Is being Wiccan moral?

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I'm thinking that I might even become a Wiccan. *hears some Christian people begin to fret wildly*
Haha..

You want to make people fret wildly who have your well-being in mind? I'm missing the humor there; maybe you can fill me in. If I have time to read it.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I guarantee that if you can show objectively and with substantive evidence that your Bible is indeed the word of God, I will do the same.

I've been trying to get you to show me your authority for well over a year now. Whitehorse thinx, it ain't happenin' anytime soon.

Besides, there's a logical contradiction here. If the Lord can indeed prove through His unworthy earthen vessel that His word really is His word, then your contradictory claims regarding Him would be disproven and therefore you would not be able to accomplish what you say. It's a logical impossibility.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

"First prove your authority isn't just something you made up out of your own head, and once we have those double standards cleared up, I will proceed."

Ok, as a taoist I believe that if there is a god, he is not above the tao, he is within the tao. Of course, you don't believe what I do and I don't believe what you do, so we are kind of at a stand off.

Okay, we've got a start here, but maybe you can explain what you mean. What is the authority you are using to make this determination.

You are right, we don't have arms long enough to box in god, when it comes to the universe or when it comes to total truth god might be the final authority.

How can anyone other than God be the authority on Him?

But when it comes to this thread, all information is filtered through us, so, when it comes to what information is posted, we become the final authority on what we think is gods word or gods meaning.

We're not authorities. We can never be that regarding God. We can say what we think, but that isn't being an authority. Unless something we say comes from God Himself, it's just people becoming gods unto themselves, doing and believing as they see fit. We're looking for the truth here. Only GOd has that regarding Himself, and by His gracious providence He has chosen to make that known in His word.

In short, if it doesn't come from us, we have no claim to the truth just by what we believe or want to believe.

 

[ACougar]

You seem to be living in some sort of vacume where there is only one "Sacred Religious Text." What about the Rig Veda which is over 5,000 years old? What about the Tao Te Ching? What makes the Christian scriptures any differant form the scriptures of a hundred differant religions?

 

[Havoc]

I've been trying to get you to show me your authority for well over a year now. Whitehorse thinx, it ain't happenin' anytime soon.

Besides, there's a logical contradiction here. If the Lord can indeed prove through His unworthy earthen vessel that His word really is His word, then your contradictory claims regarding Him would be disproven and therefore you would not be able to accomplish what you say. It's a logical impossibility.

You are the one who originally, and still, made reference to "authority". You have not even shown that this authority exists, let alone that it is a positor of truth. Every time someone relates a belief you truck out this "by what authority" question, pointing out that your "authority" is from God. Well put your money where your mouth is. Show us that you have access to any "authority that can be objectively shown.

Why do you insist that we answer the question of "by what authority" when you are not willing to do so. Prove to us that the measure is valid and we will strive to meet the measure. Otherwise get off your high hobby horse and debate properly.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

You seem to be living in some sort of vacume where there is only one "Sacred Religious Text."

Welcome.

What about the Rig Veda which is over 5,000 years old? What about the Tao Te Ching? What makes the Christian scriptures any differant form the scriptures of a hundred differant religions?

Well, God is older than all of it. So the age of the text is not really the issue, so much as where it came from. And, you raise a very valid and important question, which is, how do we know Christianity is the right one?

Christianity is the only religion that acknowledges and provides atonement for sin. Let's start there.

 

[transientlife]

Thank God you're not pickin on me anymore whitehorse Now I can sit back and relax for a bit

 

[ACougar]

Welcome.



Well, God is older than all of it. So the age of the text is not really the issue, so much as where it came from. And, you raise a very valid and important question, which is, how do we know Christianity is the right one?

Christianity is the only religion that acknowledges and provides atonement for sin. Let's start there.

Why (other than the fact that you have been taught of it's existance) do you believe in sin? I don't. I believe in action and reaction, reaping what we sow, but I don't believe in Sin. If there is no sin, why on earth would I need atonment for it? You have to believe the sky is falling before you feel the need to purchase falling sky insurance.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : Whitehorse

And, you raise a very valid and important question, which is, how do we know Christianity is the right one?

Christianity is the only religion that acknowledges and provides atonement for sin. Let's start there.

This is the equivalent of saying that Christianity sis the only religion with a crucified savior, therefore it must be true. (actually there are at least 16 religions with a crucified savior but I needed an example)



The Judeo Christian (and Islamic tradition) is the only religious group with the concept of sin within it. By sin I mean both sin (lowercase) and SIN (uppercase): sin (lowercase being the willful disregard for a set of authoritarian moral and social rules supposedly written by the Christian (or similar) deity and SIN (uppercase) being the willingness of humanity as a whole to live in something other than radical dependence on the Christian (or similar) deity.



Sin (both cases) is a foreign concept outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition. As a Pagan I have no recognition for sin (lowercase) based on divinely determined moral codes, they simply do not exist and the idea of pretending that a list of rules made up by a handful of long dead men was n fact divinely inspired is just laughable. Since there are no divinely inspired moral rules (and you have yet to demonstrate in any way that there are) it is impossible to sin (lowercase) in any way.



As for SIN (uppercase) Pagan belief is one generally of panenthiesm, the Divine is both transcendent and immanent, both within the universe and simultaneously beyond the universe. As a result Pagans know that the Divine is within all things including ourselves and therefore it is impossible to choose to live without being radically dependant upon the Divine. So it is impossible for SIN (uppercase) to exist at all.



You seem to be arguing that non-Christians who do not accept that the many exhaustive lists of ‘sins’ in the bible have any moral meaning must accept the moral authority (your view of the Divine) as both true and meaningful and they must follow these exhaustive lists because you, not they, accept their authority and meaningfulness. Yet you have spent the last several pages on this thread doing everything in your power to avoid telling anyone WHY they should accept your concept of the Divine as the only moral authority and follow the said exhaustive lists of moral codes.

 

[Myah]

Do you think it right to impose one's moral system (usually that of the majority) on individuals who do not agree with it, given that no moral code is more correct than the next?

It's not my place to decide which moral system is superior. Nor do I think anyone has the right to do so.

No.
Was eating human flesh right and good?

That's more of a question on if my morals would uphold it. You'd be suprised at what people have done to survive, so I really couldn't say if it was right or wrong. It depends solely on the situation.

So, right and wrong don't exist, do they?
It's not a matter of different shades of gray; it is denying different shades exist at all outside the beholder's mind.

Right and wrong are purely subjective. Situations can differ. What I hold to be right and wrong are for my mind only, no one else. I wouldn't attempt to force my morals on anyone. I can disagree with someone but I can't tell them that they are "wrong" when it comes to morality.

 

[Lifesaver]

It's not my place to decide which moral system is superior. Nor do I think anyone has the right to do so.

Right and wrong are purely subjective. Situations can differ. What I hold to be right and wrong are for my mind only, no one else. I wouldn't attempt to force my morals on anyone. I can disagree with someone but I can't tell them that they are "wrong" when it comes to morality.

So it must be real tough for you, being fully conscious that you live in a society which, under the threat of heavy punishment and loss of freedom, imposes the majority's view on morals on those who disagree with it.

How do you conciliate your belief that it is wrong to impose morality on anyone and living in a society that does exactly that?

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

You are the one who originally, and still, made reference to "authority". You have not even shown that this authority exists, let alone that it is a positor of truth. Every time someone relates a belief you truck out this "by what authority" question, pointing out that your "authority" is from God. Well put your money where your mouth is. Show us that you have access to any "authority that can be objectively shown.

Why do you insist that we answer the question of "by what authority" when you are not willing to do so. Prove to us that the measure is valid and we will strive to meet the measure. Otherwise get off your high hobby horse and debate properly.

Oh, alright. I'll go first.

I'll get to everyone's questions tomorrow. It's late. G'nite!

 

[Myah]

So it must be real tough for you, being fully conscious that you live in a society which, under the threat of heavy punishment and loss of freedom, imposes the majority's view on morals on those who disagree with it.

How do you conciliate your belief that it is wrong to impose morality on anyone and living in a society that does exactly that?

I don't deny that it can be frustrating, in some matters. But every society, is ruled by the majority, it's necessary for order.
It's up to the society as a whole to change it, if they are willing. But, no matter what is done, it can't make everyone happy, and nothing ever will.

 

[Blissman]

I still respectfully disagree that Wiccans do not have morals. Harm no one? What is and what is not harm? There is one obvious moral in the reede. It is immoral to do harm.

 

[Lifesaver]

I don't deny that it can be frustrating, in some matters. But every society, is ruled by the majority, it's necessary for order.
It's up to the society as a whole to change it, if they are willing. But, no matter what is done, it can't make everyone happy, and nothing ever will.

So, ideally, you would prefer to live in a society without laws, than in one that has them, which imposes certain moral rules (against killing, against stealing) on all inhabitants, who may not agree with them. Is that true?

 

[Tangnefedd]

One can belong to many faiths or none and still live by a moral code!

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

Philos- the young one who was considering Wicca - please don't consider converting to wicca or paganism because of a teenage spell book. It's a religion as deep and comitted as Christianity and it's a very serious lifestyle/beliefs change. Consider carefully before you take any steps. That said, there are those to help you learn here and elsewhere - always take what you're told with a grain of salt though and above all use your own judgement. The Goddess speaks to our hearts (all faces of Deity do) listen to the voice inside you that is wise and strong.

 

[Volos]

originally posted by : Blissman

I still respectfully disagree that Wiccans do not have morals. Harm no one? What is and what is not harm? There is one obvious moral in the reede. It is immoral to do harm.

It is better to say that Wiccan’s and Pagans in general are ethical not that we have morals.



The rede is not a moral code. A reed, literally translated is a piece of good advice. No one is bound to follow the rede, there are no threats of dire punishments if we decline to follow it or promises of scintillating rewards if we do follow it. It is in the end a piece of advice.



The questions you raise about what does and what does not constitute harm and similar questions highlights one of the largest problems with authoritarian ethics. There is not way any code can be considered to be universal; that is applying to all people in al societies in all situations at any time. Don’t kill other people is a fine moral rule but it is not universally applicable, what about killing is self defense? Or killing to save the life on an innocent? What about war? Or capital punishment? Don’t lie is another fine moral code but it also cannot be universally applied, is it morally wrong to lie to protect the life of another?



Ultimately ethics needs to be contextual. An ethical action in one situation may be very unethical in another. Only the person making the ethical decision can decide if an action is ethical or not.

 

[Volos]

originally posted by : Lifesaver

So, ideally, you would prefer to live in a society without laws, than in one that has them, which imposes certain moral rules (against killing, against stealing) on all inhabitants, who may not agree with them. Is that true?

I think you are attempting to create a false dilemma here.



You have artificially limited the possible options of constructing ethical laws not because of the reality of creating civil laws but rather to force your debate opponent into a corner.

After all, ideally we would all prefer to live in a society which enacts laws that provide us with the greatest possible personal freedoms that protect the general public and respect the diversity of beliefs of the public.

 

[Blissman]

It is better to say that Wiccan’s and Pagans in general are ethical not that we have morals.



The rede is not a moral code. A reed, literally translated is a piece of good advice. No one is bound to follow the rede, there are no threats of dire punishments if we decline to follow it or promises of scintillating rewards if we do follow it. It is in the end a piece of advice.



The questions you raise about what does and what does not constitute harm and similar questions highlights one of the largest problems with authoritarian ethics. There is not way any code can be considered to be universal; that is applying to all people in al societies in all situations at any time. Don’t kill other people is a fine moral rule but it is not universally applicable, what about killing is self defense? Or killing to save the life on an innocent? What about war? Or capital punishment? Don’t lie is another fine moral code but it also cannot be universally applied, is it morally wrong to lie to protect the life of another?



Ultimately ethics needs to be contextual. An ethical action in one situation may be very unethical in another. Only the person making the ethical decision can decide if an action is ethical or not.

Perhaps it is a matter of semantics. Assume that a rede is either good advice or a part of definition of Wicca (I assume that different Wiccans might look at it one way or another), the fact that the rede is not always followed does not exclude it from being a moral, because not every moral law is followed by members of any it's faith. If you define morals as a set of codes of what is and what is not to be done, then by saying (in effect) do not do that which is wrong (whatever it may be that you choose to define as being 'wrong') is a moral code. I don't claim to know your faith, but from what you have said, it is part of Wicca to 'do no harm'. To what extent is the 'good advice' expected to be followed?
What are ethics? Define ethics. You state that there is no universal set of ethics for man. O.K.. Does that mean that there are NO ethical standards?

Is there something about the word 'morals' which you find repugnent such that you would not wish to be associated with the word?