Wicca-the fastest growing religion in Canada!!

[The_Barrister]

wolpertinger:

Levity aside, after reading your previous posts I wish I could say with confidence that the Inquisitions are a thing of the past.

For the first time in my life, I’m tempted to ask a Catholic priest for advice on spiritual matters – to ascertain whether or not your words accurately reflect the substance of the Catholic faith. It is the impression of a thinly veiled threat that concerns me.

Whose threat, exactly?

 

[wolpertinger]

squirt:

If you have the time, you might find an RCIA class interesting. It would give you a good overview of Christianity from a Catholic perspective. You don’t have to be considering conversion to attend.

Thanks for the info, squirt.

I will say this in public – it is a pleasure talking to you. I don’t extensively read this site, but from what I’ve seen you consistently use a non-judgemental approach and even though we find ourselves on different sides, it does by no means detract from my respect for you.

 

[squirt]

wolpertinger:

Thanks for the info, squirt.

I will say this in public – it is a pleasure talking to you. I don’t extensively read this site, but from what I’ve seen you consistently use a non-judgemental approach and even though we find ourselves on different sides, it does by no means detract from my respect for you.

Well, I don’t know what to say except thank-you.

 

[wolpertinger]

Whose threat, exactly?

If you don’t know the answer, all I can do is to encourage you to review your posts and try to put yourself into the position of one of the groups you condemn.

Please note that I tried to be very careful in my wording - the substance and tone of what you state can easily be perceived as threatening, whether that was your intent or not.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

The Barrister:

No, I’m intolerating a really bad thing, of which I have proof is a bad thing. Again, you try to acuse me of bigotry because I refuse to accept that Wicca is a good thing.

You have no proof that Wicca is a bad thing outside the Bible.

So you admit that you are captive to untruths but not immoral?

No, I did not admit being captive to untruth. I think I have the truth. But those who haven’t the truth, such as Christians who think Zeus doesn’t exist, aren’t made immoral by this fact.

As stated, tolerance is not a virtue, so it does not necessarily follow that intolerance is a lack of virtue.

And I gravely disagree with you again. Tolerance is a high virtue. Without it, each person would eat the other for breakfast.

By “tolerance” you mean that you expect others to accept your viewpoint, or else they’re bigots.

Strawman! By tolerance I mean acceptance that my viewpoint has a right to exist. You can think it’s a false viewpoint, that doesn’t make you intolerant; but once you think my viewpoint should be stamped out, you’re intolerant, you’re no different from the 9/11 terrorists.

Don’t be coy. Are you or are you not “pro-choice”?

No.

And nice attempted slam at the Pope. The Pope does not “forbid” me - God’s laws forbid me from advocating for killing the innocent.

Funny, I never saw an injunction against contraception in the Bible.

Please frorgive me. I did not know that worshipping Satan required that an official “religion” be established. I thought it could be done by doing those things that Satan loves to see, like praying to false gods, doing magick and sorcery, and so on. I stand corrected, sir!

Strike another point for your similarity with fundamentalist Muslims! They too believe all Muslims belong to the Party of God (hizbullaah) and all non-Muslims to the Party of Satan (hizbush-shaytaan).

There’s just no convincing you, is there? My hat’s off to someone like you who can be so strong in their convictions!

I just saw it fit to warn you that, since I do not consider the Bible as an authority, quoting verses out of it will have no effect whatever upon me.

 

[renee1258]

Heather Dawn,

I would like you to reconsider your thoughts on contraception in the Wicca belief system. As I Catholic, I promote NFP in which a woman charts the natural fertility signs of her body (cervical mucus obsercations and tempature taking, not counting the days from period to period). I’ve encoutner many women who believe in wicca, who actually have the same beliefs as Catholics when it comes to the pill and condoms.

In Catholicism we put a great respect for our sexual bodies, and how men and women respect each other. This is my body, there is nothing wrong with my reproductive system. Why would I want to suppress my sexuality with synthetic hormones? I have to live by the natural laws, that sometimes I fertile. If my husband and I do not believe it is the right time to have another child after consderation we abstain during any potential fertile time (about a week or so in a healthy cycle), and wait until ovulation has occured.

I would think Wicca, as an earth based belief would agree that a our sexuality is bound by nature. For Catholics there is nothing wrong with a woman ovulating. Ovulation is a normal healthy occurance within a women’s body and it is the hieghten point of her feminine sexuality. (If you chart, you will notice you are most likely to be in the mood during ovulation) But at least to secular society (not wiccan beliefs) ovulation, pregnancy, and children are a burden. It’s a shame.

 

[tractarian]

Returning to my pet-issue with anti-X: if non-Christian is always identical to anti-Christian, as The Barrister claims, then non-Christian would be a redundant meaningless term. Yet it clearly is not, since in every other instance in our language, non- and anti- have different, if overlapping, meanings. Logically, there necessarily exists a distinction somewhere.
Where I draw the distinction: Anti-X is a word, deed, or thought ordered towards harming or denigrating X. It cannot be neutral towards X. Non-X is something that has no substantial relation with X. It is neutral towards X.
Applying that definition, there is a line between someone who practices the occult in the privacy of their living room and someone who lobbies to get the Vatican kicked out of the U.N. The first person performs the action with no thought whatsoever about the Church. Even if the action harms the Church somehow (e.g. it may increase demonic activity), it is still not anti-Catholic because there was nothing anti-Catholic in the intent. The same cannot be said about the second person. A person who is unable or unwilling to make that distinction is a danger to their own religion.

That’s right. Such a Catholic is a threat to Catholicism. sigh First i defend a definition of anti-Catholicism, and now i’m defending Catholicism against another Catholic! Strange world we live in.

The Barrister has claimed he believes everything that the Church teaches, but he does not seem to take his responsibility for evangelization seriously, or he does not yet have all the facts about it. Catholics (or Protestants) like him hinder rather than advance the Kingdom of God because they do everything they can to make the faith look bad. Besides refusing to get their facts straight, they miss the bigger picture, they focus more on their “facts” than they do on people. Even if a Catholic did have all his/her facts straight, if their attitude and methods are not working to bring people to Christ, but actually convincing them not to then those Catholics are not obeying God’s command to “go therefore and make disciples of all nations.” No amount of debating, fact-checking, refining definitions, or logic excuses that. Lesson: Someone who thinks s/he has nothing to learn has proved s/he has nothing to teach. Nothing in Catholic Tradition nor Scriptures says contrary to this, because to be contrary to this is to be contrary to Love, our greatest commandment.

I am really sorry that i have spent so much time nitpicking with just one of the other people on this thread, but when i see my religion being misrepresented, i defend it.

 

[wolpertinger]

tractarian:

A person who is unable or unwilling to make that distinction is a danger to their own religion.

That’s right. Such a Catholic is a threat to Catholicism. sigh First i defend a definition of anti-Catholicism, and now i’m defending Catholicism against another Catholic! Strange world we live in.

:clapping:

I knew that he wouldn’t be receptive had I said that, but maybe he’ll pay more attention to you.

When somebody forcefully states that

1. at least certain non-Catholics are condemned
2. tolerance is NOT a virtue

then

1. non-Catholics are anti-Catholic

quickly becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. To present this way of thinking as the official position of the Catholic faith doesn’t just close the door to evangelism, it nails it shut. If I were a Catholic, there wouldn’t be a doubt in my mind that a bit of empathy would spread the word farther and deeper.

 

[luckyirishguy14]

Yup… Wicca is popular in Canada. I’m part of this TV station’s forum (It’s a Canadian TV Station), and when I visited Society and searched Religion, I found a lot of folks (especially girls) were into this Wicca thinger. They said they like it because it’s fair to both genders, unlike conservative Christians. Most of the reason why, as I have found, is because of equality and peace within the religion.

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

renee1258:

Heather Dawn,

That’s Heathen, with an N. And I’m a man. That means you can talk to me about ovulation, menstruation, PMS, bad hair days and cervical mucus however much you like but I shan’t comprehend it one little bit.

I do know a little about this stuff, though, from my two-year sojourn in Orthodox Judaism, which is more severe than Catholicism in its sexual laws.

If my husband and I do not believe it is the right time to have another child after consderation we abstain during any potential fertile time (about a week or so in a healthy cycle), and wait until ovulation has occured.

1. Abstinence is hard to work.
2. Sex during the so-called “safe days” doesn’t ensure a lack of pregnancy.

On (1), abstinence takes a lot of self-control, and leads to a great deal of frustration and grief. On (2), the human body isn’t a precision machine, so unprotected sex could lead to pregnancy even if performed in the allegedly infertile days.

Since abstinence is a pain, and charting is no guarantee, it’s best to use what has a 99.999% of working, without giving up sex: a condom.

 

[renee1258]

Heathen,

You’ve admitted to your own ignorance. Just because you are a man, doesn’t been you can’t understand female anatomy. I find you insensitivity towards women to be chauvenistic. I am also suprised for your disregard for the natural laws of our bodies, that any type of restraint on you impulsive desires is wrong, such a short term of abstaining. So if a woman says no, would it be too much hard work not to rape her?

FYI “Safe days” does ensure you won’t get pregnant. You can’t get pregnant, if there no cervical mucus is present. Sperm can not survive. Once you have ovulate and your tempature rises for three consecutive day, the egg is no longer viable, you can’t get pregnant from that day on through out your period. And as a cross reference you internally check your the position of your cervix. Check out www.tcoyf.com for more infor on the science of female reproductivty, it is a non-Catholic site.

Why do you want to be ignorant of biology? We are not machines, we are organisms. Our body is very precised in telling us exactly what is going on. It is quite amazing. A wiccan would be most interested in how our sexuality works. But you are not a wiccan at all. Are you? I suggest you stop giving Wicca a bad name.

 

[Auberon_Quin]

The Barrister:

Don’t forget about the Inquisitions! No one expects them.

Nobody expects the SPANISH Inquisition. They might expect some of the others, though.

For the rest of you, the Monty Python clip should probably be an indication that this post should not be taken entirely seriously.

 

[kwitz]

Heathen Dawn:

Since abstinence is a pain, and charting is no guarantee, it’s best to use what has a 99.999% of working, without giving up sex: a condom.

I think your stat is way too generous - most reports I read put the effectiveness of a condom somewhere around 90%. I’d be willing to concede more but 99.999% - you’re fooling yourself. Even sterilization doesn’t get that high of a rate.

Kris

 

[Heathen_Dawn]

renee1258:

I find you insensitivity towards women to be chauvenistic.

I’m not insensitive towards women and I’m not a male chauvinist. I’m sorry you take it that way, but it’s not my fault, I said nothing that could be taken that way.

I am also suprised for your disregard for the natural laws of our bodies, that any type of restraint on you impulsive desires is wrong, such a short term of abstaining. So if a woman says no, would it be too much hard work not to rape her?

Of course is a woman says no, then that’s the end of the story. What I was saying was something else entirely: that long-term abstinence can’t work.

FYI “Safe days” does ensure you won’t get pregnant.

I have it from my sex education teacher, an accredited gynaecological doctor (and a female, FYI), that the safe days method is not at all a good way to prevent pregnancy. It doesn’t work, because the human body isn’t clockwork.

Our body is very precised in telling us exactly what is going on.

No, our body is certainly not precise. My father, an orthopaedic surgeon, has told me that medicine is the most inexact science there is, because of the unpredictability of the biological body.

But you are not a wiccan at all. Are you?

I am. I don’t carry that signature for nothing.

I suggest you stop giving Wicca a bad name.

That would be logical fallacy on your part. Even if I said reprehensible things, it would only tell about me, not about the Wiccan religion. There are as many opinions as there are Wiccans.

 

[wolpertinger]

Auberon Quin:

Nobody expects the SPANISH Inquisition. They might expect some of the others, though.

For the rest of you, the Monty Python clip should probably be an indication that this post should not be taken entirely seriously.

Just saying that what gives you a belly laugh may not be the least bit funny to me. In all honesty, I didn’t take it as anything but tongue-in-cheek, but the Spanish Inquisition itself wasn’t a laughing matter. Empathy…

To put this to rest, we do own just about the complete works of Monty Python, including the two German episodes, and this particular skit is one of my favorites.

 

[The_Barrister]

Auberon Quin:

Nobody expects the SPANISH Inquisition. They might expect some of the others, though.

For the rest of you, the Monty Python clip should probably be an indication that this post should not be taken entirely seriously.

Thank you for pointing this out to our Monty Python-deprived bretheren.

I could not care less about any new Inquisitions, but I wouldn’t mind a new Crusade…

 

[wolpertinger]

The Barrister:

Thank you for pointing this out to our Monty Python-deprived bretheren.

So, what about that Brian dude, aye?

 

[Faustina]

The Barrister:

It is becoming quite popular now due to a spate of witch shows, most of them directed at children. Invariably, witches and witchcraft are displayed as good, and even if a spell occasionally goes wrong that’s the fault of the spellcaster and not the spell or the intentions of the spellcaster. But the only one controlling the action is Satan.

First, there is no such thing as a “good spell” or “white” magick from a Catholic standpoint. The Church teaches that magick, whether intended to be used for good or evil, is always intrinsically evil. The evil that enters this world thanks to “good” magick and otherwise innocent kids mucking around with this stuff is consequential, to them and to others.

Not a criticism directed at you, but it’s best to leave out links to sites that portray and advance the cause of witchcraft and paganisim. Any website with the word “tolerance” in the title probably ought to be avoided.

Hate to tell you this, but Wicca is evil and is anti-Chistian in the extreme. It promotes belief in multiple “gods and goddesses,” at best it is pantheistic, it promotes homosexuality and bisexuality, promotes ritualist sex, and promotes the use of the occult, and so forth. I would be hard-pressed to find a more anti-Catholic set of practices.

You state that you are now Christian, but you seem to be defending witchcraft rather than condemning it, and that it’s somehow a good thing you went through it or you would not have found the Catholic Church.

I suggest that you discuss this with your priest and/or seek a good Catholic spiritual advisor for the good of your soul.

Barrister-

I think you need to reread my post.  I am not condoning or defending Wicca.  And if you must know, my conscience is clear and was clear when I entered the Church.  What I was stating is how Wiccans see their religion and my perspective of it when I was in Wicca.

Do you not believe, that the more knowledge you have about something, such as Wicca, then the more prepared you are to do battle for Christ?

 

[Faustina]

renee1258:

Heather Dawn,

In Catholicism we put a great respect for our sexual bodies, and how men and women respect each other. This is my body, there is nothing wrong with my reproductive system. Why would I want to suppress my sexuality with synthetic hormones? I have to live by the natural laws, that sometimes I fertile. If my husband and I do not believe it is the right time to have another child after consderation we abstain during any potential fertile time (about a week or so in a healthy cycle), and wait until ovulation has occured.

I would think Wicca, as an earth based belief would agree that a our sexuality is bound by nature. For Catholics there is nothing wrong with a woman ovulating. Ovulation is a normal healthy occurance within a women’s body and it is the hieghten point of her feminine sexuality. (If you chart, you will notice you are most likely to be in the mood during ovulation) But at least to secular society (not wiccan beliefs) ovulation, pregnancy, and children are a burden. It’s a shame.

When I was in Wicca, I used the Moon’s phases to keep track and sometimes find myself doing the same thing. I can tell by the phase of the moon as well as other physical signs what my body is doing. My husband and I have been very successful in this for our family planning. I have never taken birth control pills, nor do I plan to partake of HRT when that season of my life occurs. So yes, in the aspect, the Wiccan belief very much consistant with Catholic belief. As least it is not very different.

 

[wolpertinger]

Faustina:

Do you not believe, that the more knowledge you have about something, such as Wicca, then the more prepared you are to do battle for Christ?

I have written a reply to this, but I’m conflicted about whether or not I should post it. The gist of it is that parts of the Catholic Church are perhaps a bit overprotective of their flock. Should a parent keep a child apart from every conceivable harm or is it better to carefully expose children to some danger, in the hope that they will learn from experience?