Paganism

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Quiet_Cool
Understood. Don't think we're entirely on the same page, but still...

My point overall is pretty simple. It makes sense to define religion by the structure of it, but that doesn't, in my viewpoint, mean that it is the only way to define it. Ultimately, what happened with the Bible was that different people interpretted what they read differently (and no, I'm not foolish enough to believe this was an innocent difference of interpretation, in every instance at least). Back in the day, meaning most days until now, a religion was most likely something that you found in an area. If you were from a certain town, chances were you, and everyone else, were all practitioners of a single religion. Maybe that could be said for entire countries. The rest of the world may not even know about said religion, because information doesn't travel so far given the time period. Christianity and other religions have been through this, and as dr_mabeuse said, early pagan religions existed as well, though they don't apply to Wicca as modern Christianity applies to "ye ole' christianity."
Maybe I rambled too much there. My point, overall is, that Christianity and other religions have taken these structures over time, and in places where they could grow unchallenged. Wicca isn't doing that. It's growing in a time and place when everything is global, and everyone has eight-million choices. Given three hundred years, we may have an official "Coven of Wicca" as a basis for an organised and structured religion. Not saying that it will, or even should, happen, but we're mostly seeing a religion that's not yet found its base. It has some common ground among its followers, but nothing that unifies all of them. If you look in the Bible (can't remember exactly where, but I'm sure you know, given your degrees) there's a list of several different icons and symbols, some other versions of the cross, some versions of the reversed cross. I think there's even one there that resembles an ankh (sp?). But one overall was chosen.
Don't know fi that makes my point or not (I'm too fucking tired to think straight). Apologies if it's confusing.

Q_C

I, honestly, don't know about any list.

Given the potential future of an official doctrine, for instance, I accept the potentual future of it being a religion. For now? That is has no form sort of strips it of a certain amount of religious credibility.

 

[TheEarl]

The Masons are a "secret society" though. I can see why they work as they do. But, if Wiccans don't proselytize... then what about Wiccans who proselytize? Are they not Wiccan?

The 'rules' in Wicca compared to the 'rules' in Christianity (and please don't think I'm attacking Christianity by always using it as my control. It's just a religion that most people are familiar with and acts as a good comparison) are like the difference between manners and laws. It's considered polite and in the spirit of Wicca not to proselytise. But those who do aren't contravening a law, they're just regarded as slightly impolite by other Wiccans. The tenets are there, they're just not policed as much.

What about the "genuinely curious"? Is there a difference between the mildly and the genuinely and how they're treated and who decides what constitutes mildly and genuinely?

And the tough part is, because its an "everyone's right in their own way" kind of faith, that means that those really bitchy witches are perfectly fine examples of the faith... as they are participating wholly in the bounds of it, no?

I believe the trouble is that Paganism and Wicca are trendy at the moment. Imagine that Catholocism was in the same situation - Tons of people act up like they're Catholic, wearing big chunky crucifixes and talking shit about your religion with weird and wonderful opinions that they give out as fact. They hold their own little Masses in little groups, without a priest, using jaffa cakes for the body of Christ and orange squash for the blood and consider this just as good as the official Mass. They don't actually believe, it's just a pose and their pose is attracting more posers. Millions of them suddenly forget about their 'religion' and go to find the next craze, but millions more adopt the pose cause it's trendy. They're everywhere you look, degrading the name of your religion, until it comes to the stage where they outnumber the believers and you're hesistant about telling people you're Catholic because they'll automatically assume you're one of the posers and not a true-believer.

A lot of Wiccans are very, very sensitive about this kind of thing and many are bitter. So they make ill advised attempts to dissuade any posers that they can.

And no, I don't think the nasty girls you spoke of were good Wiccans, cause one of the tenets is to be nice to other people. You're confusing 'loose tenets' with 'no tenets' - the guidelines are loose, but they're still there. It's not 'Everyone's right in their own little way' it's 'This is the general philosophy. How you apply it is up to you.'

The Earl

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by TheEarl
The 'rules' in Wicca compared to the 'rules' in Christianity (and please don't think I'm attacking Christianity by always using it as my control. It's just a religion that most people are familiar with and acts as a good comparison) are like the difference between manners and laws. It's considered polite and in the spirit of Wicca not to proselytise. But those who do aren't contravening a law, they're just regarded as slightly impolite by other Wiccans. The tenets are there, they're just not policed as much.



I believe the trouble is that Paganism and Wicca are trendy at the moment. Imagine that Catholocism was in the same situation - Tons of people act up like they're Catholic, wearing big chunky crucifixes and talking shit about your religion with weird and wonderful opinions that they give out as fact. They hold their own little Masses in little groups, without a priest, using jaffa cakes for the body of Christ and orange squash for the blood and consider this just as good as the official Mass. They don't actually believe, it's just a pose and their pose is attracting more posers. Millions of them suddenly forget about their 'religion' and go to find the next craze, but millions more adopt the pose cause it's trendy. They're everywhere you look, degrading the name of your religion, until it comes to the stage where they outnumber the believers and you're hesistant about telling people you're Catholic because they'll automatically assume you're one of the posers and not a true-believer.

A lot of Wiccans are very, very sensitive about this kind of thing and many are bitter. So they make ill advised attempts to dissuade any posers that they can.

And no, I don't think the nasty girls you spoke of were good Wiccans, cause one of the tenets is to be nice to other people. You're confusing 'loose tenets' with 'no tenets' - the guidelines are loose, but they're still there. It's not 'Everyone's right in their own little way' it's 'This is the general philosophy. How you apply it is up to you.'

The Earl

That makes way more sense than "make up whatever you want".

 

[Amy Sweet]

The Masons are a "secret society" though. I can see why they work as they do. But, if Wiccans don't proselytize... then what about Wiccans who proselytize? Are they not Wiccan?

What about Christians who sin. Are they not Christian?

What about the "genuinely curious"? Is there a difference between the mildly and the genuinely and how they're treated and who decides what constitutes mildly and genuinely?

By my book, someone who is genuinly interested will have done some research on there own, will have some sort of personal expericence or feeling (like a 'calling' I guess) and will know some better and more specific questions than 'Can I get down with that.'

Wicca is a little bit of a secret society. Wiccans [in general] believe that there are magical and spiritual forces involved and are not to be taken lightly, or 'dabbled in' for amusment. And they also know that the days of facing persecution are not past, so they tend to be careful of who they share with. If they belong to some type of coven they definatly are a 'secret society' of sorts. Covens are not like Sunday School where everyone is invited.

And the tough part is, because its an "everyone's right in their own way" kind of faith, that means that those really bitchy witches are perfectly fine examples of the faith... as they are participating wholly in the bounds of it, no?

It's not really an 'everyone's right in there own way' kind of faith. This is sort of a misunderstanding, because Paganism covers many different types of beliefs, including personal ones. Like Protistantism. ANYONE can call themselves a Protostant and can even start a protostant church (people even do it in there basements) preaching pretty much any belief they like (and you can find support for many strange things in the bible). All you need is a bible, and to not be Catholic. But being a Protostant, does not precicely mean that you can believe anything you like. You believe the tenants of your *particular* sect or branch of Protostantism. *Some* protostants may believe that they can believe anything they like and still be a christian, but most Protostant groups believe that you must believe as they do to be a Christian. Yet-- all groups consider themselves to be Christian, and not others. Most Pagans just happen to believe that one can still be a pagan and belong to a different sect than the one they've chosen for themselves.

And this is only a rough explaination. All I can say, is that it's far more complicated than "Do whatever you want." The problem really, is that anyone can claim to be a pagan and say, "Paganism means, do whatever you want" just as anyone can claim to be a Christian and say "I believe in Christ" or whatever qualifyer they beleive is most important, ie, "I was born again..."

Who really is or isn't a christian or wiccan or pagan? Of course that is open to millions of different interpretation. A purist would say to be Christian, one must be a Catholic, to be Jewish, one must be Hasidic, and to be Wiccan one must be Gardnerian. To the most liberal you just have to say, "I am..."

Just because there is debate within the religion over who is or is not a member of that religion doesn't mean there is no religion.

As to the bitchy girls- I really can't say. I'm not yet sure how I feel about that yet. I think that they were human and there would be room for plenty of Pagan debate over weather it was the 'pagan thing to do.'

 

[TheEarl]

Neither does Protastant(ism).

Like Protastant(ism), Paganism isn't really a religion, it's a group of religions defined an awful lot by what they are *not.* (Protostant is Christian but not Catholic, Paganism is Spritiual but not [mainstream] Christian, Muslim or Jewish, or not wholy those things)

Neither, also does UU- ism. (United Universalist)

Amy makes a very good point here. I've quoted her, but I'm actually replying to Joe's rebuttal. It is disingenuous to talk about Paganism or even Wicca as a whole, just as it is Protestantism, because all three titles are describing a group of faiths.

Protestantism separates into Church of England, Orthodox, Baptist, Mormon (I think?), Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. etc.

Paganism separates in Druidic faiths, Wicca, Earth mother religions, etc.

Wicca separates into all sorts of little tributaries, which I can't actually name. Most of these tributaries have a clearly defined code, so why can't they be described as a religion?


Wicca as a whole actually has a moral code, but it is applied much looser than most mainstream religions. Doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Anyone outside that code should be considered a 'bad Wicca.'

<sudden mental image. 'Bad Wicca! Sit! Bad Wicca! Stole a biscuit!'>

The Earl

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think what we're saying here is that Wicca may be a religion or faith, but it's not an organized religion.

That's not all bad. Judaism is the same way. There's no High Council or Pope of Judaism who makes doctrine that you have to follow to be a Jew or be excommunicated. It's incumbent on every Jew to read the Torah and interpret it for him or herself but there are certain ideas that are considered so essential to the idea of being Jewish--the idea of the unity of God, for example, something that always baffles Jews about Christianity's triune God-- that violating them pretty much violates the general consensus of what Jewishness means.

---Zoot

 

[Amy Sweet]

Well, Protestant-ism is not exactly defined by what it isn't. It has categorical imperatives. In this respect, it is very different than Paganism which has--seemingly--none.

Protostant is Christian not Catholic, it'd defined strongly by what it isn't.

Here's the first definition I found online:

A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.

That was what you said earlier didn't qualify as *religion.*

Webster gives us:

Of or pertaining to the faith and practice of those Christians who reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church; as, Protestant writers.

Which is nothing if not definition by what it is not.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Also this:

now used in a popular sense to designate any Christian who does not belong to the Roman Catholic or the Greek Church.


the first definition given was from the American Heritage Dictionary. This last excerpt from Websters Revised Unabridged.

 

[Amy Sweet]

Principles Of Wiccan Belief

For Joe, who likes structure:

Principles Of Wiccan Belief
As Adopted By The Council Of American Witches
Witch meet, April 11-14, 1974, Minneapolis, Minnesota
The Council of American Witches finds it necessary to define modern Witchcraft in terms of the American experience and needs. We are not bound by traditions from other times and other cultures and owe no allegiance to any person or power greater than the Divinity manifest through our own being. As American Witches, we welcome and respect all life-affirming teachings and traditions, and seek to learn from all and to share our learning within our Council. It is in this spirit of welcome and cooperation that we adopt these few principles of Wiccan belief. In seeking to be inclusive, we do not wish to open ourselves to the destruction of our group by those on self-serving power trips, or to philosophies and practices contradictory to those principles. In seeking to exclude those whose ways are contradictory to ours, we do not wish to deny participation to any who are sincerely interested in our knowledge and beliefs, regardless of race, color, sex, age, national or cultural heritage, or sexual preference.We therefore ask only that those who seek to identify with us accept those few basic principles:

1.We practice rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of
life forces marked by the phases of the Moon and the seasonal
Quarters and Cross-Quarters.
2.We recognize that our intelligence gives us a unique
responsibility toward our environment, We seek to live in harmony with Nature, in ecological balance, offering fulfillment to life and consciousness within an evolutionary concept.
3.We acknowledge a depth of power far greater than is apparent to the average person. Because it is far greater than ordinary, it
is sometimes called "supernatural," but we see it as lying within
that which is naturally potential to us all.
4.We conceive of the Creative Power in the Universe as manifesting through polarity - as masculine and feminine - and that this same Creative Power lives in all people and functions through the interaction of the masculine and feminine. We value neither above the other, knowing each to be supportive of the other. We value sexuality as pleasure, as the symbol and embodiment of Life, and as one of the sources of energies used in magickal practice and religious worship.
5.We recognize both outer and inner or psychological worlds -
sometimes known as the Spiritual World, The Collective
Unconscious, The Inner Planes, etc. - and we see in their
interaction of these two dimensions the basis for paranormal
phenomena and magickal exercises. We neglect neither dimension for the other, seeing both as necessary for our fulfillment.
6.We do not recognize any authoritarian hierarchy, but do honor
those who teach, respect those who share their greater knowledge
and wisdom, and acknowledge those who have courageously given of
themselves in leadership. (Jahovah's Witnesses also function similer to this, without a real hierarchy- or at least they claim to.)
7.We see religion, magick and wisdom-in-living as being united in
the way one views the world and lives within it - a world-view
and philosophy-of-life which we identify as Witchcraft, the
Wiccan Way.
8.Calling oneself "Witch" does not make a Witch, but neither does
heredity itself, or the collecting of titles, degrees and
initiations. A Witch seeks to control the forces within him/
herself that make life possible in order to live wisely and well,
without harm to others and in harmony with Nature.
9.We acknowledge that it is the affirmation and fulfillment of life
in a continuance of evolution and development of consciousness
that gives meaning to the Universe we know and to our personal
role within it.
10.Our only animosity toward Christianity or toward any other
religion or philosophy-of-life is to the extent that its
institutions have claimed to be "the one true, right and only
way" and have sought to deny freedom to others, and to suppress
other ways of religious practices and belief.
11.As American Witches, we are not threatened by debates on the
history of the Craft, the origins of various terms, the
legitimacy of various aspects of various traditions. We are
concerned only with our present and our future.
12.We do not accept the concept of "absolute evil" nor do we
worship any entity known as Satan or the Devil, as defined by the
Christian tradition. We do not seek power through the suffering
of others, nor do we accept the concept that personal benefits
can only be derived through denial to another.
13.We seek within Nature for that which is contributory to our
health and well-being

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos056.htm

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
Protostant is Christian not Catholic, it'd defined strongly by what it isn't.

Here's the first definition I found online:

A member of a Western Christian church whose faith and practice are founded on the principles of the Reformation, especially in the acceptance of the Bible as the sole source of revelation, in justification by faith alone, and in the universal priesthood of all the believers.

That was what you said earlier didn't qualify as *religion.*

The definition you have is for a person who is protestant, not Protestantism as an entity. I maintain that, by the above definition, Protestant [person or member] isn't a religion, yes. Incidentally, this definition, if applied to your "They're defined by not being Catholic" thing would serve to invalidate it. Obviously, nothing above is defined by Catholicism at all. Closest you come is "Reformation", which is a historical referrent. The tenets common to Protestant faiths are well established in the above. To not follow them would, possibly, make someone not Protestant.

Webster gives us:

Of or pertaining to the faith and practice of those Christians who reject the authority of the Roman Catholic Church; as, Protestant writers.

Which is nothing if not definition by what it is not.

I can't deny that you can define Protestantism by its "not being Catholic". I can't even deny that you can define Republican by its "not being Democrat"--but as there are general categorical beliefs held by each, those are better for defining in the face of third options which confound the definition. There are faiths in Christianity that are neither Protestant nor Catholic. And Protestants have tenets that categorically apply to Protestants... I still maintain, they're not defined by being "not Catholic" (or if they are, that's a really vague and wholly inaccurate definition).

 

[Amy Sweet]

The definition you have is for a person who is protestant, not Protestantism as an entity. I maintain that, by the above definition, Protestant [person or member] isn't a religion, yes. Incidentally, this definition, if applied to your "They're defined by not being Catholic" thing would serve to invalidate it. Obviously, nothing above is defined by Catholicism at all. Closest you come is "Reformation", which is a historical referrent. The tenets common to Protestant faiths are well established in the above. To not follow them would, possibly, make someone not Protestant.



I can't deny that you can define Protestantism by its "not being Catholic". I can't even deny that you can define Republican by its "not being Democrat"--but as there are general categorical beliefs held by each, those are better for defining in the face of third options which confound the definition. There are faiths in Christianity that are neither Protestant nor Catholic. And Protestants have tenets that categorically apply to Protestants... I still maintain, they're not defined by being "not Catholic" (or if they are, that's a really vague and wholly inaccurate definition).

Joe, your wrong. It is the definition. Just admit that you are wrong, for crying out loud.

And I must comment on this:

"Obviously, nothing above is defined by Catholicism at all. Closest you come is "Reformation", which is a historical referrent."

As a smart guy, I'm sure you know that the Reformation was Protesting and Separating from the Catholic Church. Why are you pretending that it has nothing to do with Catholocism.

I'd love to discuss this topic with someone else now.

This is getting rediculous.

 

[Amy Sweet]

A good link for the interested and curious:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/index.htm

(info about other religions here too- including greek mythology)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Amy Sweet
Joe, your wrong. It is the definition. Just admit that you are wrong, for crying out loud.

And I must comment on this:

"Obviously, nothing above is defined by Catholicism at all. Closest you come is "Reformation", which is a historical referrent."

As a smart guy, I'm sure you know that the Reformation was Protesting and Separating from the Catholic Church. Why are you pretending that it has nothing to do with Catholocism.

I'd love to discuss this topic with someone else now.

This is getting rediculous.

No, you're being aggressively ignorant in defending a thin point.

I'll lay it out as cleanly as I can:

1) The first definition you gave is reasonably accurate because...
2) It contained a list of traits that define "What is Protestant?"
3) That list included, but was not limited to, a historical referrant about its origin.
4) That the list was not predicated on the historical referrant (the other traits were significantly defining), means that Protestantism is, get this, "Not merely defined by Not-Catholic".
5) There are Christian groups that are neither Protestant nor Catholic.
6) To say that Protestant is merely "not Catholic" would lump these groups into Protestant
7) Logical Contradition -- a thing is not both Protestant and not-Protestant
C) Protestant, then, is best and most accurately defined by what it is, in this case, as it has traits that constitute that categorically, instead of by it being "not Catholic" which defines Protestant and other things.

As historical referrants go, Buddhism was a product/offshoot/rebellion against Hinduism. In a sense, one of the defining traits of Buddhism is "NOT-Hindu"... but to say that Buddhism is defined by it being "Not-Hindu" is ignorant hogwash. It has other traits that define it and, because there are religious groups that yet splinter off from Hinduism and aren't Buddhist, it is best to define the group by more than the general, obtuse, inaccurate, and less-informative "They're not Hindu".

Does this make any sense, yet?

 

[woodnymph_O]

Hi all

I hope i'm not inaving the thread here but being pagan my self, by definition, i just wanted to say i have to agree with Amy on alot of points. I guess we all are alot harder to standardize than the methodists, babtists, etc. I think that mostly because we dont allow some one who lived thousands of years ago, set down a law book and we live by it. Pagans do go more toward what the experience, feel, and see proven in our everyday lives. I found one statement i have always believed to be true.
"A sinner is a person who does something agaist their own belief and ideal of what is right, and infact is betraying himself." To me this means if you believe it is evil to spray the neighbors cat with a garden hose, and you do it anyway, you have sinned. The root beliefs of christianity gave you rules to go by. If you believe them, and continue to break them every day, yeah I'd say you are a sinner.
Really in this day and age its all subjective, when ortodox churches can't agree on the time of day, why would another religion have every one in military rows? It will never happen. I think if it did it would be scary.
bright blessings and love

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: Hi all

Originally posted by woodnymph_O
Really in this day and age its all subjective,

So... kidnapping, beating, molesting, killing, and then eating children is Wicca-cool?

I mean, if its all subjective, y'know...

 

[TheEarl]

Re: Re: Hi all

So... kidnapping, beating, molesting, killing, and then eating children is Wicca-cool?

I mean, if its all subjective, y'know...

JOE! Don't be a wanker! She's a newbie, she's offering her opinion and you go and say something fucking stupid like that. I usually enjoy debating with you, but that was just plain nasty.

The Earl

 

[woodnymph_O]

well since the term is harm none

that wouldn't work now would it joe. It reallty depends on your idea of harm though i guess. Go to your bible there. Pagans dont believe in harming another in the name of god, but abraham was all set to kill his own son, because God said. I dont think hearing voices tell you kill your own children is a good thing, but they teach the story with much love in a 5 year olds bible school class. Illustrated and all (HOW COOL) . Stoning women for pre-marital sex , etc ,etc. In the name of god it's all done there , right down to the crucifiction, but being quite subjective in Christianity as well, it was all cool there too wasn't it? What rules do you follow?
Do you pick and choose as most Christians while they read the book? Do you believe a divorced man or woman is and adulterer if they remarry as christ says ? Do you believe it is a mans responsibility to marry the widow of his brother. Most of all do you believe the angels stopped talking to people 2 thousand years ago? Why then? Was it the Babtists, methodists, lutherians, catholics, or mormons that pissed them off. If you cant say right now you believe all the terms and conditions , you haven't signed that ald christian contract have you, but amazingly enough I never met a CHRISTIAN that did.

 

[TheEarl]

Re: Hi all

I hope i'm not inaving the thread here but being pagan my self, by definition, i just wanted to say i have to agree with Amy on alot of points. I guess we all are alot harder to standardize than the methodists, babtists, etc. I think that mostly because we dont allow some one who lived thousands of years ago, set down a law book and we live by it. Pagans do go more toward what the experience, feel, and see proven in our everyday lives. I found one statement i have always believed to be true.
"A sinner is a person who does something agaist their own belief and ideal of what is right, and infact is betraying himself." To me this means if you believe it is evil to spray the neighbors cat with a garden hose, and you do it anyway, you have sinned. The root beliefs of christianity gave you rules to go by. If you believe them, and continue to break them every day, yeah I'd say you are a sinner.
Really in this day and age its all subjective, when ortodox churches can't agree on the time of day, why would another religion have every one in military rows? It will never happen. I think if it did it would be scary.
bright blessings and love

Interesting definition of sinner, but not one I'm sure I agree with. Hitler (to pick a random name out of a hat) wouldn't be considered to be a sinner by that standard, because the Final Solution was something he believed to be for the good of Germany and not against his principles.

It's an interesting idea, but there will always be people with moralities way off the curve. Can they do what they believe is right and not be sinners?

The Earl

 

[woodnymph_O]

another subjective thing

the name of God that is . Hmm Jehova for a God called Yaweh by his people for a couple thousand years , and Jesus Christ for a man named Yesuah Be- Joseph. Wonder which leader of religion got to stick them with name changes ?

 

[woodnymph_O]

hitler Hmm

Seems to me I remember him being a professed Christian also, funny, and they do have rules. So does the fault lie within world religions or the men/women who flout them for their own purpose?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: well since the term is harm none

Originally posted by TheEarl
JOE! Don't be a wanker! She's a newbie, she's offering her opinion and you go and say something fucking stupid like that. I usually enjoy debating with you, but that was just plain nasty.

The Earl

Ech... true. I didn't notice the newbie-ness and I was sorta mid-stride. It wasn't meant to sound nasty, really. Just be a very stark point. If "its all subjective", then absolutely anything goes and there are no grounds for putting things in the "o.k. to do camp" and "not o.k. to do camp".

You're right, though. It sounded nasty.

Originally posted by woodnymph_O
that wouldn't work now would it joe. It reallty depends on your idea of harm though i guess. Go to your bible there. Pagans dont believe in harming another in the name of god, but abraham was all set to kill his own son, because God said. I dont think hearing voices tell you kill your own children is a good thing, but they teach the story with much love in a 5 year olds bible school class. Illustrated and all (HOW COOL) . Stoning women for pre-marital sex , etc ,etc. In the name of god it's all done there , right down to the crucifiction, but being quite subjective in Christianity as well, it was all cool there too wasn't it? What rules do you follow?

I don't see how any of this is a defense of subjectivity... you seem to just be bashing things in the Bible as horrible acts. None of those things are "subjective". What are you talking about?

Do you pick and choose as most Christians while they read the book? Do you believe a divorced man or woman is and adulterer if they remarry as christ says ? Do you believe it is a mans responsibility to marry the widow of his brother. Most of all do you believe the angels stopped talking to people 2 thousand years ago? Why then? Was it the Babtists, methodists, lutherians, catholics, or mormons that pissed them off. If you cant say right now you believe all the terms and conditions , you haven't signed that ald christian contract have you, but amazingly enough I never met a CHRISTIAN that did.

What does that have to do with "its all subjective". Now it just appears that you want to question my faith--which is irrelevant to the point.

 

[woodnymph_O]

the subjectiveness lies here

If it is wrong to commit murder of a child , especially your own, how in the same religion going to celebrate a man who would do so, just because god told him to. Yes he proved his belief i guess if you want to look at it that way, but his belief in right and wrong became subjective when he felt guided by god to commit the sin. SO a sin is not a sin if god tells you to,atleast what I gather from this little bilbe story. When I was in bible school as a kid I even got a whole cookie to memorize the text to this bible story. I found it a grusome contradiction even then.
Not attacking your religion Joe, just pointing out the clear contradictions in term and deed.

 

[Sunnie]

I kind of resent your author's appropriation of the word "witch" to define modern, mostly Western neo-pagans. There's a long history of witchcraft in this and other cultures that has nothing to do with the mother goddess and the horned god.

I'm glad you said that, Doc ... now I don't have to .

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Re: the subjectiveness lies here

Originally posted by woodnymph_O
If it is wrong to commit murder of a child , especially your own, how in the same religion going to celebrate a man who would do so, just because god told him to. Yes he proved his belief i guess if you want to look at it that way, but his belief in right and wrong became subjective when he felt guided by god to commit the sin.

His belief in right and wrong weren't subjective--by definition they were objective, because they were based on the Will of the Lord (an objective component to the story). Had he disobeyed because he decided on a set of morals independant of God's, then he would have been entertaining subjective morality (related to the subject, in this case himself).

The story of Abraham is an example of an objectivity of morality residing on the Issuance of Deed from God.

SO a sin is not a sin if god tells you to,atleast what I gather from this little bilbe story.

As the Old Testament goes, there is no sin except deviation from the Will of God. Look at the plagues of Egypt or the covenants God enters into with the succession of Davidic Kings... it's all focused not on the morality of action, but the supremacy of God's Will--an objective thing, existing independant of the preference or mind of the subjects.

When I was in bible school as a kid I even got a whole cookie to memorize the text to this bible story. I found it a grusome contradiction even then.
Not attacking your religion Joe, just pointing out the clear contradictions in term and deed.

There is, essentially, no contradiction. The terms were "What God says... goes", the deeds were either in accordance with that or they weren't. That is the very essence of objectivity.

However, none of this really relates to the original question:

Is, as an example, kidnapping, beating, killing, and then eating children alright to do, in Wicca, granting that "all things are subjective"?

 

[woodnymph_O]

Ahh Joe

If such were true couldn't you just dispence of the ten commandments in favor of one?
Who does know what gods will is after all isn't that up to each man internally to question .
That seems so like the as you harm no other rule its kind of funny.
Only the man who says god spoke to me ever heard it after all.
And only the pagan that says to themselves that is soo wrong to do at that moment felt it.
Yet again , will of god, subjective, unless you're God , who else knows this will. Many claim to, and yet they disagree with each other. So yet again , it was not a sin to Abrahams beliefs was it, because he was following his belief in god's will. Not a churches will or a books will. SO he was not infact sinning because of his beliefs.. So odd and yet , so not.
I love when we can argue the same point and stil disagree, just because pagans have to be wrong, in the minds of christians.