Views on Wicca

[KarrieTex]

Umm... religious beliefs are something you BELIEVE in, not something you KNOW.

Again that is bad logic. If I believe in it then I know it.

I know Christ came to die for my sins.

 

[*Starlight*]

Again that is bad logic. If I believe in it then I know it.

I know Christ came to die for my sins.

Here's an analogy:

I believe that there's life outside Earth.

AND

I don't know if there's life outside Earth, because the whole Universe hasn't been explored, so it's impossible to know for sure.

How's that bad logic?

 

[IamRedeemed]

Well, you see that is the difference between a religion and a relationship. As a Christian, faith in Jesus and His sacrifice, the Gospel message, is only required initially when you take that first step after hearing the good news and understanding your need for the sacrifice Jesus made at the cross, and knowing He is surely God, because He was resurrected and you repent and ask Jesus into your heart and life. At that time the Holy Spirit enters a person and their spirit is reborn and made ALIVE to the Lord, this is what it means to be "born again".

After that through His Word and fellowship with Him in talking with Him each day which may be referred to as "prayer", His existence is no longer an issue of faith, it is a confirmed reality. If you have not experienced that as a proclaimed Christian, and you would really like to know that you know that you know, that Jesus is real, and that walking with Him, is not just following "another religion", and you would like to experience His love for you and the guidance of His Holy Spirit, and a confirmation of just who He is in your spirit, I invite you to open your heart to Jesus, repent and invite Him into your life for real, that you may actually come to KNOW Him, in your inner most being, and not just in the form of head knowledge. Begin reading His Word daily and you will soon find that the Bible is not just an ordinary book, but it is alive, and you will find that the Lord will speak to you through His Word and you will train your newborn spiritual ears to hear His voice so that you may come to know Him and follow Him.
Jesus is a personal Savior and Lord. He cares about the little things as well as the big things in your life. When you are hurting and you know Him, you will find that He sticks closer than a brother, and His Holy Spirit will comfort you, guide you, give you wisdom if you will ask for it. If you would like to know THIS Jesus, then go ahead and begin talking to Him now.........open the door of your heart, and let Him in........

Umm... religious beliefs are something you BELIEVE in, not something you KNOW.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

it is different for different people, Take the blasphemous passion of the Christ movie that not only adds substantially to the scripture, but adds the entire narrative of sufferings, in the film. some seem to feel a connection to that sort of thing, you obviouslly do not, but the scriptures are for all people for all time, so while one portion may mean little to one person, it may be of extreme use to another.

Non sequitur. We are talking of the necessity of the crucifixion as a means to ensure salvation for humanity.

Again you are viewing things from the perspective of doubt, and then placing your own constraints upon them.

I am a scientist. Critical analysis ('the perspective of doubt') is the most logical tool to begin with. What constraints do you think I am placing upon the entity? If I am not mistake, Christianity teaches that it's god is omnibenevolent (all-loving), omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-encompassing), etc. If I am wrong, then I will happily revise this claim.

I am aware of the influence it had upon catholicism, and the incorporation of paganistic ideas into the faith leavening it. I am also aware of many of the pagan holidays being incorporated such as Ishtar.

Then do you not concede that the more... extreme traits attributed to Jesus were not simply borrowed from other cults and sects of the time?

I was not however aware of this, though it does shed light on constantines mas sprinkling "baptisms" of soldiers, as well as the baptism of all but the sword arm of some "christians".
However I fond no scriptural justification of warmongering in the spread of the gospel.

Nevertheless, Christianity seems to have been popular with soldiers. On an aside:
Exodus 17:16
"[T]he LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."
Is this not justification for warmongering (albiet only with Amalek)?

That is subject to interpretation. While I could pull the info on mithras and do a point by point comparison ,and contrast, i personally feel no need to waste the time with it, its like comparative religion, back when i saw all of the parallells between multiple faiths, I glossed over the differences, differences such as in your comparison.
As I stated in my last post, if the scripture is true then that means mithras is not of God, and if its not for Christ then it is against him, and who is it that makes the author of mithras?
I am sure you will call it simplistic, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to do some sort of exhaustive comparison and contrast of it, or all other religions, as I have already done so to the extent of the satisfaction of my own doubt.

As you wish.

As someone once told me in a reply that is a cop out, the accusation that the bible is used as a means to controll the masses is propaganda

Perhaps, but that is not my claim. I listed two uses for blind faith. I never said that those who follow the Bible blindly are having their blind faith used against them.

frankly, it cannot be maintained unless only 1 party has access to the scriptures themselves, like say the Jim Jones cult where he kept them away from his followers. if you believe otherwise then by all means provide some examples, but once I began to read them for myself I quickly dismissed that atheistic baseless nonsense.

Atheistic? An interesting choice of phrase.

A viewpoint you have incorporated into your world view through your indoctrination in evolution, the same could be said of our arms based on framing it through the presumptions of evolution.

Indeed. Human arms were once primarily used for support, not for manipulating the environment.
Tell me, do you opposed evolution merely because you see society as indoctrinating their children into it?

first off i am not convinced the verse is expressly speaking of locust.
however using your reply about the mantis the hind legs could also be considered modified limbs.

The Hebrews, I'm sure, did not have access to our technical dictionary. As for the verse:
Every teeming creature which is flying, which is going on four -- an abomination it [is] to you.
Leviticus 11:21-23
Only -- this ye do eat of any teeming thing which is flying, which is going on four, which hath legs above its feet, to move with them on the earth; these of them ye do eat: the locust after its kind, and the bald locust after its kind, and the beetle after its kind, and the grasshopper after its kind; and every teeming thing which is flying, which hath four feet -- an abomination it [is] to you.
I.e., we have:

• Lev 11:21 - you can't eat things which are teeming, flying, and use four legs to walk.
• Lev 11:22 - of said things, you can : locusts, bald locusts, beetles, and grasshoppers.
• Lev 11:23 - just to reiterate: all flying, teeming things which have four feet (i.e., walk on four limbs) except locusts etc, are not for eating.

I.e., L11:21-23 states that locusts are in the set of things which walk on four limbs. Reality, however, shows the locusts walk on six limbs.

I.e., an external contradiction. QED.

practically anyone in the TE sub forum. if the search function went back far enough I might could pull up some names , but you could possibly search it.

I also do not recall hearing an alternative explanation for "explosive" jumps in evolution in the so called fossil record.

What 'explosive jumps' are you referring to? Even the Cambrian explosion is a misnomer.

like I stated I have done some exploration into it ,and its notions, and found them flawed, but thats a whole other topic altogether.

I'm more than happy to continue via PM, if you wish.

breeding could also produce the same definition, however it does not involve new genetic information, only the reshuffling of already existing information and is not evolution.

I take it you've never heard of point mutation. Two of the three types of point mutations involve the change in the amount of genetic 'information'.
As an aside, could you explain what you mean by 'information'? When it comes to biology, this is as ill-defined as the term 'kinds'.

their is more involved than just genetics, the factors are exponentially expansive, but its a whole diatribe, and I say blaaa

Quite.

I was just being simplistic, as the factors are ridiculously complex.

Quite frankly, I don't see the need to analogise at all.

well one I had decided to "create" some aliens for a story a friend was working on, back when i fancied that sort of thing, and I was dissatisfied with how most aliens are portrayed as having characteristics that were not so alien, so I though I would wind the clock back to the beginning. But kept running into problems when fast forwarding the project in the absence of a preconceived system.

You fail to grasp my point. It is blatently obvious that if you take a relatively complex biological (or, indeed, non-biological) system, and remove some of the parts, then the system will 'fail'. You seem to think that this is a disproof of evolutionary theory. Why?

Got to love how their defence of evolution hinges on the foundation that they are not explaining abiogenesis or life origin,

I sense derision. Does the theory of gravity explain the origin of mass? No. Then why should the theory of evolution explain the origin of replicating systems?

particularly when if one investigates the problems with evolution from abiogenesis, and the flaws inherent with that , that it falls apart.

Please, do elaborate.

a system is an inherent requirement for evolution to even function,

Clarification: a replicating system is required for evolution to occur.

I find it fundamentally flawed that evolutionist have zero problem with having a theory based upon zero foundation, (the relegation that origin does not matter to evolution)

Clearly you have never heard of axiomatic mathematics.

When without origin to set up and define the said syetems they believe to see evolution occuring inside of, it is merely a notion, and has little meaning, except of course to financial and busness gain,

On the contrary, it explains preciesly the biological diversity of modern Earth.

I suppose that if you are basing it on that notion then you would consider me a creationist, though I have many problems with the more popular ones. I would liken it to where I have been called a fundamentalist, and I frankly don't feel the vast majority are fundamental enough in the scriptures.
However as the scriptures tell me to only be concerned wih being called a Christian, I tend to avoid other labels.

Nevertheless, you are a Fundamentalist Creationist. Any connotations that go with such a double-barreled title is purely sterotypical.
Though the fact that your CF Character holds a sign saying 'Repent' is most telling.
As an aside, what is your stance on homosexuality, and the civil rights thereof?

no I just abandoned the debates of the issue,
I came to my conclusions independently.

Admirable, if doubtful.

or foolish, limited evidence is just that limited.

This implies, of course, that you are privy to bonus knowledge. Pray tell, how is our evidence 'limited'?

I am probably going to regret this , but
what?

I don't understand the question.

 

[chris777]

Non sequitur. We are talking of the necessity of the crucifixion as a means to ensure salvation for humanity.

it is still your opinion of how and why divine power be used. I was stating that the cross is not only significant because of why he died on it, but how, some feel connected to it. I saw meaning in it in the sense that it defies convention of what a hero should do and be thus sticking out from the crowd and distinguishing itself as unique among the rest.

I am a scientist. Critical analysis ('the perspective of doubt') is the most logical tool to begin with. What constraints do you think I am placing upon the entity?

all of the above.
you were not born a scientist, you became one, and have brought all of your thinking in line with that.

If I am not mistake, Christianity teaches that it's god is omnibenevolent (all-loving), omnipotent (all-powerful), omniscient (all-knowing), omnipresent (all-encompassing), etc. If I am wrong, then I will happily revise this claim.

you are basing your opinion of how you would do the acts with the power of God, But he can do as he pleases, it is also in many cases done for our benefit, to instruct us.

Then do you not concede that the more... extreme traits attributed to Jesus were not simply borrowed from other cults and sects of the time?

No because I believe the scriptures. For example
Their are extant flood accounts apart from the bible, that does not make them accurate, as God chose moses to Provide the Genesis account. As well as other events he did not personally witness, bur were revealed to him through the inspiration from God.
Satan has consistently cast doubt upon the word of God from the beginning, starting with Eve.
I see every other religion a product of his efforts to dissuade as many as possible from the truth, just as he did in the Garden.

Nevertheless, Christianity seems to have been popular with soldiers. On an aside:
Exodus 17:16
"[T]he LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation."
Is this not justification for warmongering (albiet only with Amalek)?

it is also under the old covenant Where God directly instructed them through the prophets to Go to war.
I am not a pacifist other than by instruction from the Scriptures. We are told vengeance belongs to God, and that we are to share the Gospel with all nations before the end comes.

When the end comes, and Christ returns, if he instructs me to go to war directly, then I go to war., but that season is not upon us yet.
And their are several verses instruction us otherwise until that point.
It is similar to the obeying the Governing authorities placed over us.
We are never told to rebel, unless said government tells us to violate Gods commandments to us.

Perhaps, but that is not my claim. I listed two uses for blind faith. I never said that those who follow the Bible blindly are having their blind faith used against them.

well considering I have tested the scriptures , I guess no longer blindly follow them.

Atheistic? An interesting choice of phrase.

The claim that the bible is a method of controlling the masses, was one of the most common claims I had heard from atheist, but now that you mention It I guess that claim could have originated from a false religion, and they just picked up on it themselves, I haven't looked into its origin, just its validity.

Indeed. Human arms were once primarily used for support, not for manipulating the environment.
Tell me, do you opposed evolution merely because you see society as indoctrinating their children into it?

no I used to support it, I just see it as another case of blind faith, all these claims are made, and drawings, and now videos provided, and they all speak of and demonstrate this concept, that very few investigate directly, they just accept it after frequent repetition, and propaganda (images like the evolution man drawing, and now many videos with cgi) as evidence.


I stopped here as you indicated desire to discuss further via pm, and I want to look up more in hebrew when I have more time to

as for some other replies to non evolution issues

Nevertheless, you are a Fundamentalist Creationist. Any connotations that go with such a double-barreled title is purely sterotypical.

I cannot change how others choose to stereotype me, but I have issues with both creationist, and fundamentalist, but I recognize how the stereotype might arise.

Though the fact that your CF Character holds a sign saying 'Repent' is most telling.
As an aside, what is your stance on homosexuality, and the civil rights thereof?

It is a sin, and while I don't agree with the notion of it being a civil right, I realize enough people are swept up into the whole sympathy aspect of it, to likely give it a status it may not deserve.
the whole marriage thing is abomination frankly, but society will continue to eat it up.

Admirable, if doubtful.

If I am questioning the propaganda aspect of It why would I not look into it for myself?

This implies, of course, that you are privy to bonus knowledge. Pray tell, how is our evidence 'limited'?

its incomplete, and speculative

I don't understand the question.

what did wicca deliver to you?

 

[DMagoh]

My cousin is Pagan, Wiccan, and specifically a Druid. She's one of the nicest, most understanding people I've ever met and she's my closest cousin. Now I've been asking her about her beliefs and common base beliefs of Wiccans. And all the devil worshiping sacrificing babies garbage that's thrown around when a person hears 'Wicca' is false. It's actually a very free and spiritual faith. I'm looking more and more into it myself.

Now what are your views on it?

Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6

Well, according to the verse above, Wiccans will not make it to heaven.

 

[Drummerdave96]

I don't agree with anything having to do with wicca, but I will say this.
I have been around many pagans, and people who practice wicca, and they have a more loving community, and are more accepting of others than any christian church I've ever walked into. I'm not glorifying those who practice wicca, I'm rebuking myself, and other followers of Christ, for not folliwing Christ by loving others. We think of the outside world of pagans, wiccans, druggies, or whoever, as dark and horrible compared to our own churches. But in fact, they resemble God's love more than we as christians do (generally speaking).
So, what does that say about us....

 

[chris777]

I don't agree with anything having to do with wicca, but I will say this.
I have been around many pagans, and people who practice wicca, and they have a more loving community, and are more accepting of others than any christian church I've ever walked into. I'm not glorifying those who practice wicca, I'm rebuking myself, and other followers of Christ, for not folliwing Christ by loving others. We think of the outside world of pagans, wiccans, druggies, or whoever, as dark and horrible compared to our own churches. But in fact, they resemble God's love more than we as christians do (generally speaking).
So, what does that say about us....

we all need to repent.

the church I have been attending has been pretty friendly, but no one has offered me any assistance in my time of need,

but should I judge them any more than those who judge the church as being hypocritical?
we are all in need of repenting of something

 

[Apollo Celestio]

Don't have a quote but someone said magicks is to wicca as prayer is to Christianity, both not neccesary(sp?), I disagree. While I know not whether magicks are important to wiccans, but prayer IS neccesary and VERY important. I can't imagine christianity without prayer.(Don't take this statement wrong..)

 

[Drummerdave96]

we all need to repent.

the church I have been attending has been pretty friendly, but no one has offered me any assistance in my time of need,

but should I judge them any more than those who judge the church as being hypocritical?
we are all in need of repenting of something

I believe you're right, instead of blaming groups of people, we all need to say to ourselves "I am the problem" before anything can fixed.

 

[chris777]

I believe you're right, instead of blaming groups of people, we all need to say to ourselves "I am the problem" before anything can fixed.

we start here
Matt 7:
[3] And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
[4] Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
[5] Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

and then we move on to the body, and then the world.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Don't have a quote but someone said magicks is to wicca as prayer is to Christianity, both not neccesary(sp?), I disagree. While I know not whether magicks are important to wiccans, but prayer IS neccesary and VERY important. I can't imagine christianity without prayer.(Don't take this statement wrong..)

For the record, it's magick, singular, and while it isn't necessary for a Wiccan to practice a system of magick (witchcraft, shamanism, druidism, voudoun, etc), it is very common for a Wiccan to practice witchcraft.

I have heard the comparison, and I think you have misunderstood it: it is more to link the effects of prayer and magick, than the cause of praying or spellcasting. An example:
If confronted by a sick relative, a Christian may pray to their god for healing, while a Witch might call on [SIZE=-1]Diancecht to aid in a healing spell. In this way, the spell and the prayer are very similar: enticing divine energy to aid in healing.
However, like you implied, Christians pray for the sake of communicating with their deitiy, which Witches rarely do.
[/SIZE]

 

[chris777]

For the record, it's magick, singular, and while it isn't necessary for a Wiccan to practice a system of magick (witchcraft, shamanism, druidism, voudoun, etc), it is very common for a Wiccan to practice witchcraft.

Funny you should mention shamanism as I has a spirit guide for a while, before realizing it was demonic

I have heard the comparison, and I think you have misunderstood it: it is more to link the effects of prayer and magick, than the cause of praying or spellcasting. An example:
If confronted by a sick relative, a Christian may pray to their god for healing, while a Witch might call on [SIZE=-1]Diancecht to aid in a healing spell. In this way, the spell and the prayer are very similar: enticing divine energy to aid in healing.
However, like you implied, Christians pray for the sake of communicating with their deitiy, which Witches rarely do.[/SIZE]

this section puzzled me
first when you spoke about a wiccan praying to the demon, and then when you spoke like it was not a diety they prayed to.
[SIZE=-1][/SIZE]

 

[Wiccan_Child]

]it is still your opinion of how and why divine power be used. I was stating that the cross is not only significant because of why he died on it, but how, some feel connected to it. I saw meaning in it in the sense that it defies convention of what a hero should do and be thus sticking out from the crowd and distinguishing itself as unique among the rest.

Deriving meaning from it is one thing, but claiming that the events were necessary is another. I can draw meaning from the Qu'ran if I so wish, but I don't see the events therein as necessary.

all of the above.
you were not born a scientist, you became one, and have brought all of your thinking in line with that.

Indeed. Can you explain to me why critical analysis shouldn't be employed? Bearing in mind that this is a rather extraordinary claim.

you are basing your opinion of how you would do the acts with the power of God, But he can do as he pleases, it is also in many cases done for our benefit, to instruct us.

No. Omnibenevolence, for example, restricts actions to those that do not increase evil (insofar as evil has a numerical value). One may argue that the ends justify the means (a little evil now, a lot of good later, say), but this is negated by omnipotence: the being doesn't need to induce evil to create the goodness is desires (and it does desire goodness, since it is omnibenevolent).
So ascribing such logical abosolutes to an entity restricts it's variety of actions.

No because I believe the scriptures.

Your choice.

For example Their are extant flood accounts apart from the bible, that does not make them accurate, as God chose moses to Provide the Genesis account.

A strange point. First, few flood myths portray a global deluge. Second, the Genesis account of the Flood, while theoretically possible, contradicts reality. One must resort to 'goddidit' to reconcile reality and the Genesis account. Personally, I'm more inclined to believe what's in front of my eyes.

I see every other religion a product of his efforts to dissuade as many as possible from the truth, just as he did in the Garden.

Is this your independant analysis, or do you broadbrush as per your faith?

well considering I have tested the scriptures , I guess no longer blindly follow them.

How does one test text?

The claim that the bible is a method of controlling the masses, was one of the most common claims I had heard from atheist, but now that you mention It I guess that claim could have originated from a false religion, and they just picked up on it themselves, I haven't looked into its origin, just its validity.

Perhaps you didn't read my last post:
I never said that those who follow the Bible blindly are having their blind faith used against them.
I said that blind faith in and of itself may be used as a tool.

no I used to support it, I just see it as another case of blind faith, all these claims are made, and drawings, and now videos provided, and they all speak of and demonstrate this concept, that very few investigate directly, they just accept it after frequent repetition, and propaganda (images like the evolution man drawing, and now many videos with cgi) as evidence.

So because there are visual aids, it's wrong? You realise, of course, that not everyone has the time, nor the inclination, to form theories for themselves before they believe them. I believed in Einstein's Relativistic theories long before I understood the proof.

I stopped here as you indicated desire to discuss further via pm, and I want to look up more in hebrew when I have more time to

I'm always free. Except when I'm not.

I cannot change how others choose to stereotype me, but I have issues with both creationist, and fundamentalist, but I recognize how the stereotype might arise.

To their defense, I'm pleased that all but the most ignorant of Creationist Fundamentalists reject Hovind as a legitimate spokesperson. At least they have some rationale.

It is a sin, and while I don't agree with the notion of it being a civil right, I realize enough people are swept up into the whole sympathy aspect of it, to likely give it a status it may not deserve.
the whole marriage thing is abomination frankly, but society will continue to eat it up.

You make it sound like society is being tricked.

If I am questioning the propaganda aspect of It why would I not look into it for myself?

I was referring to your conclusion.

its incomplete, and speculative

On the contrary, evidence is evidence; it can be no more. You can add more data that support the conclusion drawn from the initial data, but the datum point itself is just that: a point. It can't be 'completed'.

what did wicca deliver to you?

Wicca talks of duotheisms, and the rhythms of nature, and the reality of magick, etc. All of these I have felt, and am feeling.
Christianity talks of being filled with the Holy Spirit, a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, a 'knowing' of the accuracy of Scripture, etc. None of these I felt when I was Christian.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Funny you should mention shamanism as I has a spirit guide for a while, before realizing it was demonic

Quite.

this section puzzled me
first when you spoke about a wiccan praying to the demon, and then when you spoke like it was not a diety they prayed to.

Several things: First, I refered only to Witches, not Wiccans. Second, [SIZE=-1]Diancecht is an Irish god, not a Christian demon. Third, while a Witch may call upon a deity for aid, they do not necessarily have to worship them. Fourth, the entities called upon by the Witch and the Christian are deities.
[/SIZE]

 

[Chie]

Wiccan_child you have made reference to not being able feel and experience in the Lord what christians do. This is not the fault of God. You need to ask your self "why can't I have these things"? You will get your answer, no doubt.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiccan_child you have made reference to not being able feel and experience in the Lord what christians do. This is not the fault of God. You need to ask your self "why can't I have these things"? You will get your answer, no doubt.

Aye, I did ask. The answer, I concluded, was that the god of Judaeo-Christianity does not exist.

 

[SpazNStuff]

Aye, I did ask. The answer, I concluded, was that the god of Judaeo-Christianity does not exist.

What god do you believe in then?
You can't logically deny that Jesus Christ lived. That's like denying that Benjamin Franklin lived, simply because you've never seen him.
You CAN logically deny that he was God's son, and essentially God himself, but that doesn't make it true by any means.

 

[Chie]

Aye, I did ask. The answer, I concluded, was that the god of Judaeo-Christianity does not exist.

Because of your lack of faith and beleiveth you rejected the One and only True God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

What god do you believe in then?

The two primary deities of Wicca.

You can't logically deny that Jesus Christ lived.

Of course I can. There is no evidence that he existed. However, what is the point of this statement? I said I rejected the existance of the Judaeo-Christian god, but I said nothing about Jesus.

That's like denying that Benjamin Franklin lived, simply because you've never seen him.

Indeed. However, Franklin has independant contemporary accounts to verify his existance. It is possible he didn't exist, but the evidence is rather in his favour.
And it is here that your analogy is flawed: the evidence almost conclusively points to the existance of Franklin, but no evidence points to the physical existance of Jesus (let alone his alleged divinity).
Furthermore, to say that it is illogical to deny his existance is absurd: I can deny his existance because his existance is not proven.

You CAN logically deny that he was God's son, and essentially God himself, but that doesn't make it true by any means.

And neither do the affirmations that Jesus was God's son, and God exists, make them true.