Is being Wiccan moral?

[Havoc]

I believe that the Rede is an ethical statement which defines a moral code.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

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.

But according tho whose standards? This completely attempts to robn God of His authority and make man the authority of all morality instead.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

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

Oh, this is about affirming and esteeming God's authority. I'm not picking on anyone. Well, okay, I pick on Havoc but he's fun to pick on. He's earned his stripes and paid his dues.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

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.

Because we know it exists. Just the feeling of guilt testifies to our knowledge ot right and wrong.

 

[ACougar]

Just because there is no sin, does not mean there is no right or wrong action. Guilt serves us, it let's us know when we are commiting or have commited wrong action. Wrong action is not the same as sin.

Because we know it exists. Just the feeling of guilt testifies to our knowledge ot right and wrong.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

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)

]

Okay, but you're changing the argument. I'd need to see verification of the 16 religions, but that's a topic for another day. You're seeing the surface, but not the core issue: Christianity is the only religion that does what we all know inherently needs to be done: atone for sin.

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.

Guilt alone testifies to sin. That's what guilt is. A remorseful sense of wrongdoing.

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.

But isn't this really just a way of getting out of the rulership of those rules? THis is where I begin to answer Havoc's fine question of how we know the Bible is divinely inspired. For starters, the Bible and everything in it goes against the grain of everything dear to man. It pokes holes in his pride, it demands submission, and it takes his authority away. Everyone writes and affirms what is in their best interests, unless they are ruled by another. Then they affirm what is in the best interests of the One who rules them. The Bible is the only religin that tru;y places authority in the hands of God, and not in man's. Everything else is a "gospel," as it were, of works. By man. TO do his own bidding, and resolve his guilt his way. This is not true of the Bible. This religion alone takes the authority out of man's hands and puts it into the hands of God.

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.

But the purposes are of man. He can do as he wishes, with the single suggestion that he does no harm. He invokes God to do His will. In Christianity, we invite the Lord to use us for His. Man is completely in control, and that is impossible.

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.

It's a bogus argument to try to project arrogance on me. The Christians here (including me) are the only ones who aren't demanding the right to make our own rules. Face it-we're human. We are not God. Whether or not you accept this is entirely your responsibility, not mine. Why is God the only moral authority? Because He alone is God. Let's be honest-this is about Who makes the rules. Man still wants to take that right which he does not possess.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Just because there is no sin, does not mean there is no right or wrong action. Guilt serves us, it let's us know when we are commiting or have commited wrong action. Wrong action is not the same as sin.

What do you suppose sin is? IT's doing wrong. And we all have an inherent sense of this. As it is written:

Romans 2:12-16

2:12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

2:13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

2:14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

2:15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

2:16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

 

[ACougar]

I always understood Sin to be seperation from God. Everthing we do returns to us, first because what we do to someone else we are also doing to ourselves, second because we have created an imbalance that will need to be set right, third because what we do becomes a part of who we are. Right action and wrong action are apart of nature, if we choose wrong action we suffer the consequenses. No eternal damnation, however no get out of jail free cards either.

The Bible has no more authority for me than a book of poetry or moral stories. I rely on direct inspiration from the Divine.

What do you suppose sin is? IT's doing wrong. And we all have an inherent sense of this. As it is written:

Romans 2:12-16

2:12For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

2:13(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

2:14For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

2:15Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another

2:16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Well, that's the whole thing. If we go into religious inquiry to find what suits us, or what we like, or what we want to follow, we're not really seeking truth. We're seeking our own will. And since we are not God, we are not qualified to do this. People do it every day, but it doesn't mean God will accept it. The authority on all things God is God Himself. The Bible still has authority over everyone. But people reject it and there is a day of reckoning. So it's important to think through why we believe what we do. Our choices about something don't make it true. The only thing that makes something true, is the truth. And about God, it has to come from God.

 

[Blissman]

Well, that's the whole thing. If we go into religious inquiry to find what suits us, or what we like, or what we want to follow, we're not really seeking truth. We're seeking our own will. And since we are not God, we are not qualified to do this. People do it every day, but it doesn't mean God will accept it. The authority on all things God is God Himself. The Bible still has authority over everyone. But people reject it and there is a day of reckoning. So it's important to think through why we believe what we do. Our choices about something don't make it true. The only thing that makes something true, is the truth. And about God, it has to come from God.

Or Ignorance.

 

[ACougar]

What makes you think I don't seek truth? We disagree, I do not find Christianity to be true. I make the best decision I can. My God does not need a "day of reckoning" She will always be with me, in me, and around me no matter how bad I screw things up. I will not accept a religion simply because I was born into it, I will not accept a religion out of fear for some "day of reckoning," nor will I choose a religion just because it has a few admirable traits. I will follow my heart, my intuition and my consious as best as I can. Wherever that takes me, there will I be.

Well, that's the whole thing. If we go into religious inquiry to find what suits us, or what we like, or what we want to follow, we're not really seeking truth. We're seeking our own will. And since we are not God, we are not qualified to do this. People do it every day, but it doesn't mean God will accept it. The authority on all things God is God Himself. The Bible still has authority over everyone. But people reject it and there is a day of reckoning. So it's important to think through why we believe what we do. Our choices about something don't make it true. The only thing that makes something true, is the truth. And about God, it has to come from God.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Hm. Maybe if you take another look at what I was saying; it wasn't a reflection on you, but on the methods we use to find truth, and why some are more effective than others. THis isn't personal at all, I can promise you that.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Or Ignorance.

Yes-well said.

 

[Smilin]

I believe that the Rede is an ethical statement which defines a moral code.

Agreed, as I follow the moral code of the wolf.

 

[ACougar]

It still seems to me that the primary differance between your methodology and mine is that you seem detrmined to rely on something outside yourself as your primary authority. Christianity is the dominant religion in this country and the Bible is therefor considered by most in our society to be "the" sacred scripture. Just as the Koran is "the" sacred scripture in Saudi Arabia. No disrespect toward either book intended, but why rely on the Divine inspiration given to others and then written down in a book when it's directly available?

Hm. Maybe if you take another look at what I was saying; it wasn't a reflection on you, but on the methods we use to find truth, and why some are more effective than others. THis isn't personal at all, I can promise you that.

 

[Myah]

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 never said that. We have to have laws, that is a given. Anarchy serves no purpose. What I find frustrating are when those laws are based on a religion that not everyone in the society follows.

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : Blissman

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.

To follow a set of rules supposedly set out by a deity is not in itself good. Worse if there is a supposed reward and/or punishment attached to these rules. Good people do not need a set of moral rules to follow, good people act in good ways because that is who they are. A good person does not engage in a cost/benefit analysis in deciding if a particular action is the right one to engage in, to do so is not the mark of a good person but of a self-serving person.

Morals are a set of codes that cannot be followed because no set of codes can ever be specific enough to be universal. Ethics are not about following or not following a set of rules it is about being responsible for one’s choices and actions.

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?

nothing is expected.

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?

Ethics are contextual. What is good/right in one situation may be wrong bad for a different person in a different situation. The only person who can effectively make a particular ethical decision is the single person making that particular ethical decision in that particular context.



There is no universal moral code because any such code cannot cover all situations, for all people, in all societies at all periods of time.

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

I cannot remember the source but one of my favorite sayings is “Morality is the fear that somewhere, someone is having a good time.”

 

[Volos]

Originally posted by : Whitehorse

Because we know it exists. Just the feeling of guilt testifies to our knowledge ot right and wrong.

No we don’t. YOU believe it exists but that does not make it so.

Okay, but you're changing the argument. I'd need to see verification of the 16 religions, but that's a topic for another day. You're seeing the surface, but not the core issue: Christianity is the only religion that does what we all know inherently needs to be done: atone for sin.

Once again it is your belief that somehow sin is not only possible but requires some sort of atonement, your belief does not make it a fact. We do not all know or believe or accept this at all.

Guilt alone testifies to sin. That's what guilt is. A remorseful sense of wrongdoing.

And what of sociopaths? Individuals who are incapable of feeling guilt. Are they incapable of ‘sin’ because they experience no guilt?

But isn't this really just a way of getting out of the rulership of those rules? THis is where I begin to answer Havoc's fine question of how we know the Bible is divinely inspired. For starters, the Bible and everything in it goes against the grain of everything dear to man. It pokes holes in his pride, it demands submission, and it takes his authority away.

Actually I have always felt that the bible and Christianity in general works very hard to stoke the egos of those who believe in it. Your religion states that humanity and thus you personally were created specially and separate from the rest of creation. It states that humanity was given domain over nature, made supernatural or literally above nature. In Christianity one achieves special status by being ‘born again’ and having a special personal relationship with a particular divine being. You have implied and plainly stated that the only way for others to become as ‘special’ as you is to agree with and follow what you believe, once again glorifying the self.

Well, that's the whole thing. If we go into religious inquiry to find what suits us, or what we like, or what we want to follow, we're not really seeking truth.

but this is eactly what you have done.

We're seeking our own will. And since we are not God, we are not qualified to do this. People do it every day, but it doesn't mean God will accept it. The authority on all things God is God Himself. The Bible still has authority over everyone. But people reject it and there is a day of reckoning. So it's important to think through why we believe what we do.

You are saying it is important to you that others believe what you believe.

Our choices about something don't make it true. The only thing that makes something true, is the truth. And about God, it has to come from God.

You have chosen Christianity, that does not make it true.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

It still seems to me that the primary differance between your methodology and mine is that you seem detrmined to rely on something outside yourself as your primary authority.

Well, can you claim to be the authority on God? Have you seen Him? Is there life on other planets? What truly is at the core of the earth-molten metal as is supposed? Please understand, I'm not being sarcastic here at all; I'm just demonstrating our inability to be the authority on God. We have to go to Him for that.

Christianity is the dominant religion in this country and the Bible is therefor considered by most in our society to be "the" sacred scripture. Just as the Koran is "the" sacred scripture in Saudi Arabia. No disrespect toward either book intended, but why rely on the Divine inspiration given to others and then written down in a book when it's directly available?

It isn't about that. I do have arguments to back these things up as to why these are false religions.

First of all, we all have an inate sense of guilt. Man wants to work it off, but knows internally that he cannot. Christianity is the only religion that provides the needed atonement, and we know intuitively that this is at the heart of religion: making peace with God.

And the Bible is not a book that pleases the flesh. It isn't written by men, for it does nothing and says nothing that man in his natural state deems to be in his interests. It pokes his pride; it requires things the natural spirit wars against. No man would make up a religion he couldn't keep, couldn't succeed at on his own, and on his own terms, and that would bring his pride so low, and esteem God so highly.

Any other religion is based on man, doing his own penance. Man's will. Based on ideas that please man, and are based, most noticably, on his works.

 

[ACougar]

Thousands of years before Jesus, there was another passion story told about a God man, born of a virgin mother, in a stable. He travels about with his followers, preaching and performing miracles, including turning water into wine. Eventually, he incurs the wrath of the religious authorities, who are appalled that he refers to himself as a god. He allows himself to be arrested and tried for blasphemy. He is found guilty and executed, only to rise from the grave three days later, where the women weeping at his tomb do not recognize him- that is, until he assumes his divine form- as the God Dionysus.

http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa052902a.htm

Dionysus, Mithras, Tammuz, Osirus, Bel, Oroin, Attis, Baldur. There is half of sixteen.

This scene (which is on the back of the cross as seen in the main picture) has alternative interpretations. Some authorities feel that it represents the rebirth of Baldur, who in Norse myth will re-order the world. Others believe it represents the crucifixion of Christ.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/cj.tolley/ctm/ctm-gosforth.htm