Christian Wicca, or Wiccan Christianity

[Philothei]

For one thing I do agree that you are either a Christian or you are not .. you cannot be two things at one time.. And Christianity is total belief in Christ, the son, God the Father and the Holy Spirit... Anything that 'disfigures' God and his relationship with his Son .. goes further and further away from Christianity... to the point of believing that Christ was a man... not God. In this case IMO do not bother call yourself Christian...

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

With the way CF is acting, I'm not sure of anything anymore.


True. But then again, Paul was pretty explicit about the idolatry, false gods (none before the lord your god, etc), and pagans in general. How is Romans 1 reconciled?

Well like a lot of Christians--well heck---most--who pick out of the bible what they want or what works or makes most sense to them (even the more liberals do it---look at the Jesus Seminar) for Christo-Pagans or Christian Wiccans that would be thrown out. (Paul that is)

Its mostly focused on Jesus and his teachings and sometimes some focus on the miracles (as being done through great Magick or some herbs or something)

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

A minor point: Wiccans don't reject the notion that people are evil etc, but rather rejects the intrinsically evil idea. We fully acknowledge that evil people exist; we just reject the whole original sin malarkey. Otherwise, I agree with what you say: the theologies are so incompatible that a compromise would be representative of neither.

What about those who are "Christian Wiccan" or rather just "Wiccan" but are eclectic and simply feel more comfortable using some of the deities in the Judeo-Christian "Pantheon" (and they are just a much of a pantheon as the Celtic or Sumerian) and reject most of the man-made rubbish about being a disgusting vile person?

Now not all Christian Wiccans are like this but some are (actually most I've known are)? Is there theology completely incompatible?

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

That's not what I've heard. Apparently, Christianity is summarised by two laws: love thy neighbour, and love thy God. The emphasis on monotheistic salvation is, I think, somewhat secondary.


Fortunately, Wicca is not defined by the 13 Principles.


It addresses Christianity as an example. The full text is:

"#10: Our only animosity towards Christianity, or towards any other religion or philosophy of life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be ‘the only way’ and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief."


Agreed. But not for the reasons you post.


It is interesting to note that the Council disbanded in 1974 as well. The 13 Principles were definitive of Witchcraft (and, by extension, Wicca), in the 1970s, and are by no means the Catechism of modern Wicca. Indeed, Wicca is noted for is utter lack of a central governing body, and the only universally recognised sacred text is the Wiccan Rede.


Since there is no universald Book of Shadows, your point is moot. Even in ritualistic traditions such as Gardenerian Wicca, there are variations among their respective Books.


Principle #10 says nothing of the sort, and the Principles themselves are not the Wiccan version of the Nicene Creed. Sigh.

Quoted for the most truth uttered today in this discussion.

The RELIGION AND INSTITUTION are different from JESUS CHRIST Texas Sky.

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Welcome to my existence in the sunken city where the angles are wrong *sigh*
Have you ever seen a 7-dimensional clock? That's what we have...down here. Fortunately, I just got the usermanual a few months ago

Dude, my little 15 month old daughter the other day said "Ia Ia Khlulu"..

That should make your day.

 

[Caitlin.ann]

What about those who are "Christian Wiccan" or rather just "Wiccan" but are eclectic and simply feel more comfortable using some of the deities in the Judeo-Christian "Pantheon" (and they are just a much of a pantheon as the Celtic or Sumerian) and reject most of the man-made rubbish about being a disgusting vile person?

Now not all Christian Wiccans are like this but some are (actually most I've known are)? Is there theology completely incompatible?

I have wondered about that. About eclectic Wiccans using Christian deities for their own and using Wiccan theology. People do it for other pantheons such as the Egyptian, Celtic, Norse, Mesopotamian, etc., so I wonder why it wouldn't work for Christianity as well. You've raised an interesting point. I guess it would honestly be up to the individual practitioner as to whether it can work for them or not.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I really want to know how you made your interpretation. I'm big on seeing what hermeneutics and interpretive lenses people use in everyday life, and I see you're using a very different one than most anyone I've met.

Sidhe,

To say that Christ is not the only way is to deny Christ.
It is to try to call Christ a liar. Christ Himself said, "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes unto the Father except by me." God and Christ have said, "Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."

Ergo, I stand by my statements. Semantics aside, the bottom line is that this principle 10 is rejection of Christ as the way to Salvation, rejection of God as God Almighty Jehovah.

I'm starting to wonder if you and others have English as a second language or what?

"We do not recognize any authoritarian hierarchy IS rejection of "all authority" including God and Christ. That is what THEY have said. And "respect of a person" is not respect for God and Christ.

That is basic English 101.

And the statement that their animosity towards Christians is the believe that Christ is the only way MEANS, again, basic ENGLISH 101 (And I am an EXPERT on what the English language says) - "I admit to animosity toward Christians," and "That animiosity is because they teach Christ is the only way."

Rejection of Christ as the only way is rejection of Christ.

That's Christianity 101.

Yes, maybe someone DOES need to look it up. Perhaps YOU should look it up.

The word Hiearchy, comes from the Greek, it means, "Sacred Rule". Ergo, as a Baptist, I accept the HIERACHY of Christ and God Almighty.

And rejection of "Sacred Rule" is rejection of Christ and God, which I argue against.

Yes, some people have taken the word to twist it into the "sacred rule" of various denominations. That does not change the fact that it literally means the Sacred Rule of God.

Welcome to the Humpty Dumpty school of hermeneutics.

http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

 

[sidhe]

Welcome to the Humpty Dumpty school of hermeneutics.

http://sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

Do I get to be Wittgenstein or Plato?

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Yes, maybe someone DOES need to look it up. Perhaps YOU should look it up.

The word Hiearchy, comes from the Greek, it means, "Sacred Rule". Ergo, as a Baptist, I accept the HIERACHY of Christ and God Almighty.

And rejection of "Sacred Rule" is rejection of Christ and God, which I argue against.

Yes, some people have taken the word to twist it into the "sacred rule" of various denominations. That does not change the fact that it literally means the Sacred Rule of God.

Since you are Baptist maybe you should read this and understand your own denomination

 

[Mrs.Sidhe]

Yes, maybe someone DOES need to look it up. Perhaps YOU should look it up.

The word Hiearchy, comes from the Greek, it means, "Sacred Rule". Ergo, as a Baptist, I accept the HIERACHY of Christ and God Almighty.

And rejection of "Sacred Rule" is rejection of Christ and God, which I argue against.

Yes, some people have taken the word to twist it into the "sacred rule" of various denominations. That does not change the fact that it literally means the Sacred Rule of God.

Interestingly enough again you are twisting words around to mean what you want them to mean.

Do you know ANYTHING about the historical churches? (or are you a trail of blood baptist?)

 

[Ramona]

TO EVERYONE:

This forum is for the discussion of non-Christian religion. Anyone who does not wish to see non-Christian religions discussed should stay away from this forum.

We are all individuals here. We come from different backgrounds, have different opinions, and different worldviews. It is a fact of life that you will encounter such things both in real life and in NCR.

Accept it, be civil, and move on.

If you cannot respect your fellow posters, then I suggest you find somewhere else to post.

I am leaving the thread open (for now), but please, take care of each-other.
Hallie

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What about those who are "Christian Wiccan" or rather just "Wiccan" but are eclectic and simply feel more comfortable using some of the deities in the Judeo-Christian "Pantheon" (and they are just a much of a pantheon as the Celtic or Sumerian) and reject most of the man-made rubbish about being a disgusting vile person?

That would require chucking out pretty much the whole Bible. I know we're going into liberal Christianity here, but some of it has to be held as true, doesn't it?

Now not all Christian Wiccans are like this but some are (actually most I've known are)? Is there theology completely incompatible?

I think the parts about Wiccan nature-worshipping and God's condemnation of nature-worshippers is a little hard to reconcile, yes.

 

[Crazy Liz]

Since we're in a time warp here, I don't know which of these posts came first, but they seem to contradict. It may be just because it's so hard to grasp the context here through the looking-glass.

That's not what I've heard. Apparently, Christianity is summarised by two laws: love thy neighbour, and love thy God. The emphasis on monotheistic salvation is, I think, somewhat secondary.

That would require chucking out pretty much the whole Bible. I know we're going into liberal Christianity here, but some of it has to be held as true, doesn't it?


I think the parts about Wiccan nature-worshipping and God's condemnation of nature-worshippers is a little hard to reconcile, yes.

If everything other than loving God and loving neighbor is secondary, then isn't the Bible secondary, too?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If everything other than loving God and loving neighbor is secondary, then isn't the Bible secondary, too?

The two laws are the central focus of Jesus' teachings regarding the law (and other things), as depicted by the Bible. Indeed, I only said that monotheistic salvation is secondary: if one's interpretation of salvation contradicts either of the two laws, then that method of salvation is false (according to Christianity, at least).

I have yet to see a branch of Christianity that directly denounces 'Love thy neighbour, love thy God', so I regard it as one of the few things common throughout the many Christian denominations.

So the Bible isn't primary, nor secondary, nor anything. It is simply a book espousing various things about Jesus and co. The two laws are, I think, unambiguous enough to be accepted by all Christians.

 

[sidhe]

That would require chucking out pretty much the whole Bible. I know we're going into liberal Christianity here, but some of it has to be held as true, doesn't it?

In general, christopagans hold the "Love your neighbor as yourself" part as true. As well as Jesus healing people, being crucified, etc. How much do you require they hold true before it's enough?

I think the parts about Wiccan nature-worshipping and God's condemnation of nature-worshippers is a little hard to reconcile, yes.

I think you're expecting Christian wicca (or wiccan Christianity) to look, simultaneously, like orthodox Christianity and traditional wicca, when it looks like neither, borrows from both, and is a completely different creature.

Take a liberal, gnostic Christianity, add magic and nature worship, throw in some references to pre-monotheistic Judaism, and you'll be getting close to one variation of christopaganism.

Or, if you subscribe to the trad-wiccan "All gods are one God, all goddesses are one Goddess" idea, think of it as wicca that puts different names to the deities. YHVH, Jesus, and Sophia fit nicely into the Divine Source, God, and Goddess paradigms, and if it can be done with Norse, Egyptian, Celtic, and every other pantheon, why not that one?

Or you might get something that looks, and smells, a bit like an inverted Thelema - Do as you love be the whole of the law. Will is the law, will under love. There is no law but to act out of love. That person might go to church normally, etc., but be (by orthodox standards) decadent and immoral, because they are taking their will and fill of love.

Or you get a goddess-centered religion that says Jesus was the son of the goddess, came to speak about Her, and those who recorded what he said couldn't handle that idea under their patriarchy, and things got distorted.

Or you could get an eclectic wiccan who just adds Jesus into their deities, not even bothering with YHVH and the Jewish paradigm, and deals with "Love your neighbor as yourself, and love God before all things." No need for anything else Biblical there.

But, if you say "It's not orthodox Christianity, or anything I recognize as pagan," you've missed the boat entirely. It's not going to be either of those, but some third thing.

 

[Druweid]

Greetings!

TexasSky, with all do respect, you are mistaken on a great many points, and emphasizing your personal veiw with an excess of pomp and fuss is simply not persuasive.

First and foremost:

As a practicing witch, your interpretation of Christianity is - without a doubt - wrong.

This can apply to you equally; As a practicing Baptist, your interpretation of Wicca is - without a doubt - wrong.

But enough of such drivel, it is an ad hominem attack, and therefore without merit. If you wish to approach this on an academic level, by all means, we can discuss. If not, there will be no further reply on my part.

Do not ever presume to tell me what I have or have not accepted or rejected. You do not know me.

Do not presume, ever again, to tell me what I did or did not reject.

In neither case is there a presumption. The Baptist faith is well-documented and well-defined, as are the Catholic and Episcopal faiths. What is "accepted" and/or "rejected" by these faiths are clearly established. Drawing lines of comparison is a simple matter of academics. In essence, the Orange can say to the Apple, "How dare you say I'm more yellow than you, you don't know me," and it makes about as much sense.

As to whether or not the 13 principles define Wicca - argue with the American Council of Wtiches - not me.

No argument is necessary. The American Council of Witches was very clear when these principles were presented NOT as a definition of Wicca, but as a summary of what most all Witches have in common.

The most fundamental teaching of Christianity is that God, Jehovah, is the King of Kings, The Almighty, the beginning and the end, and that He will have no other Gods before Him. That Christ is the only way to the Father.

One of the 13 principles of Wicca is the refusal to recognize any authority.

Your interpretation of Principle 6 is flawed. When read in context of the whole, it refers to "those who teach," and therefore is referring to Earthly beings, not "any authority," as you say. If there remains any doubt, consider what was written in the introduction to the Principles of Belief by the ACW:

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.

It could not have been made more clear that the lack of recognition to authority was not intended to extend beyond this earthly realm.

If you really want to hold Principle 6 against something biblical, I believe it would be more appropriately compared to Matt 16:12 or Luke 11:42. In both, quite specifically, Jesus teaches to not accept authority just for the sake of authority.

Just my thoughts,
-- Druweid

 

[Druweid]

Hmmm, I take it posting to this threa is an act of futility?

 

[sidhe]

Hmmm, I take it posting to this threa is an act of futility?

This thread, and a lot of CF, were moved to servers deep in the abyss, in the city of R'lyeh, staffed by horrific creatures, and the time and geometry of the threads has gone wrong.

 

[Druweid]

This thread, and a lot of CF, were moved to servers deep in the abyss, in the city of R'lyeh, staffed by horrific creatures, and the time and geometry of the threads has gone wrong.

NO! The computers are right!! They are always right. It must be US have gone dreadfully wrong...

 

[sidhe]

NO! The computers are right!! They are always right. It must be US have gone dreadfully wrong...

When servers start running operating systems that have names unutterable by man, in version numbers that are irrational, the question is...are they just misplacing posts, or are we not in the timeframe we believe we are?