Is being Wiccan moral?

[Mylinkay Asdara]

I think that whatever people wanna believe is their choice. It's not a contest, it's about having faith. Period. Whether it's the oldest or not is insignificant. The importance is that it should be respected just as much as any other religion. I think that those who get into it for rebellion or because of the lifestyle are really sad people. It's about faith, not a label.

couldn't agree with you more

 

[PistGurl]

I find this interesting. Thank you. You had said that some Wiccans and some pagans consider the Christian (concept of) God as being one of the Divine. Allow me to ask, do you consider God (the Christian concept of God) as a 'deity'?

I've never come across this before, of course I believe that those who believe in God will come at some point to the Divine, but my teacher told me that no Wiccan can accept the existance of God as a deity, as God specifically says that he is the one God, and to worship others, or know him by another name is sacrilidge.

How then does a Wiccan invite 'God' to attend a circle -"I invoke you, God, the one God, God of everything"?

How would he be ok with the fact that you have invited him to a ritual dedicated to The Goddess?

Anyway, I'm not saying this is true before any of you start jumping on me saying I'm being pushy etc!!

Just (again) saying what I was taught, and trying to understand other beliefs.

Blessed Be xx

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Well, invoking the Christian God is not something any Wiccan or Pagan would do, just as they would not invite Allah to circle. Monotheistic faces of Deity don't work well with polytheistic peoples However, I don't think that should in and of itself preclude accepting God as a facet of Deity. Some people need to honor a face of Deity that is strict and absolute... it's just another of the many paths I think... but that's just what I teach to my own students so, again, it's open for interpretation. It's my own personal belief, however, that if one is to say that god and goddesses are facets or aspects of Deity than one must mean all gods and goddesses (including the monotheistic ones) to be fair, honest, and accurate.

 

[ACougar]

Not even all Christians share the same conception of thier God, compare that to the Jewish understanding of the same Divinity and you have even more variety. You may have learned that Divity, Goddess, God must be found within... When we look within, we cannot ignore who we really are on many levels, including our past. Many Neo-Pagans and Wiccans enjoyed a rich spiritual life as Christians before they became Wiccan and while we hear the call of the Mother, we must also find a way to integrate past spiritual experiance with the new. The Christian God is another face of the Ultimate divine, a face that is apart of our spiritual history.

I've never come across this before, of course I believe that those who believe in God will come at some point to the Divine, but my teacher told me that no Wiccan can accept the existance of God as a deity, as God specifically says that he is the one God, and to worship others, or know him by another name is sacrilidge.

How then does a Wiccan invite 'God' to attend a circle -"I invoke you, God, the one God, God of everything"?

How would he be ok with the fact that you have invited him to a ritual dedicated to The Goddess?

Anyway, I'm not saying this is true before any of you start jumping on me saying I'm being pushy etc!!

Just (again) saying what I was taught, and trying to understand other beliefs.

Blessed Be xx

 

[Blissman]

one of the Divine is not the wording I used. A facet or aspect of the Divine yes. One of the Divine's faces as it were. The Divine does not 'separate' into many gods and goddesses, the Divine simply truns to show a certian face or another. Like a spheric prism or something poetic like that

Again, while you would seem to be correct in this, you are mis-interpreting. I have thought long and hard over this and how to explain it here's my go at it: There are absolutes, but they are not needed or they are hidden. Example: you say that it depends on who you talk to what 'do no harm means' well that's just not true -> see, if you are hurt by some action of mine I have done you harm. It's not the person making the action's interpretation that counts, it the people around me that percieve my actions and are affected by my actions. If they become hurt as a result of something I do, I have caused harm. Done. It's an absolute that is built in, and even though we don't 'talk' about it, it's there just the same.


Well, your feelings aside as you say, we don't need it in our faith. We use it because it is there, as a gift of the Divine, to use. But we rarely need anything in this society badly enough to break out magic (at least I don't). I use it for minor charms to protect my loved ones when they are out of the house, to keep negative energy away from my dwelling, bless things, cleanse, again- most of 'magic' is simply energy manipulation. As for the difference between magic and hope, again it's an energy thing, you are working with energy to make it so, but if you are only hoping then you are only wanting something to happen, not being proactive to 'make' it happen. Magic should always be accompanied by actions in the 'mundane' sense as well. If you work a spell to find a job and don't read the want ads, you're sabotaging yourself, obviously Magick as we spell it generally (I've been spelling it sans 'k' for simplicity's sake) can be a social meeting, if you happen to be part of a coven- as are the eight sabbats if you are in a coven. Most wiccans and pagans are solitary or in covens, but I'm a solitary, as are most of the people I know who are pagan. We get together and talk over concepts, places to procure items for our altars, and what have you, but as for our worship and private time with the gods, it's just that. We are jealous of our private time with them I suppose, and don't want to share Silly of us, but some people do make magick and the sabbats gatherings as well.

(I'm hoping to get that sort of thing going in my area myself actually, but it's going to take a few years of work I think )

We understand the world by the way we are capable of comprehending it. You cannot understand 'spirt' without first having a basis of concieving the world - reality. Allow me to label (so that I may refer to it, and not define the meaning of this label) (I am using the label as a word - a device of communication - for the sake of this post) that reality is your own and my own reality. Until I am able (nor would be able) to comprehend what was in your mind, each of us understands the universe - our concept of reality - as a yet undefinable set of conventions. Reality is a personal set of conventions. We agree in principle to some of these conventions as universal. One of these
conventions is the ability to test that which is reality from that which is not. I use as a test in reality, "Is it true or could it be true?" I do not consider 'spells' to be real nor possible because should you cast (induce?) a spell to cure AIDS or bring sight to the blind, it will not work. Could you use a spell, or majick, assuming that you used majick to cure AIDS? Bring sight to the Blind? Unless you were able to do that, then majick, and spells do not and can not work. In my version of reality, both spells and majick do not exist
other than a self belief that a spell or some magick had changed anything. For what reason do you believe that things to which you attribute as having been caused by a spell or majick would not have happened without your attempt(s) to intervene? This is why I believe that both are hope, perhaps held amoung fellow Witches or Wiccans or Pagans as socially re-inforced self deception. Perhaps it comforts you, or perhaps at times it may bother you.
Plainly you believe in a right and a wrong, what is just and what is unjust, what is fair and what is unfair. I submit that you do believe in morality, but for some reason deny it. You, as I understand it, use the self to define the right from the wrong, the just from the unjust, the fair from the unfair. You choose an advice (your rede), to be 'do no harm'. You do not, as far as I know, willfully harm people, to do what we might call evil.
You are correct in saying by not following an edict (a set of rules, laws, morals) that someone else had established allows you greater freedom to establish your own individual conduct, your personal concept of at each situation, what is NOT harm (and conversely, what acts are free from harm). I also propose that this freedom is a two-edged sword. With freedom comes choice (actually it is because of free will that there is freedom). As can we all, we can be wrong. Our actions and deeds can cause harm. No matter how our intent, we can, and often do, fail. You had made the observation that we can not be perfect. But I submit that from that you draw the wrong conclusion - that being that we should not be given ideas which may guide us so as not to scre# up. That we can not always be right, does not mean that we must always be wrong. Morals are a set of rules - we make them based on our wisdom of our understanding of our weaknesses.
No, we will not always obey our own conventions of wisdom - morals. But we will likely do better if we have guides so that we can use to avoid a world without standards that we may consider before making a future act - a test in reality. To convince me otherwise, you will need to show how a world without limits has the potential NOT to destroy itself. Human beings are an interesting paradox. Yes, religion with morals has been used to justify wars, slavery, and many other acts of evil. You miss the point should you not see that those are the exceptions, and not the rule. I believe that likewise, Wiccans, Witches, Pagans... also have people whom are evil, and too, they are the exeption, and not the rule. The conflict, such as it exists, between your respective beliefs and mine, Christianity, becomes an interesting debate. There are matters in my faith, and too in yours, where we hold our differences to be important, and wish for each other a better life. I shall continue to try convice you, and perhaps you me, to accept beliefd that is for our mutual betterment. Caring for another, and not wanting to harm someone else, are morals. Thank you.

 

[Volos]

originally posted by : Blissman

We understand the world by the way we are capable of comprehending it. You cannot understand 'spirt' without first having a basis of concieving the world - reality. Allow me to label (so that I may refer to it, and not define the meaning of this label) (I am using the label as a word - a device of communication - for the sake of this post) that reality is your own and my own reality. Until I am able (nor would be able) to comprehend what was in your mind, each of us understands the universe - our concept of reality - as a yet undefinable set of conventions. Reality is a personal set of conventions. We agree in principle to some of these conventions as universal. One of these conventions is the ability to test that which is reality from that which is not.

In concept I will agree but with the recognition that much of what we call reality is not directly testable by us personally.

For example we have no way to personally test the validity of any past events we did not personally experience. We must rely on written or filmed accounts of the past while recognizing that these accounts may or may not reflect reality. Further even our own memories may occasionally be suspect to not being completely accurate.

We may not directly test reality in locations where we are not. We might view them on television or read about them but the presentation of reality may not be accurate.

In both we cannot directly test the reality of what is presented but only the validity of the source that is presenting us the information.

I use as a test in reality, "Is it true or could it be true?" I do not consider 'spells' to be real nor possible because should you cast (induce?) a spell to cure AIDS or bring sight to the blind, it will not work. Could you use a spell, or majick, assuming that you used majick to cure AIDS? Bring sight to the Blind? Unless you were able to do that, then majick, and spells do not and can not work. In my version of reality, both spells and majick do not exist other than a self belief that a spell or some magick had changed anything.

Your assumptions about magic may be the issue here, not magic itself.



You are resenting magic as if it were a Hollywood special effect. Trust me there is no flash and bang in magic.



You are assuming that magic is about the manipulation of the outer world, in truth it is more about manipulating the inner world.



Does magic affect the physical world? Yes. I have witnessed tornados being pushed aside. I have seen children born to infertile couples. I have witnessed cancerous tumors disappearing overnight. External reality can be altered but Magic is rarely employed to do so.



A spell to get rich for example will not induce wads of cash to spontaneously fall from the sky and into the caster’s lap. More likely it will induce the caster to pick up the want ads and do something positive about his or her cash flow. I have a friend who worked magic several times to get a promotion. The company he worked for went bankrupted and he lost his job. However he ended up starting his own business so in the end he did get a promotion, not just the one he hoped for.



Can magic spontaneously cure AIDS? Not spontaneously. (There is of course always the remote possibility of spontaneous remission.) Ultimately the cure for AIDS will come from science, not magic. But magic can be used to keep the HIV/AIDS epidemic in the forefront of people’s minds which has many other effects in the funding of research and education.

For what reason do you believe that things to which you attribute as having been caused by a spell or majick would not have happened without your attempt(s) to intervene? This is why I believe that both are hope, perhaps held amoung fellow Witches or Wiccans or Pagans as socially re-inforced self deception.

Oh it is entirely possible that many things are random chance. However the same question can be asked of Christian miracles.

Despite what you may think Witches and Pagans are rather pragmatic individuals. If something doesn’t work we aren’t ones to keep doing it.



I believe the difference between magic and hope is one of action. Hope is a passive quality. I hope I will live a long and happy life. If I do nothing to have a long and happy life than my hope for such is useless.

Perhaps it comforts you, or perhaps at times it may bother you.
Plainly you believe in a right and a wrong, what is just and what is unjust, what is fair and what is unfair. I submit that you do believe in morality, but for some reason deny it.

I have not seen any Pagan or Wiccan here denying the existence of morality. That said we believe that morality is born of human’s not the Divine. The Ethics behind the morality however is another interesting topic.

You are correct in saying by not following an edict (a set of rules, laws, morals) that someone else had established allows you greater freedom to establish your own individual conduct, your personal concept of at each situation, what is NOT harm (and conversely, what acts are free from harm). I also propose that this freedom is a two-edged sword. With freedom comes choice (actually it is because of free will that there is freedom).

With freedom comes responsibility.

Individuals are free to choose to follow the ethics of the situation, or are free to shoes to follow the morality of authoritarian religion.

As can we all, we can be wrong. Our actions and deeds can cause harm. No matter how our intent, we can, and often do, fail. You had made the observation that we can not be perfect. But I submit that from that you draw the wrong conclusion - that being that we should not be given ideas which may guide us so as not to scre# up. That we can not always be right, does not mean that we must always be wrong. Morals are a set of rules - we make them based on our wisdom of our understanding of our weaknesses.

Try removing the concept of right and wrong or good and bad form the ethical situation. Every ethical dilemma is unique and only the individual in the middle of that situation can judge the particulars of that situation. It is not a matter of making the “right” choice but of making the best possible choice based on those unique circumstances. If you put the two of us in identical situations we may choose very different responses. I would not view your choice as “wrong” rather that you made the best possible choice you could make in that situation. Yes sometimes hindsight tells us we didn’t make a terribly good decision but if we act with the best interests of others we still can say we acted well.

No, we will not always obey our own conventions of wisdom - morals. But we will likely do better if we have guides so that we can use to avoid a world without standards that we may consider before making a future act - a test in reality.

To convince me otherwise, you will need to show how a world without limits has the potential NOT to destroy itself.

I know of no one advocating operating without ethical or moral standards.

 

[Blissman]

In concept I will agree but with the recognition that much of what we call reality is not directly testable by us personally. For example we have no way to personally test the validity of any past events we did not personally experience. We must rely on written or filmed accounts of the past while recognizing that these accounts may or may not reflect reality. Further even our own memories may occasionally be suspect to not being completely accurate.

If we have no established personal test for reality, we are either insane, or
in a philosphical discussion. But we can't function in angnst.

We may not directly test reality in locations where we are not.

So that we may consider what we may or may not do in the future, in order to evaluate that which we may do so, we have to test reality in a hypothetical reality. You can not plan on taking an action in the future by living in the future. The premise of morality is that we need to consider what might occur should one do something, so that we can decide if perhaps we ought not to do it. Obviously we don't KNOW what might happen. In Wicca, you use this principle. 'Harm none....' You don't know what will happen should you do or choose not to do anything in deed or in 'spirit', but you consider what may be so before you do anything so that you can test in reality (that which is in fact theory) what to and what not to do. As human beings we need to do this, otherwise we would not consider our fate if we were challanged with the possibility of avoiding running off of a cliff. Morals is a generally agreed up set of limits of what actions not to take in order to survive (hence thou shalt not kill). Should you wish to argue that killing a plant or an animal for food is killing, or self-defense (should it invole killing) is killing, morality recognizes the reality that those sets of morals (conventions) are intended to keep people, both as individuals and for all of humanity, alive and safe. Morals are a set of rules based on wisdom so as to prevent us from harming ourselves. In a practicle sense, a biblical set of morals is superior than a self defined set of 'morals' because each one of use will interpret each our own set of 'morals'. Some individuals are wise, while others are not. An independant external arbitor can best define our conventions, such that we all will know, and enforce. Suppose you were to take the philosphical view that the concept of God was an invention of man (an athiest might hold this view). Does an external judge and power over man, serve man (should we believe in this God, and should he obey Him)? Unlike men, God is objective, wise, and powerful. This is the thrust of the difference that Christianty has with paganism, Wicca, or other beliefs/faiths which do not believe in morality. Without mutually agreed upon standards whereby all members of the society (of that faith or group), in effect can have a universal court for conduct,
if there is no court of conduct; nothing defines improper destructive behavior. In theory, one individual might decide that genocide was proper conduct. The difference between law(lessness) and(im)moral is that laws can not be written to cover all conduct. Morality, while it cannot cover every conduct, provides not only specifics, but also general guidelines for all conduct. Morals are not simply more laws, they are also guides of conduct. Some morals found in the Bible are very specific, such as forbidding murder or incest, others are general ideas or in parables. In Wicca, one person's 'no harn' can be another persons proper conduct. You do have, I am told, a principle which says that for each harm that you do to another, you will receive a harm three times back (in a manner of speaking, a Hell). But unlike Christianity, you have no mechanism in your faith (no morals) as to what harm may be. The rejection of a faith for lack of a set of morals is not some strange or cruel idea. It is wisdom intended to keep people alive. No one claims that it always works. But if works more often than it does fails. Wiccans have morals, but the Wicca religion has no set of morality. One thing that morals do is cause a strangeness; my faith is clear about Wicca as anathema to life as it should, and that which compels man (Christians) not to be, but every Wiccan, the person, have been some of the finest people whom I have met.

Your assumptions about magic may be the issue here, not magic itself. You are assuming that magic is about the manipulation of the outer world, in truth it is more about manipulating the inner world. Does magic affect the physical world? Yes. I have witnessed tornados being pushed aside. I have seen children born to infertile couples. I have witnessed cancerous tumors disappearing overnight. External reality can be altered but Magic is rarely employed to do so.

Such things as tornados have nothing to do with the 'internal world' and seem very much like a Hollywood special effect's of an OZ. (Sorry).

Oh it is entirely possible that many things are random chance.

Where is the evidence for these miracle cures?

However the same question can be asked of Christian miracles.

I agree.

Despite what you may think Witches and Pagans are rather pragmatic individuals. If something doesn’t work we aren’t ones to keep doing it.

Prove empirically, that spells or majick works.

I have not seen any Pagan or Wiccan here denying the existence of morality. That said we believe that morality is born of human’s not the Divine. The Ethics behind the morality however is another interesting topic.

Who's ethics?
.

Try removing the concept of right and wrong or good and bad form the ethical situation. Every ethical dilemma is unique and only the individual in the middle of that situation can judge the particulars of that situation. It is not a matter of making the “right” choice but of making the best possible choice based on those unique circumstances. If you put the two of us in identical situations we may choose very different responses. I would not view your choice as “wrong” rather that you made the best possible choice you could make in that situation. Yes sometimes hindsight tells us we didn’t make a terribly good decision but if we act with the best interests of others we still can say we acted well.

The best possible choice for me might, if I wanted to murder a lot of people,
would be for me to become a mass murderer. Your argument supports that.
That would also support war, rape, torture, cruelty, not to mention a Holy war upon all Wiccans, erradicating them from the face of the earth.

I know of no one advocating operating without ethical or moral standards.

 

[Blissman]

You had claimed that by not having a set of morals you have more freedom. I disagree:
Allow me to, for the sake of argument, call morals "Laws". Allow me to disuss this as if we were talking about the laws of governments. If there were no defined laws, no one set standard that everyone must adhere to, then a society without laws would be a government where each person decided their own laws. In such a society, people's actions would be chaotic. Freedom to decide your own laws, is, because of free will, an unworkable society. Laws that are a universal standard, whereby each person knows what may not be done, establishes freedom. Look at what happens in a riot. People act as they please, each to a man. Compare that to a society that has laws.

 

[Volos]

Originally poted by : Blissman

So that we may consider what we may or may not do in the future, in order to evaluate that which we may do so, we have to test reality in a hypothetical reality. You can not plan on taking an action in the future by living in the future. The premise of morality is that we need to consider what might occur should one do something, so that we can decide if perhaps we ought not to do it. Obviously we don't KNOW what might happen. In Wicca, you use this principle. 'Harm none....' You don't know what will happen should you do or choose not to do anything in deed or in 'spirit', but you consider what may be so before you do anything so that you can test in reality (that which is in fact theory) what to and what not to do. As human beings we need to do this, otherwise we would not consider our fate if we were challanged with the possibility of avoiding running off of a cliff.

But the future is NOT reality it is a possibility. It is in fact an infinite number of possibilities. When we contemplate the consequences of our actions we are not looking at reality any more then our dreams reflect reality.



If the future were reality and not just a possibility than it would be possible to accurate predict it and that would mean my daily horoscope would have some actual relevance.

Morals is a generally agreed up set of limits of what actions not to take in order to survive (hence thou shalt not kill). Should you wish to argue that killing a plant or an animal for food is killing, or self-defense (should it invole killing) is killing, morality recognizes the reality that those sets of morals (conventions) are intended to keep people, both as individuals and for all of humanity, alive and safe.

I could point to morals such as “thou shall not suffer witch to live” and correctly say that this is an example of a moral designed to do something other than keep people alive and safe

Morals are a set of rules based on wisdom so as to prevent us from harming ourselves. In a practicle sense, a biblical set of morals is superior than a self defined set of 'morals' because each one of use will interpret each our own set of 'morals'.

Please prove empirically that the unchanging biblical set of moral codes is superior to having an ethic which directs us to act in the best interest of others.

Some individuals are wise, while others are not. An independant external arbitor can best define our conventions, such that we all will know, and enforce.

I have been in enough arguments with Christians to know that these biblical codes are personally interpreted and altered to provide the individual with his or her own personal set of morals.

Suppose you were to take the philosphical view that the concept of God was an invention of man (an athiest might hold this view). Does an external judge and power over man, serve man (should we believe in this God, and should he obey Him)? Unlike men, God is objective, wise, and powerful. This is the thrust of the difference that Christianty has with paganism, Wicca, or other beliefs/faiths which do not believe in morality. Without mutually agreed upon standards whereby all members of the society (of that faith or group), in effect can have a universal court for conduct,
if there is no court of conduct; nothing defines improper destructive behavior.

You have slipped into an argument against relativism. Wiccan, Pagans and their kin are not relativists.

In theory, one individual might decide that genocide was proper conduct. The difference between law(lessness) and(im)moral is that laws can not be written to cover all conduct.

This is exactly my point in rejecting the moral laws of Christianity. There is no way that these laws can be considered universal. Moral dilemma are each unique and to say that there are “laws” dictating behavior is meaningless when these laws do not and cannot cover all situations for all people in all cultures in all periods of time.

Morality, while it cannot cover every conduct, provides not only specifics, but also general guidelines for all conduct. Morals are not simply more laws, they are also guides of conduct. Some morals found in the Bible are very specific, such as forbidding murder or incest, others are general ideas or in parables. In Wicca, one person's 'no harn' can be another persons proper conduct.

In general the morals you talk about are contradictory. Though shall not kill is contradicted by the concept of sacrifice or war, or capital punishment, of self defense, of defending the innocent and a dozen other exceptions to the rule of not killing.



As I noted earlier I am far to familiar with individuals selectively interpreting the morals of the bible to justify all sorts of atrocities.



While I am not familiar enough with the book to quote the exact passage but I do remember mosses coming down form Mt. Sinai with the ten commandment s(including the do not kill commandment) and immediately ordering the murder of thousands of the people who followed him out of Egypt. And this was after being told directly by his god that murder is morally wrong.

You do have, I am told, a principle which says that for each harm that you do to another, you will receive a harm three times back (in a manner of speaking, a Hell).

All things return good or ill. It is a parable of how the world works. As you sow, shall you reap.



Alos recognize this in not a literal return. Were I to lie about a coworker it is not given that I will be lied about by a coworker. The lie may come back to haunt me, I may suffer guilt for lying, people may no longer trust what I say. On the other hand making a donation to charity also returns to me though I do not expect charities to give me money. The return may be my feelings of good will; it may that someone I know (or don’t know) will be helped by my contribution.

But unlike Christianity, you have no mechanism in your faith (no morals) as to what harm may be. The rejection of a faith for lack of a set of morals is not some strange or cruel idea. It is wisdom intended to keep people alive. No one claims that it always works. But if works more often than it does fails.

I question if you have a strict definition of what constitutes harm in your religion.



Aside from this everything you say about Christianity applies equally well to Paganism. The ethics we abide by may always not produce the best possible results but they do so more often than not.



[quote[ Wiccans have morals, but the Wicca religion has no set of morality. One thing that morals do is cause a strangeness; my faith is clear about Wicca as anathema to life as it should, and that which compels man (Christians) not to be, but every Wiccan, the person, have been some of the finest people whom I have met. [/quote] Wiccans and Pagans reject a set of authoritarian moral codes but we do embrace an ethic to act in the best interests of others and to do our best to not harm others, so your statement of people of my religion being without such is false.

Prove empirically, that spells or majick works.

I will be happy to do so right after I prove empirically that there is a Divine being.

 

[Volos]

Originally poted by : Blissman

You had claimed that by not having a set of morals you have more freedom. I disagree:

I made no such claim. If anything I believe the reverse to be true. Not having a set of morals limits ones freedom.



In the case of Christianity one may or may not follow the lengthy set of moral laws as one sees fit. If one chooses to ignore a law one need be sincerely repentant and beg forgiveness. By rejecting the list of rules and embracing the ethic one becomes solely responsible for ones actions and the consequences of ones actions. There is no big judge in the sky to forgive and forget and no way to say the devil made me do it.



I am solely responsible for the choices I make and the actions I engage in. That is responsibility, not freedom.

Allow me to, for the sake of argument, call morals "Laws". Allow me to disuss this as if we were talking about the laws of governments. If there were no defined laws, no one set standard that everyone must adhere to, then a society without laws would be a government where each person decided their own laws. In such a society, people's actions would be chaotic. Freedom to decide your own laws, is, because of free will, an unworkable society. Laws that are a universal standard, whereby each person knows what may not be done, establishes freedom. Look at what happens in a riot. People act as they please, each to a man. Compare that to a society that has laws.

But moral laws are not comparable to governmental laws. The primary difference is that in Christianity the moral “laws” are not enforced, where as the laws of government are enforced. Allow me to use the following analogy: I make rules for my pets (I.E. "thou shall not scratch my leather chair with thy claws") and the rules define moral behavior for her. Since rules that are not enforced are meaningless and my pets are weaker, they can only do wrong in secret or very quickly (before I can stop them). Since the Christian God is omniscient and presumably very, very quick, no one should be able to actually break his rules. Hence, if God actually forbids something, say murder, then they would never occur or punishment would immediately result. Murder occurs and far to often the murderers are not punished promptly or at all.

Clearly your bible states “thou shall not kill” and it is believed by Christians that this is a moral law made by their God forbidding murder, however he does nothing on earth to enforce his laws. On may argue that he punishes rule-breakers later with hell. But this is not enforcement of the rules he made. This would be analogous to me making the "no scratching" rule, letting the cats merrily scratch the hell out of my furniture at will, and then punishing the cats years later by soaking them in gasoline and setting them ablaze in my driveway. If I did such a thing, I would justly be seen as a cruel, vicious and evil person. Surely your god is not cruel, vicious or evil (though sometimes I wonder about some of his followers) and if he did not want his moral rules broken, he would stop any transgression of these rules before he had to punish beings infinitely weaker than him.

 

[Blissman]

There is nothing that I am aware of where cats or for that matter any beast is judged.

 

[zaqwerty]

You may very well be correct SquareC, my understanding of the rede and wiccan spells is rudamentary at best, but I would still postulate that a considerably large number of people calling themselves wiccan would not consider love spells bad/wrong like curses.
They may not be what you call 'true wiccans', but they call themselves as such.

i believe that the kkk claims to be chistian do you behave like them?

 

[zaqwerty]

What about curses 'n stuff in Wiccan (I'm not implying all wiccans do this or trying to pin ya with it) just honest question, wiccan appears to have some roots in not so friendly practices.

cures are for sananic ppl wiccans are regretfully associated with them.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

curses are not the realm of Satanists alone nor do all Satanists curse people
Wiccan can curse as can any person - they have a moral code that stipulates not to, but that is a guideline. Consider this- Christians have a moral code that entails the verse "thou shalt not steal" yet there are some Christians who steal. Why doesn't matter. It happens that that's a fact. Some Wiccans curse, some don't. It's a individual's personal conviction to the moral guidelines of Wicca that determines their actions.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Well if in fact a Christian steals, that is sin. There are no Ten Guidelines. But in wicca, there are no rules. Only a guideline. And since the religion is self-regulated, there is no sin if they don't. So, can anyone really say they aren't wiccan.

 

[Myah]

Well if in fact a Christian steals, that is sin. There are no Ten Guidelines. But in wicca, there are no rules. Only a guideline. And since the religion is self-regulated, there is no sin if they don't. So, can anyone really say they aren't wiccan.

Well..personally, yes I could steal. But I also believe in the Threefold Law and as such, besides from my personal morals that dictate that I should NOT steal, I would also have to look at that action coming back and biting me on my rear.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I would also have to look at that action coming back and biting me on my rear.

LOL!

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Well Whitehorse, one has to believe a few things to really be a wiccan, but just like Christianity anyone can call themselves one - doesn't mean they are, doesn't mean they are not. What one is and what one calls themselves.... well I'm sure you've had to point out the difference between 'real' Christians in your life so I"m sure you understand my point.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Yes, I'd agree that there are certain things that people must believe to be wiccan. Of course, because otherwise they'd be something else. But does that mean no wiccan sends curses? The law of threes notwithstanding. This law was put there for a reason; what is that reason? Well, because someone may use this magic in a way that is harmful.

 

[Krysia]

Yes, I'd agree that there are certain things that people must believe to be wiccan. Of course, because otherwise they'd be something else. But does that mean no wiccan sends curses? The law of threes notwithstanding. This law was put there for a reason; what is that reason? Well, because someone may use this magic in a way that is harmful.

Hi! Just thought I'd jump in here. I've been held spell-bound (no pun intended) by this debate . The same argument could logically be put to the Christian faith. Why are the 10 commandments there? To provide a guideline for which you are to follow. If you don't, you face the reprecussions (hell, eternal damnation, etc.), right? Well, if we don't follow our guideline, the Rede, we face our reprecussions - we get it back three times over - if not in this lifetime, then the next

In love and light,
Krysia