Is being Wiccan moral?

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I'm not asking for accpetance of pagan worldviews, or even the respect of the religion itself. I'm asking for respect of the people practicing it. That's all. I'm not condemning your views, as I said before, I respect your opinion in disagreeing with pagans, etc.,

For a Christian I'm not seeing much compliance with the Christian viewpoint.

I am merely frustrated by the lack of courtesy you present to them in substitute of judgement and condemnation.

I'm just wondering if I'm reading that the way you meant it to be read...

You can tell them Jesus is the way and the truth, but you can't force them to believe it - by either repeating it or posting verse after verse.

I have made several posts regarding this. So, I need a quote, by me, that demonstrates that the way you've represented me.

A great quote I found on a Bible help site " If you are respectful and fair in the way you treat someone, they will be open to what you have to say. If, on the other hand, you are unfair and disrespectful to those around you, they will not be interested in what you have to say, including the gospel."
Which illustrates my opinion even further.

But I'm seeing a lack of love for the truth, and a lot of placating. What does your *Bible* say? If you're going to say you represent Christ, shouldn't you have some basic information, first, on what He expects of you?

My experience with Christianity is love, mercy and humility. Not complete condemnation of differences.

Complete condemnation of differences. Quote, please.

As far as I've been taught, love is not just reserved for other Christians, but for all. (and I'll play your game here love thy neighbor as thyself --- brought up innumerable times throughout the bible - must I enter all the verses? )

I don't think you understand what love means. You've misrepresented me, using the harshest language you can find, all the while telling me you're not condemning me, but accusing me of "complete condemnation" without, apparently, having read any of the posts. Losing a debate is one thing, but this is particularly poor form. You talk about humility, but...

Not to mention, I sincerely wish you would stop calling the level of my faith into question (and in a roundabout way accusing me of not being a "real" Christian) just based on the fact that I do not believe exactly as you do.

It's your doctrine. You call it "level of faith," and so does Katherine, but neither of you seem to understand the most basic Christian doctrines, an yet you're professing it. This isn't how much faith you have, it's what you're putting your faith in, which is not Christian.

I've said all I can say, it's getting redundant when there are no new arguements really being presented. So I would rather agree to disagree at this point.
Obviously you are steadfast in your opinions as am I, congrats.

Take care

The difference is, everything I've professed came from the authority of scripture. What's your authority? You stated it already: personal opinion. It's really important to find out what Christianity is, and what it requires of you before you profess it.

 

[UberLutheran]

If I were to be given the choice of:

1) the Wiccan who earnestly follows and practices the Wiccan Rede, e.g.,

Bide within the Law you must, in perfect Love and perfect Trust.
Live you must and let to live, fairly take and fairly give.

and​

These Eight words the Rede fulfill:
"An Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will"

and

2) some of the professing Christian soldiers in Iraq, particularly those in Al Gharib Prison (under the auspices of our Christian President), who have:
- beaten some prisoners to a pulp with rifle butts,
- sexually abused other prisoners,
- tortured still other prisoners to death,
- gunned down a wedding party "by mistake",
- shot up ambulances bringing food, water and medical aid to hungry and injured civilians,
- and then took the food and water intended for those civilians;

it would be very difficult for me to make the case that the Christians were more moral.

31 "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then will he sit on the throne of his glory.
32 Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then the King will tell them on his right hand, 'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
35 for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in;
36 naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.'
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink?
38 When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'
40 The King will answer them, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'
41 Then will he say also to them on the left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels;
42 for I was hungry, and you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink;
43 I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'
44 Then will they also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not help you?'
45 Then will he answer them, saying, 'Most assuredly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of these least, you didn't do it to me.'
46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

So, you're comparing false professors with wicca. Where do you stand on comparing wicca with what scripture actually says about it?

 

[Sola Scriptura]

So, you're comparing false professors with wicca. Where do you stand on comparing wicca with what scripture actually says about it?

Whitehorse is very keen, intelligent, and quickfooted. A noble steed.

_______________________________________________________________
"As to homosexuality making an untenible society please check out the Spartans...Or even the Roman and Greek societies where the love of a beautiful lad was the purest love around ...while you may not be happy about it, there are millions and millions of Americans who do not find such "acts"disgusting." -mpshiel-

"...God is not as absolute on what marriage HAS to be as many Christians are..." -mpshiel-

"I have a few 18+ movies in my DVD collection. Actually I think "Better than Chocolate"
(available at most internet retailers near you) is an 18 plus..." -mpshiel-

"Before the groans, I do not normally post from gay365.com but..." -mpshiel-

"...can anyone please bring a scripture saying that gender alteration is sin?" -mpshiel-

Brevity and proper grammar are the core of comprehension

 

[Spike~]

Modern day Wicca is only less than a hundred years old, but it's based off a 3 thousand year old religion.


{edit} LMAO! I responded to a post on page 5!

 

[transientlife]

I didn't come to this debate to win or lose whatever it is that's supposed to be won. I came here to tell my opinion on something and try to understand the opinions of others with some fun debate thrown in. I do imagine we're right back to where we started as far as the whole "what authority do you use" and "what does your bible say" . 80some pages and no true progress in understanding, IMO. And not to mention we're way off of the topic and have been since about page 20. I've said what I have to say, many times, obviously we disagree, and like I said before, I'll agree to disagree.
My language isn't meant to be harsh, I'm just typing as I see it. If it comes across as harsh to you, I apologize.

 

[transientlife]

I didn't realize you could misinterpret a simple idea such as love. Since you are the bible scholar here obviously, then please do share with me the correct meaning of the term. I find it hard to understand what is so unchristian about extending courtesy to all, regardless of faith. Why not share with me what is so wrong about that, as well? I interpret "love thy neighbor as thy self" as the golden rule, treating someone how you would prefer to be treated. Please, then, since I'm so terribly wrong about it, enlighten me to your ideas.

 

[Schism]

Transient is dead-on. She is the model christian here, loving those of difference, those who insult, and those who comply. At least somebody is here.

As for the Bible lackeys, well what more needs be said? If reading a book makes you a good person, I abdicate. If looking at pages and writing what is written already makes you smart, I stand corrected. However, in the meantime, I will be out in public doing something worthwhile.

Yet I do not deny the influence and power of a book; therefore I challenge those who denounce Wiccan (or any other religion) to take the time to carefully study their texts and compare what you find. Until you have both sides it is difficult to ascertain the situation. Or as my pastor said, there's a reason the cop asks both people.

Which begs another point--I am presenting things as my pastor personally taught me (and others in the Church) to believe. Therefore, when you disagree with me, you really disagree with the Church itself. However you are Calvinist and not Roman Catholic, so its not exactly the same, but I do tend to believe my pastor and the others involved know far more than you could ever teach me.

 

[Rae]

Transient is dead-on. She is the model christian here, loving those of difference, those who insult, and those who comply. At least somebody is here.

Katharine is, too.

Those who insult I would recommend adding to your ignore list. I have no problems adding insulting people to mine.

Roman Catholics, in my experience, are either black or white, wonderful or utterly scary people. On one side, you have Andrew Greeley, Matthew Fox, and Roger Ebert; on the other, you have Cardinal Ratzinger, William Donohoe, and their cronies.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

I didn't realize you could misinterpret a simple idea such as love. Since you are the bible scholar here obviously, then please do share with me the correct meaning of the term. I find it hard to understand what is so unchristian about extending courtesy to all, regardless of faith. Why not share with me what is so wrong about that, as well? I interpret "love thy neighbor as thy self" as the golden rule, treating someone how you would prefer to be treated. Please, then, since I'm so terribly wrong about it, enlighten me to your ideas.

How would you like it if your soul were emperiled, and yet someone who knows the truth patted your back and placated you into continuing on the road you were on? That's what youre' doing. You have no Christian doctrine. Your one mission is to placate pagans. Do you have any idea what that costs them?

Getting to know what love is, comes the same way as knowing what truth is: through His word. You're trying to fit His word into your own agenda-not a winning cause. Moreover, Jesus is Savior and Lord, both. You don't get one without the other. Professing the truth while leading others down the wrong road, isn't love. And you're more accountable before God than they, because you have had access to the truth, and professed to be in possession of the truth.

WHen you fight against God's spokespersons who give His word, (and by the way, you're supposed to be one of those spokespersons, too) you're fighting against God. Have you thought about that?

 

[Schism]

I've thought that you're a loser whitehorse. You're not a spokesperson for God, you're a person sitting at a computer acting like a scholar. Transient, Katie, and people like me listen to real people, namely those who are credited and those who hold position.

I may insult you, but you've insulted everyone that hasn't kissed yer rear.

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

And, your opinion is very important to me.

Do I detect a hint of jealousy?

 

[doulos]

I've thought that you're a loser whitehorse. You're not a spokesperson for God, you're a person sitting at a computer acting like a scholar. Transient, Katie, and people like me listen to real people, namely those who are credited and those who hold position.

I may insult you, but you've insulted everyone that hasn't kissed yer rear.

Although you show yourself really insulting and ill-mannered, I will take you at your own words. If you had lived in the times of my Lord Jesus Christ, you would have sided with the lawyers and accredited official people, and gone against that Radical One and His band of untaught fisherment and assorted oddies ...

Too bad of a principle. True wisdom begins with the fear of the Lord, not with the fear of man. ...

doulos

 

[Volos]

So, you're comparing false professors with wicca. Where do you stand on comparing wicca with what scripture actually says about it?

so you are the judge of who is and who is not a true Christian?

 

[transientlife]

How would you like it if your soul were emperiled, and yet someone who knows the truth patted your back and placated you into continuing on the road you were on? That's what youre' doing. You have no Christian doctrine. Your one mission is to placate pagans. Do you have any idea what that costs them?

I still don't get the connection you're making between some of the terminology, namely equating courtesy with kinship/placating/affirmation, and on a long shot - the denial of Christianity. It seems as if you regard nonChristians as seeking out affirmation from others that their beliefs are ok, and so on. In my experience, I haven't run into many atheists or pagans who are looking for affirmation. Most of them are as secure and staunch in their faiths as you and I are in ours. Neither one of us are going around looking for affirmation that being Christian is ok, either, you know? My mission is not to placate pagans, fellow Christians [of varying degrees ], atheists or anyone else, it is to treat everyone with courtesy and how I expect to be treated, regardless of faith. My Christian doctrine just seems a tad more liberal than yours, not nonexistent. Thanks so much for the continual denouncements. Might I add here [again, and like I say in nearly EVERY post] that you can tell a pagan - or whoever the nonChristian is - that they are wrong, they are 'lost', however you want to word it. You can lead them to Jesus/God, but you can't make them believe. Just as someone could introduce you to Allah or Buddha, doesn't mean you will necessarily convert in a miraculous change of heart. They could tell you that you were lost and hellbound (which, I'm fairly certain in according to Islam, we are) and they'd probably get the same response from you as you would from them with such a proclamation. Some people will never believe - and sure it's a sad thing to us Christians, however it is also the reality of the world - but you can't make them convert. It's great to talk to people about Christianity, I have no problem with that. All we Christians can do is try , but we can't force it upon the unwilling heart. In the end I think people ultimately have to come to God of their own volition. We can give them the directions on how to get there, but we can't walk the path for them.
With this in mind... since you seem equate common human courtesy with placating/kinship/promoting, etc. how should we Christians treat/interact with those of differing beliefs, especially those who are devout in their particular faith and aren't interested in converting?

Getting to know what love is, comes the same way as knowing what truth is: through His word. You're trying to fit His word into your own agenda-not a winning cause. Moreover, Jesus is Savior and Lord, both. You don't get one without the other. Professing the truth while leading others down the wrong road, isn't love. And you're more accountable before God than they, because you have had access to the truth, and professed to be in possession of the truth

Ok, I don't believe I ever said that Jesus wasn't Savior and Lord, for one thing. I don't profess to know THE TRUTH - because I don't think we will know all of THE TRUTH...ever...until after death - and I don't plan on leading anyone anywhere proclaiming I know all there is to know about THE TRUTH. Jesus is Lord and Savior - he died on the cross for all of our sins, that's one truth I'm completely certain of. I can introduce them to Christianity, but it should be upon them to be active in learning about it, and not let someone else spoonfeed everything to them - which would be a foolish undertaking in some respects. As far as the accountability, refer to above response.
and for sake of the 'game' Ezekiel 33:9 states "Nevertheless, if thou warn the wicked of his way to turn from it; if he do not turn from his way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul."
So (as I read the passage) even God seems to recognize his followers can only do so much to bring people to him.

WHen you fight against God's spokespersons who give His word, (and by the way, you're supposed to be one of those spokespersons, too) you're fighting against God. Have you thought about that?

I'm not fighting against any spokesperson, I'm expressing my faith as how I've interpreted it so far in my life. By the way, Romans 14 is a very interesting chapter.

 

[UberLutheran]

So, you're comparing false professors with wicca. Where do you stand on comparing wicca with what scripture actually says about it?

I would be more inclined to take fundamentalists and evangelicals seriously if they actually practiced the love and tolerance they preach -- instead of the phony and hypocritical "love the sinner and hate the sin" which apparently has given them license to commit the atrocities in Al Gharib Prison (or support the people who committed the atrocities).

Frankly, I don't see many Wiccans doing these kinds of things to people (or supporting the actions of those who do these things).

"By their works you will know them." (Matthew 7:16).

 

[UberLutheran]

And, your opinion is very important to me.

Do I detect a hint of jealousy?

Could you tell me which fruit of the Spirit, e.g., "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control" your response to schism was demonstrating?

I'm a bit confused. Must be an Arminian thing...

 

[doulos]

I would be more inclined to take fundamentalists and evangelicals seriously if they actually practiced the love and tolerance they preach -- instead of the phony and hypocritical "love the sinner and hate the sin" which apparently has given them license to commit the atrocities in Al Gharib Prison (or support the people who committed the atrocities).

Frankly, I don't see many Wiccans doing these kinds of things to people (or supporting the actions of those who do these things).

"By their works you will know them." (Matthew 7:16).

I would take exception to your identification of people commiting the atrocities at the Al Gharib Prison with fundamentalists or evangelicals. I for one would refuse any connection with people doing something against the spirit of Christ, which is exactly "love the sinner and hate the sin". Or, would you mean that Christ loved the sinner and the sin as well????

You are setting a straw man, and what is worse, you know it. This is nothing short of slander ...(where is the love and tolerance that you so much boast of?? You do seem to be quite selective in regards on whom you show your love and tolerance ...). It describes you, not evangelicals or true fundamentalists, which, as such, would be fundamental in following Christ, in teaching, in admonishing, in showing the fact that the Lord will judge, but that now He is extending His gracious offer of pardon to all ...

Cordially,

doulos

 

[UberLutheran]

I would take exception to your identification of people commiting the atrocities at the Al Gharib Prison with fundamentalists or evangelicals. I for one would refuse any connection with people doing something against the spirit of Christ, which is exactly "love the sinner and hate the sin". Or, would you mean that Christ loved the sinner and the sin as well????

You are setting a straw man, and what is worse, you know it. This is nothing short of slander ...(where is the love and tolerance that you so much boast of?? You do seem to be quite selective in regards on whom you show your love and tolerance ...). It describes you, not evangelicals or true fundamentalists, which, as such, would be fundamental in following Christ, in teaching, in admonishing, in showing the fact that the Lord will judge, but that now He is extending His gracious offer of pardon to all ...

Cordially,

doulos

"love the sinner and hate the sin" -- at least the way it is practiced and applied in much of the conservative and evangelical community today.

Your friend,

UL

 

[TheOriginalWhitehorse]

Could you tell me which fruit of the Spirit, e.g., "love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control" your response to schism was demonstrating?

I'm a bit confused. Must be an Arminian thing...

Ohhhhhh...you're an arminian..Lutheran? That's unusual. Anyway, what was wrong with what I said? Or, is this a diversion from the actual debate?