Is being Wiccan moral?

[Faith In God]

Jesus says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father, but by me." Jesus used the samaritan to illustrate who a neigbor is, not how to live. Whoever is to come to Christ must give all of himself to Jesus, and then follow His teachings in full. You cannot be living under Bhudda and Jesus at the same time. Only one master, remember.

 

[ACougar]

Jesus says "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father, but by me." Jesus used the samaritan to illustrate who a neigbor is, not how to live. Whoever is to come to Christ must give all of himself to Jesus, and then follow His teachings in full. You cannot be living under Bhudda and Jesus at the same time. Only one master, remember.

One Master and that is the Divine that is within, many examples though... Jesus, Bhudda, Lao Tsu....

 

[Havoc]

Emphasis on the above quote added by me.

So you're saying I claimed to be an authority unto myself? I have maintained from the beginning that the authority was God's, and that is the basis for my argument. Quote please, Havoc.

I believe you know quite well what I was referring to. You have maintained that your concept of authority, deriving from your concept of God, contained in your Bible, is the authority that must be used as the basis for comparison. You have not established that that position is valid, yet you insist that we all meet that standard.

Moreover, until you acknowledge what I have truly said, there is no debate. I already gave evidence. But you're not giving any kind of a rebuttal whatsoever except, "You first." That's not a rebuttal.

You did not give evidence, you gave a series of unsupported suppositions as to why such authority "must be", but did not provide any supporting evidence that they are true or valid,as I plainly pointed out in my rebuttal. You are correct that there can be no debate until you can establish that the standard you have set is a valid one. Moreover you already agreed to give objective evidence that this standard, the authority of your God as defined in your bible, is the correct one.

Are you reneging on this agreement? If so you cannot then keep insisting on this spurious "authority" as a valid arguement or standard. Your arguements would then be nothing more than fallaciy of appeal to authority, in this case a non-existent state of authority.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I believe you know quite well what I was referring to. You have maintained that your concept of authority, deriving from your concept of God, contained in your Bible, is the authority that must be used as the basis for comparison. You have not established that that position is valid, yet you insist that we all meet that standard.

Sit down, relax, have a cup of tea, and then come back and respond.
When you do, I'd like to point out what is in bold. four yous and yours in one sentence. Despite what you say you're trying to assert, this looks suspiciously like you're still trying to fit me into the same mold you use: that of self-authority.

Now for the italic bold. Quote please.

You did not give evidence, you gave a series of unsupported suppositions as to why such authority "must be", but did not provide any supporting evidence that they are true or valid,as I plainly pointed out in my rebuttal. You are correct that there can be no debate until you can establish that the standard you have set is a valid one. Moreover you already agreed to give objective evidence that this standard, the authority of your God as defined in your bible, is the correct one.

Are you reneging on this agreement? If so you cannot then keep insisting on this spurious "authority" as a valid arguement or standard. Your arguements would then be nothing more than fallaciy of appeal to authority, in this case a non-existent state of authority.

You still haven't answered my question. When you do, I will deliver it as promised. And, would you quit with the faux fallacies, already?

 

[Annabel Lee]

Is the Wiccan behaving morally? Then yes.

Is being Christian moral? If the Christian is behaving morally, then yes.

A religion or faith does not make a person moral or immoral.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Well, that brings us back to the authority issue. Because who defines morality? So it goes back to making sure it's truly God and not another spirit.

 

[Havoc]

Sit down, relax, have a cup of tea, and then come back and respond.
When you do, I'd like to point out what is in bold. four yous and yours in one sentence. Despite what you say you're trying to assert, this looks suspiciously like you're still trying to fit me into the same mold you use: that of self-authority.

Now for the italic bold. Quote please.



You still haven't answered my question. When you do, I will deliver it as promised. And, would you quit with the faux fallacies, already?

Ok then, your continuous runaround leaves us with only one reasonable conclusion, you cannot support your claim for authority.

OK folks, the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. Whitehorse has continually refused to make a basis for his claim of authority for almost a year now. For that length of time and more he has been insisting that any discussion of any other religion must be in terms that meet the standard of his version of what constitutes "God's Authority" and "Biblical Authority" et al, even though he has steadfastly refused to provide any reasonable basis for requiring such a standard. When pressed to do so he has done nothing but evade, weasel, appeal to fallacies of logic, and require the other person to answer ridiculous vagaries of questions before answering himself. This even after he has offered to actually provide evidence (which of course he has consistently failed to do). Any further reference by Whitehorse to "what authority?" or "God's Authority" od "Biblical authority" or any reference to authority is quite simply, spurious and ingenuine.

I humbly suggest to all that it is time to stop allowing Whitehorse to manipulate the conversation in this most ingenuine and dishonest manner. I suggest from now on that none of us permit himn to make his fallacy of appeal to authority unless he first proves the authority he is attempting to refer to.

You simply will not get any sort of decent debate out of him otherwise.

 

[Havoc]

Well, that brings us back to the authority issue. Because who defines morality? So it goes back to making sure it's truly God and not another spirit.

The authority question is moot. You cannot provide a basis for your appeal to authority.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

The authority question is moot. You cannot provide a basis for your appeal to authority.

You say it's moot because you know full well your entire worldview hangs on this very question. You're telling everyone that I have been unable to provide proof even though I've already answered the very question you insist I haven't answered, several posts ago. And you have offered no successful rebuttal of the proof I provided, in any regard.

In summary, if you have no refutation, none of the above tactics are going to make up for a lack of argument. There is absolutely no basis for a worldview built upon a god that is entirely dependent upon your preference, your will and your authority. Any such god is, as we know, yourself. Except the problem is, you're not god. Inasmuchas your god is one you *choose*, it is you. And that's really what this is about.

 

[Havoc]

You say it's moot because you know full well your entire worldview hangs on this very question. You're telling everyone that I have been unable to provide proof even though I've already answered the very question you insist I haven't answered, several posts ago. And you have offered no successful rebuttal of the proof I provided, in any regard.

What you offerred several posts ago was not "proof" by any reasonable standards. What you offered was a series of unsupported suppositions. Suppositions that are unsupported by objective evidence are not in the least any sort of proof.

What I provided in return was alternative explanations that were at least as likely and a rquest for you to support your suppositions, which you have yet to do. Instead you simply use your same old ploy, which is to continue to claim you have provided "proof". Sorry but evasions and fallacy don't cut it any more.

In summary, if you have no refutation, none of the above tactics are going to make up for a lack of argument.

In summary, if you have no evidence, none of the above tactics are going to make up for a lack of argument.

There is absolutely no basis for a worldview built upon a god that is entirely dependent upon your preference, your will and your authority.

Show that yours is any different. Show, using objective evidence, that yours is based, in any way, upon a God that is entirely dependant on a man's or mens, preferences, wills and authority. Once you manage that you can appeal to that authority, not before.

Any such god is, as we know, yourself.

Show, using objective evidence, that yours is different.

Except the problem is, you're not god. Inasmuchas your god is one you *choose*, it is you.

Please show that yours is different, otherwise your arguements apply as much to you as to me.

And that's really what this is about.

Yes it certainly is. Put up or shut up is a truism that should apply very well here. I won't be holding my breath.

 

[MorningStar334]

Osama bin Laden considers himself a moral person, too.

You can't depend on your own feelings and affirmations to determine whether or not you are truly moral.

Why not? So you should have people deciding for you? I don't agree with that, but respect your opinion. Being wiccan/pagan myself, I feel it is moral. But it all depends on your point of view and how you describe "moral".

 

[Volos]

originally posted by : Whitehorse

You say it's moot because you know full well your entire worldview hangs on this very question.

it does? Really?

You're telling everyone that I have been unable to provide proof even though I've already answered the very question you insist I haven't answered, several posts ago. And you have offered no successful rebuttal of the proof I provided, in any regard.

I read yoru post, you provided belief and opinion, not proof.

In summary, if you have no refutation, none of the above tactics are going to make up for a lack of argument.

Pot…meet Kettle

There is absolutely no basis for a worldview built upon a god that is entirely dependent upon your preference, your will and your authority.

I know of no religion or worldview based on such a concept.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Volos, this is the same thing I just addressed Havoc about. You made no refutation either. If my statements are merely opinions, then surely you can refute them with a concrete argument. If we're going to debate an issue, then lets debate it. But if you don't have a rebuttal, cosmetic statements like these only detract from the credibility of your argument. Detractions aren't debate and they don't achieve the purpose for which they are employed anyhow, so if you want to refute an argument with an argument, fine. Otherwise, let's please show respect for each other, and for each other's time.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Why not? So you should have people deciding for you? I don't agree with that, but respect your opinion. Being wiccan/pagan myself, I feel it is moral. But it all depends on your point of view and how you describe "moral".

And it goes back to the same question. Who is the authority on what is moral? What man can be an authority on the God he has never seen? It all goes right back to this.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Put up or shut up is a truism that should apply very well here. I won't be holding my breath.

And this is the fruit of your own personal morality. Your own do-as-you-please godhood.

(I rest my case.)

 

[ACougar]

Well, that brings us back to the authority issue. Because who defines morality? So it goes back to making sure it's truly God and not another spirit.

Attempt for one moment to take a totally neutral standpoint. You are presented with hundreds of religions, most with sacred scriptures... They all worship a variety of Gods, one supreme God or some variation thereof. Nor have you ever been exposed to the concept of sin. YOu know right and wrong and the idea that you reap what you sow, but sin is a forign concept.

From your words I gather that you believe you would choose Christianity because of it's unique blend regarding the state of man, right and wrong, and especially the concept of sin and redemption.

Choice.

At some point you made a decision. According to your beliefs the decision that you made will determin the destiny of your soul for all eternaty. If that's not being your own authority I don't know what is, after having made said momentus decision you have given up that authority and now accept the Bible as your authority. My point and most probably the point of many others here is that you have done nothing more than delegate your authority.

 

[Nightstrike]

hey wiccans here.
Ever heard of the theoscopical society?
well did you know gardner was associated with it?
ever heard of aliestar crowely?
did you know he was associated with that?(I think)

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Thank you for your post. And you raise a very good question here: how is Christianity unique in the department of choice?

We don't actually choose our faith. We simply acknowledge it as truth. We don't come to it because of what we like, or what we'll get out of it, or what it will allow us to give ourseves through it, but because it is the truth. (Although, some do come in hopes of what it will give them. But in the end they either give their lives to God, or see that they must do so and fall away to pursue what they desire.) There is subtle but powerful distinction there.

Thank you for raising a good question.

 

[ACougar]

How can you deny that you did not choose your faith when many who seek truth choose not to accept it? You statement does not make any sense at all.

Thank you for your post. And you raise a very good question here: how is Christianity unique in the department of choice?

We don't actually choose our faith. We simply acknowledge it as truth. We don't come to it because of what we like, or what we'll get out of it, or what it will allow us to give ourseves through it, but because it is the truth. (Although, some do come in hopes of what it will give them. But in the end they either give their lives to God, or see that they must do so and fall away to pursue what they desire.) There is subtle but powerful distinction there.

Thank you for raising a good question.

 

[ACougar]

hey wiccans here.
Ever heard of the theoscopical society?
well did you know gardner was associated with it?
ever heard of aliestar crowely?
did you know he was associated with that?(I think)

Yes, I and most Wiccans know about Theosophy, Gardners assocoation with Theosophy, Crowley, the Rosicrusions, and half a dozen other esoteric groups.

At the same time a Wiccans relationship with the Divine, thier Spirit guides and thier higher self has very little to do with Gardner. He has had an influence over the form and format of ritual and tradition, however at the heart of Wicca is each persons relationship with the Divine.