but your reverence of creation? Do you think your boyfriend or girlfriend would be giving you the proper attention by loving and spending time with your sweater? The analogy are not far from the mark and you really should give it some serious reflection.

I donÕt see it that way. I see it as an affirmation of soft polytheism: there is one Creator-God (Truth), and He/She/It is known through many manifestations (Zeus, Belenos, Freyja, Inanna and so on). You know why India has always been more tolerant than its Islamic neighbours and invaders? Because, whereas the Muslims say ÒOne Truth, One Name, One WayÓ (just like Christians, I must add), Hindus say each worshipper of his Gods and Goddesses is worshipping in spirit and truth. And É by their fruits shall ye know them.

You think Hindus are more tolerant than other cultures? Lets take a look at their crime rates and how they treat women and the poor? I can offer you statistics if you like? Their metaphysics may well be more “inclusive” but that doesn’t mean that they adhere any more closely to their own ideals as any other culture. Remember, narrow is the gate that leads to life and few take it.

And that is not my opinion, that is Jesus Christ’s.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

chrisb:

Do you still continue to posit that polarity and dualism is different in meaning?

Yes. Argumentum ad Dictionarium was never a big hit with me.

Let’s say your boyfriend or girlfriend loves the sweater you made. He or She loves it so much that they start neglecting paying attention to you. They run around the house dancing with the sweater and sleeping holding the sweater and go out for walks with the sweater all instead of doing these things with you. How would you feel?

The problem with this analogy is you get to portray God as having very, very human weaknesses.

Anyway, this analogy also fails because it assumes there are things that are not God, not the Creator. This is not my view at all. As a panentheist, I believe that God is the Totality. God is greater than the universe, but the universe is part of God. I’m not worshipping anything non-God when I worship a tree or star.

Do you think by doing this you truly give proper praise and reverence to God, the ultimate reality, but your reverence of creation?

Yes, I certainly do. It is infinitely more reverent to God than to fly a plane into an office building—a great example of dying to one’s self, self-sacrifice.

Do you think your boyfriend or girlfriend would be giving you the proper attention by loving and spending time with your sweater?

Your own Bible says (Numbers 23) God is not a man. Why do you treat Him as such with this kind of analogy?

You think Hindus are more tolerant than other cultures?

Yes. They have a history of tolerance. The reason they’re less tolerant now is that the Muslims have forced them to become so. You’ve got to be ruthless in a ruthless world.

Their metaphysics may well be more “inclusive” but that doesn’t mean that they adhere any more closely to their own ideals as any other culture.

The beam in your eye … all those Christian ministers and pastors and cardinals who keep their possessions instead of giving them to the poor. As someone wise said, the only true Christian died on the cross.

Remember, narrow is the gate that leads to life and few take it.

And that is not my opinion, that is Jesus Christ’s.

It is written he said so, yes.

 

[chrisb]

Heathen Dawn:

Yes. Argumentum ad Dictionarium was never a big hit with me.

Peace be with you Heathen Dawn,

Are we arguing? I thought we were two people discussing our views on religion. Sure we may toss a reposte in every now in then but I don’t see this as arguing, it much too gentile.

The problem with this analogy is you get to portray God as having very, very human weaknesses.

If the first commandment can be understood in any other way I would afford you this point, unfortunately I don’t see how one can obey it and not assume God’s desire to be the only one whom we give worship and praise. Do you?

Anyway, this analogy also fails because it assumes there are things that are not God, not the Creator. This is not my view at all. As a panentheist, I believe that God is the Totality. God is greater than the universe, but the universe is part of God. IÕm not worshipping anything non-God when I worship a tree or star.

Again, the first commandment is very clear that there “are” things that are not God and in fact nothing in creation “is” God. We may posit that creation is sacred in that it is “willed” by God but we don’t worship creation because it is not God any more than your favorite sweater is not you. This is the telling difference between animists and monotheists and I’m unclear if we will be capable of explaining away this difference of doctrine. If I didn’t think the Church and it’s Scripture wasn’t authoritative on this I woundn’t be Catholic so you will just have to forgive me if I don’t agree with you on this point. I, personally, completely understand the argument but I don’t agree with it’s conclusion.

Yes, I certainly do. It is infinitely more reverent to God than to fly a plane into an office buildingÑa great example of dying to oneÕs self, self-sacrifice.

Assuming you understanding it would be like loving your boyfriends “foot” instead of simply paying attention to his whole self but hey more power to you.

Your own Bible says (Numbers 23) God is not a man. Why do you treat Him as such with this kind of analogy?

I think my analogy is more useful to describe one’s “relationship” with God and not attribute to him manhood. It is in the “relationship” between you, your boyfriend and the sweater that is important not in what they are in the analogy. Do you assume I think creation is a sweater, really? Of course not. This is weak attempt at deflection of the validity of the analogy.

Yes. They have a history of tolerance. The reason theyÕre less tolerant now is that the Muslims have forced them to become so. YouÕve got to be ruthless in a ruthless world.

How have they historically treated the untouchables? This is even recorded during the times of Buddha, much earlier than the arrival of the Muslims. They still practice such things today and they are very rude to women as well.

The beam in your eye É all those Christian ministers and pastors and cardinals who keep their possessions instead of giving them to the poor. As someone wise said, the only true Christian died on the cross.

I think it is very valid to point out such practices without being judgmental. Speaking of Judgmental aren’t you doing that very thing here? When you don’t stand for anything it’s easy to throw stones at everything and you like to throw lots of stones, friend.

With regard to you wise someone, I would point out that “every” Christian dies on the cross as we each “put on Christ”.

It is written he said so, yes.

Yep!

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

chrisb:

Are we arguing? I thought we were two people discussing our views on religion. Sure we may toss a reposte in every now in then but I don’t see this as arguing, it much too gentile.

I meant to say bringing dictionary definitions isn’t very useful in this context. Sure the dictionary can define polarity as conflict, but this is not the definition I use when I speak of the polarity of the Goddess and the God.

If the first commandment can be understood in any other way I would afford you this point, unfortunately I don’t see how one can obey it and not assume God’s desire to be the only one whom we give worship and praise. Do you?

The commandment “thou shalt have no gods in preference to me” in the Bible, yeah…

Let me save you a lot of writing based on untrue assumptions by making this clear: I do not view the Bible as having any special authority whatsoever.

Again, the first commandment is very clear that there “are” things that are not God and in fact nothing in creation “is” God.

One of the many untruths of the Bible, according to my belief.

This is the telling difference between animists and monotheists and I’m unclear if we will be capable of explaining away this difference of doctrine. If I didn’t think the Church and it’s Scripture wasn’t authoritative on this I woundn’t be Catholic so you will just have to forgive me if I don’t agree with you on this point. I, personally, completely understand the argument but I don’t agree with it’s conclusion.

Yes, that’s hitting upon the great chasm between pagans and Christians in a nutshell.

Assuming you understanding it would be like loving your boyfriends “foot” instead of simply paying attention to his whole self but hey more power to you.

Nitpick: that would be “girlfriend”, since I’m a heterosexual male.

I think my analogy is more useful to describe one’s “relationship” with God and not attribute to him manhood. It is in the “relationship” between you, your [edit - girlfriend] and the sweater that is important not in what they are in the analogy. Do you assume I think creation is a sweater, really? Of course not. This is weak attempt at deflection of the validity of the analogy.

I would limitedly accept this analogy with regard to the individual Gods and Goddesses. Zeus and Freyja are anthropomorphs with a human personality, and They would require attention from Their worshippers. But even They do not require it to the exclusion of worshipping any other being or thing. The trouble is with your God, the Judaeo-Christian God, Yahweh: He’s a jealous God and He can’t abide by giving attention to anything else. So if I were in a path of worshipping Yahweh (and I was a few years ago—Orthodox Judaism) it would make sense to worship only Him. But now that He’s out of my religious life, why should I care for His First Commandment?

(yes, to make it clear: I believe the Christian God is an individual God like Zeus, and not the only God and Creator of the universe. Anyone who wishes to convert me to Christianity must pass me through that hurdle)

I think it is very valid to point out such practices without being judgmental. Speaking of Judgmental aren’t you doing that very thing here? When you don’t stand for anything it’s easy to throw stones at everything and you like to throw lots of stones, friend.

You said Hindus didn’t practice their ideals. My judgementalism was in response to yours.

With regard to you wise someone, I would point out that “every” Christian dies on the cross as we each “put on Christ”.

A cure for sin, yet I don’t see Christians behaving, on average, any better than non-Christians.

Yep!

But I don’t put much trust in the written word.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Tom of Assisi is not here for the dialogue, but for inclusion in my ignore list. The only thing I’m wondering is why it’s taken me so long to realise this.

 

[chrisb]

Heathen Dawn:

I meant to say bringing dictionary definitions isnêt very useful in this context. Sure the dictionary can define polarity as conflict, but this is not the definition I use when I speak of the polarity of the Goddess and the God.

Peace be with you Heathen Dawn,

The use of the dictionary definitions is to further our understanding of the word used in common and then to understand what an individual means. If we don’t agree on word meaning, we don’t communicate accurately our intent. Although we should never assume words are anything but references to individual ideas, we never-the-less need them for thoughtful communication, thus the need of dictionary definitions. I understand your revulsion to them binding your meaning but think of them as shedding a little light on your thoughts instead and you learn to appreciate them much more.

The commandment “thou shalt have no gods in preference to me” in the Bible, yeah!

Let me save you a lot of writing based on untrue assumptions by making this clear: I do not view the Bible as having any special authority whatsoever.

I find your comments a bit rude. You tend to see everything as being about ‘you’ and you fail to recognize that I am merely pointing out a revelation which ‘I’ hold as a commandment given to ‘me’ from my tradition. If you can’t respect ‘my’ tradition, how are you ever going to get ‘others’ to respect yours?

One of the many untruths of the Bible, according to my belief.

Once again, you reject ‘me’ and ‘my’ beliefs. How is this not elitism?

Yes, that’s hitting upon the great chasm between pagans and Christians in a nutshell.

Yes it is but let me suggest that, as a Catholic Christian, we are a sacramental people and we ‘do’ see God’s presence in His Creation as you seem to agree. Where we differ is in the assumption that manifestations of the divine is, in it self, is actual ‘person-hood’ and merits direct worship. Frankly, this is a very deep thought and one that would have to be reflected on for proper answer and I am not all together sure their is “no room” in Catholicism for such. Of course, you reject God for the ultimate source but again that could be simply a misunderstanding of semantics.

[to be continued]

 

[chrisb]

Peace be with you Heathen Dawn,

St. Francis, my Baptismal Saint, I might add, had a wonderful canticle that I think you’d like…

Canticle of Brother Sun and Sister Moon of St. Francis of Assisi:

Most High, all-powerful, all-good Lord,
All praise is Yours, all glory, all honour and all blessings.
To you alone, Most High, do they belong,
and no mortal lips are worthy to pronounce Your Name.

Praised be You my Lord with all Your creatures,
especially Sir Brother Sun,
Who is the day through whom You give us light.
And he is beautiful and radiant with great splendour,
Of You Most High, he bears the likeness.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Sister Moon and the stars,
In the heavens you have made them bright, precious and fair.

Praised be You, my Lord, through Brothers Wind and Air,
And fair and stormy, all weather’s moods,
by which You cherish all that You have made.

Praised be You my Lord through Sister Water,
So useful, humble, precious and pure.

Praised be You my Lord through Brother Fire,
through whom You light the night
and he is beautiful and playful and robust and strong.

Praised be You my Lord through our Sister,
Mother Earth
who sustains and governs us,
producing varied fruits with coloured flowers and herbs.
Praise be You my Lord through those who grant pardon
for love of You and bear sickness and trial.
Blessed are those who endure in peace,
By You Most High, they will be crowned.

Praised be You, my Lord through Sister Death,
from whom no-one living can escape.
Woe to those who die in mortal sin!
Blessed are they She finds doing Your Will.
No second death can do them harm.
Praise and bless my Lord and give Him thanks,
And serve Him with great humility.

[to be continued]

 

[chrisb]

Peace be with you Heathen Dawn,

Nitpick: that would be ‘girlfriend’, since I’m a heterosexual male.

Sorry, I meant to keep it neutral as before with the inclusion of both. Forgive me.

I would limitedly accept this analogy with regard to the individual Gods and Goddesses. Zeus and Freyja are anthropomorphs with a human personality, and They would require attention from Their worshippers. But even They do not require it to the exclusion of worshipping any other being or thing. The trouble is with your God, the Judaeo-Christian God, Yahweh: Heês a jealous God and He canêt abide by giving attention to anything else. So if I were in a path of worshipping Yahweh (and I was a few years agoãOrthodox Judaism) it would make sense to worship only Him. But now that Heês out of my religious life, why should I care for His First Commandment?

(yes, to make it clear: I believe the Christian God is an individual God like Zeus, and not the only God and Creator of the universe. Anyone who wishes to convert me to Christianity must pass me through that hurdle)

Well, clearly you can take that opinion but I, as a Catholic, fear for you and dialog with you because of the fear. You can discard my concern but my convictions cause me to pursue you, with love. I can’t convert you to Christianity, I can only, with a contrite heart, sit with you and offer you what fruits have grown in the soil of my weak faith. If you find my fruits to your liking perhaps the Spirit within you will stir you to greater understanding and lead to the straight path to salvation. It is a wish, a desire and a prayer, nothing more.

The Lord bless you and keep you.
May He show His face to you and have mercy.
May He turn His countenance to you and give you peace.
The Lord bless you!

You said Hindus didn’t practice their ideals. My judgementalism was in response to yours.

No. I pointed out that they fail to live up to their ideals just like everybody else. You place them in higher admiration only because their metaphysics is more acceptable to you. That was my point only. It was not be belittle anyone.

A cure for sin, yet I don’t see Christians behaving, on average, any better than non-Christians.

As I’ve said before, “narrow is the gate and only few with take it.” That is not simply a condemnation of people ‘outside’ the Church but those inside as well.

But I don’t put much trust in the written word.

If they are written in wisdom and care, they carry great reservoirs of meaning and understanding. If they are written in ignorance, they do little but offend and befuddle.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

chrisb:

I find your comments a bit rude. You tend to see everything as being about ‘you’ and you fail to recognize that I am merely pointing out a revelation which ‘I’ hold as a commandment given to ‘me’ from my tradition.

There’s no intention to be rude here, just pointing out that our views colour everything. You say my worshipping the creation is disrespectful to the Creator, and I say it is not so. You base your opinion upon the first commandment of the Decalogue in the Bible, and then I say it is no wonder I do not hold the same opinion as you do, because I don’t view the Bible as authoritative. See, the view that worshipping the creation is disrespectful to the Creator isn’t self-evident—it is predicated upon a prior belief that the Bible is authoritative.

Once again, you reject ‘me’ and ‘my’ beliefs. How is this not elitism?

I reject your beliefs because I have particular beliefs that contradict them. As I said, I am not a proponent of religious indifferentism; I hold to the Law of Non-Contradiction, which means that two contradictory truth-claims cannot both be right. The very fact that I hold to polytheism puts me in undesired but necessary conflict with those who hold to monotheism, because polytheism and monotheism cannot both be true.

Yes it is but let me suggest that, as a Catholic Christian, we are a sacramental people and we ‘do’ see God’s presence in His Creation as you seem to agree. Where we differ is in the assumption that manifestations of the divine is, in it self, is actual ‘person-hood’ and merits direct worship.

I don’t hold that such objects of nature as trees and stars and rivers and rocks actually have a personality; only the Gods and Goddesses do. I don’t opine that something needs to have a personality in order to be worshipped. One can’t have a relationship with a rock (though maybe with a spirit residing in a rock), but one can worship it.

St. Francis, my Baptismal Saint, I might add, had a wonderful canticle that I think you’d like…

I’ve already been shown it on this board. Yes, it’s beautiful!

The Lord bless you and keep you.
May He show His face to you and have mercy.
May He turn His countenance to you and give you peace.
The Lord bless you!

This is what I recited each night before going to sleep when I was an Orthodox Jew.

As I’ve said before, “narrow is the gate and only few with take it.” That is not simply a condemnation of people ‘outside’ the Church but those inside as well.

Why did an All-Wise, All-Good, All-Loving God make the gate of salvation so narrow?

 

[chrisb]

Heathen Dawn:

There’s no intention to be rude here, just pointing out that our views colour everything. You say my worshipping the creation is disrespectful to the Creator, and I say it is not so. You base your opinion upon the first commandment of the Decalogue in the Bible, and then I say it is no wonder I do not hold the same opinion as you do, because I don’t view the Bible as authoritative. See, the view that worshipping the creation is disrespectful to the Creator isn’t self-evident„it is predicated upon a prior belief that the Bible is authoritative.

Peace be with you Heathen Dawn,

I appreciate your clarification here. Thank you.

I reject your beliefs because I have particular beliefs that contradict them. As I said, I am not a proponent of religious indifferentism; I hold to the Law of Non-Contradiction, which means that two contradictory truth-claims cannot both be right. The very fact that I hold to polytheism puts me in undesired but necessary conflict with those who hold to monotheism, because polytheism and monotheism cannot both be true.

Let me ask you, if two people look at the same mountain from opposite sides, could not one claim with complete truth that the mountain is in shadow and the other deny him and claim that the mountain is in the clear light of the setting sun? I would dare say that the answer is yes they could both be correct. The Law of Non-Contradiction assumes complete knowledge and accurate description of the object of discussion. I fail to see how one can claim such completeness of knowledge of the unseen matters of our existence. No we are deeply in the realm of conjecture here friend and the best we can hope to do is point crudely to what is real.

I don’t hold that such objects of nature as trees and stars and rivers and rocks actually have a personality; only the Gods and Goddesses do. I don’t opine that something needs to have a personality in order to be worshipped. One can’t have a relationship with a rock (though maybe with a spirit residing in a rock), but one can worship it.

If your definition of worship was more in line with our Catholic understanding of veneration, then perhaps we could agree. Clearly St. Francis venerated nature with the personification of it as a “Sister” and “Brother”, peers in creation in co-worship with us of the Creator.

I’ve already been shown it on this board. Yes, it’s beautiful!

Ah, shoot, I was hoping to surprise you…

This is what I recited each night before going to sleep when I was an Orthodox Jew.

We say it as well, friend. I would hope you still find it a blessing.

Why did an All-Wise, All-Good, All-Loving God make the gate of salvation so narrow?

Did Him do it or is the the work of our own doing? That is the big question is it not? I have a young child, Aerin Michelle, whom sometimes does not listen to my instructions. Every once in a while your failure to listen gets her into trouble. Is it my fault or is it hers for not listening to me? The answer is similar to the gate of salvation.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Marcellinus]

Here’s my two cents on Wicca and specifically Wiccans:

Wicca is the worship of false gods. Wiccans have no real reason to believe in Wicca. If you ask them why they believe in Wicca they’ll just give you some sort of general reply about how no religion is reasonable to believe in.

This in itself is dishonest, if no religion is rational to believe then why act as if yours is?

I think people believe in Wicca, half because of the shock value, and half because they are feminists and like goddess worship.

So to what do I think of Wicca?

Not much.

 

[Marcellinus]

chrisb:

Let me ask you, if two people look at the same mountain from opposite sides, could not one claim with complete truth that the mountain is in shadow and the other deny him and claim that the mountain is in the clear light of the setting sun? I would dare say that the answer is yes they could both be correct. The Law of Non-Contradiction assumes complete knowledge and accurate description of the object of discussion. I fail to see how one can claim such completeness of knowledge of the unseen matters of our existence. No we are deeply in the realm of conjecture here friend and the best we can hope to do is point crudely to what is real.

I take it back, Heathen Dawn seems to be an honest Wiccan. Why did the earth have to be taken over by subjectivists?! chrisb, the simple fact is that polytheism and monotheism contradict each other. Its kind of like saying 2 + 1 = 4 and saying 2 + 2 = 4 contradict each other. They cannot both be right.

There is only one argument that could make polytheism possibly correct and that is the problem of evil. It would make sense if there were many gods and some were evil, thus causing evil to exist. But the main problem of polytheism is that it does not explain enough.

If there are many gods they cannot be uncaused, because there can only be one source of all being. If there were two or more sources of existence then there would be some ways in which each god did not exist, and thus would rely upon something else for its existence. Yet how could they exist if there was not one source of existence giving them existence? They cannot rely upon each other in some unending chain because that is a contradiction.

No, there is only source of all existence, movement, change, and perfection and that is God.

 

[chrisb]

Marcellinus:

I take it back, Heathen Dawn seems to be an honest Wiccan. Why did the earth have to be taken over by subjectivists?! chrisb, the simple fact is that polytheism and monotheism contradict each other. Its kind of like saying 2 + 1 = 4 and saying 2 + 2 = 4 contradict each other. They cannot both be right.

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.

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.

There is only one argument that could make polytheism possibly correct and that is the problem of evil.

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.

It would make sense if there were many gods and some were evil, thus causing evil to exist. But the main problem of polytheism is that it does not explain enough.

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.

If there are many gods they cannot be uncaused, because there can only be one source of all being. If there were two or more sources of existence then there would be some ways in which each god did not exist, and thus would rely upon something else for its existence. Yet how could they exist if there was not one source of existence giving them existence? They cannot rely upon each other in some unending chain because that is a contradiction.

We’ve been through this already, friend. Please backtrack further and you will see.

No, there is only source of all existence, movement, change, and perfection and that is God.

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.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

Marcellinus:

Wicca is the worship of false gods.

A reasonable opinion if your basis is the prior acceptance of the authority of the Bible.

Wiccans have no real reason to believe in Wicca.

No real reason other than it just plain makes sense.

I think people believe in Wicca, half because of the shock value, and half because they are feminists and like goddess worship.

Shock value: in real life only my nuclear family knows I’m Wiccan.

Feminism and Goddess worship: I’m a man and I advocate male-female equality. And if you worship the Goddess alone to the exclusion of the God, you aren’t Wiccan.

There is only one argument that could make polytheism possibly correct and that is the problem of evil.

The problem of evil affects those who believe in an omnimax God—the existence of evil despite the fact that God is both able (omnipotent) and willing (omnibenevolent) to stop it. I won’t go into this debate, it’s something you should debate with atheists, but I’ll say I haven’t the problem of evil in my theology because I don’t hold to omnimax.

If there are many gods they cannot be uncaused, because there can only be one source of all being.

No, there is only source of all existence, movement, change, and perfection and that is God.

Correct. There is only one uncaused being. But under my theology, the Gods and Goddesses exist as faces of that one uncaused being. Problem solved.

 

[Marcellinus]

Heathen Dawn:

A reasonable opinion if your basis is the prior acceptance of the authority of the Bible.

Did I say it wasn’t? But you overlook the fact that one doesn’t need to be a Christian/Muslim/Jewish theist to be a theist. One could believe that paganism is the worship of false gods from purely philosophical abstract reasoning.
Heathen Dawn:

Shock value: in real life only my nuclear family knows I’m Wiccan.

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

Feminism and Goddess worship: I’m a man and I advocate male-female equality. And if you worship the Goddess alone to the exclusion of the God, you aren’t Wiccan.

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.*

Heathen Dawn:

The problem of evil affects those who believe in an omnimax God—the existence of evil despite the fact that God is both able (omnipotent) and willing (omnibenevolent) to stop it. I won’t go into this debate, it’s something you should debate with atheists, but I’ll say I haven’t the problem of evil in my theology because I don’t hold to omnimax.

Exactly what I was saying. That is the only reason I would ever become a polytheist, because it is an easy solution to the problem of evil.
Heathen Dawn:

Correct. There is only one uncaused being. But under my theology, the Gods and Goddesses exist as
faces of that one uncaused being. Problem solved.

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!