Shven

Nobody is claiming that Wiccans and witches and such (oh my! - sorry, had to do it) can raise the dead. The argument is whether attempting to raise the dead is a wiccan practise. Well, that was the discussion once.

liquid

Yeah I know, it was just a funny thought, a bunch of people standing around doing all sorts of ritual mumbo-jumbo and then..........

nothing.

The anticlimax would be quite amusing! But it's just an offhand comment.

Crucifiction

Umm... why?


So you deny that the fluffies are, in fact, Wiccan? Who are YOU to say that?

As far as I'm concerned, a Wiccan is anybody that claims s/he is a Wiccan.


That's not the point-- Wiccans believe in a mythology just as silly as Christianity; for a Wiccan, or any other person with any superstitious beliefs, to debate with somebody ELSE with equally silly and ignorant beliefs equates to little more than a celestial game of "my daddy can beat up yours".


Even as a guideline, the Reede is incredibly flawed; as it's almost impossible to follow the guideline whatsoever.




Point being? They still consider it, for whatever reason, a core belief of their faith; a core belief that happens to be deeply flawed.


WOW! Nice ad hom; I'd have never thought of it.

So, I suppose, that when I "rant" about Christianity; it must be because I'm not getting layed by the preppy little Christian girls?

Get over yourself. I despise Wicca for the same reasons I despise all the other silly little superstitious religions.


So why are you whatever "Insert-Cult-You-Are-Here"?

And just because you believe all faiths are valid; doesn't mean all faiths believe YOUR view is valid. What evidence have you to support any claim of any kind whatsoever?

Shven

Because you are off topic

I'm somebody who has actually read the works of Gerald Gardner thats who.

And is a mason anybody who claims they are a mason? Is a Knight Templar anyone who claims they are one? Is a catholic priest anyone who claims they are one?

Wiccans rarely debate the silliness of belief. If anything they're more interested in the effects of that belief in a wider context.

<sigh> Obviously you dont understand what I mean by guideline.

What I am trying to say is that it isn't something that is meant to be stuck to at all costs - merely something that is meant to be considered.

So you think that trying to cause as little harm as possible is a flawed form of morality now? and my point was that it was alot better than the satanist morality of 'fuck you jack, i've got mine'

not really - I'd assume you'd either had a shitty christian upbringing or picked up the mantle of those who had.

And that reason is what now?

I'm a neopagan because it works for me. I dont assume that because it works its 'true'

So? I dont give a shit about what anybody else thinks about my faith.

What evidence do I have? My own personal experience.

What evidence do you have to support the following claim:

Crucifiction

Who cares? Gardner was as much of a hack as the Reverend Moon, Jim Jones, or anybody else that starts up a cult and claims to have discovered some sort of religion that is in any way valid. Unless you can present any form of tangible evidence as to why we should take his word as opposed to the words of, say, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, or anybody elses.


Sorry, that doesn't follow from what I said.

Anyone that claims to be a Wiccan/Mason/Catholic/whatever and follows a reasonable amount of the rules/guidelines/whatever IS, in fact, a Wiccan/Mason/Catholic/whatever. Going by your standards, we can rule out ninty percent of the people that claim to be Christians being actual Christians. Even if the fluffies know nothing else about Wicca aside from the "Reede"; they are Wiccans as long as they follow it. Not Fundamentalist Wiccans; but are just as much a "Wiccan" as a liberal Christian is a Christian.

Besides, if you believe all paths are valid; why isn't the path the fluffies tend to take valid as well?


Uhhh... no.

As I've said several times on these boards, I moderate a Christian forum; LastStopHell.com. In my experience, we've had six or so Wiccans and about two other neopagans come board and engage in bitter debates with the Christians there.


It can't even be considered in the majority of events in ones lifetime; in virtually all scenarios, it's impossible to keep everyone involved from getting harmed.

And how is your guideline any better than mine? At least with a Satanic guideline, one actually has a chance to survive and prosper. You'll notice no animals in the wild try to harm the least amount of other animals as possible.


Uh... why?

I had a decent Christian upbringing; but I hate Christianity. I've never been a Wiccan, dated a Wiccan, or even wanted to date a Wiccan; and I hate Wicca. Likewise, I've never been a Mormon, dated a Mormon, or even wanted to date a Mormon; but I hate Mormonism.-


Because they all-- every last one of them-- make unfounded claims.


So do you believe in the idea of one archetypical Mother Godess? If so, what falsifiable evidence do you have to support your unsubstantiated claims? If not, why even bother to claim a religion?


So why do you get your panties in a wad when someone points out inherint flaws in your faith?


So why should anyone accept your own "personal experience" as valid evidence for the reality of your faith; but deny the "personal evidence" of someone that has seen the IPU?

Hmm... aside from the fact that I used to work at Hot Topic, and every other customer I talked to claimed to be a Wiccan; but didn't know the first thing about it?

Shven

non sequitur. I didn't say that Gerald Gardner was an authority on anything other than Wicca. and yes I would take his opinions on wicca above those of Joseph Smith. when it came to the nature of the universe however I'd ignore both of them.

No, because Wicca, the Masonic orders and the Catholic Priesthood are initiatory traditions. I'm not disputing that anybody can call themselves a Catholic - just that anybody can call themselves a Catholic priest. I cant just decide I am a catholic priest, or the pope or the archbishop of canturbury, because to hold such a position one must be appointed to it. the same applies to being a Wiccan.

No, because Christianity requires no initiation ceremony

Being a Wiccan has nothing to do with belief.

I never said ti wasn't a valid path. Just that it wasn't a Wiccan one.

your definition of Wiccans? Or mine?

But it is possible to follow the path which causes the least suffering - which is what the rede promotes.

I would disagree. I think screwing over everybody else and not acting as part of society is a great way to have everybody else ignore you when you're starving to death.



You have issues.

And? Does it hurt anyone? If not it doesn't matter.

no, I dont believe in the archetypal mother Goddess. And I wasn't aware I made any unsubstantiated claims. I am an agnostic pagan. I accept that some things work without me being able to explain why - but that doesn't mean anything other than that they work.

what flaws in my faith? nobody has pointed out any such thing. the reason I am on this board is to hold my own personal faith up to alternate points of view and to see hwo it fares. and 'you cant substantiate it' isn't a flaw in my faith.

1. I dont care whether people accept my faith as valid - so long as they're happy for mew to practise it without bothering them.

2. Other people's personal experiences only colaborate my beliefs - since I believe there is something out there that we all react to in our own way, but dont properly understand.

again I say: your definition or mine?

Heathen Dawn

I can sum it up that there is a contention that Christianity and reconstructionist pagan religions are better, deeper, fuller (you name it) than Wicca because of veteranship. This is nothing new. On the intellectual front, more than Wicca needs defence from the Christians, it needs defence from those “Traditional” Pagans who would question its legitimacy, because it is so recent and so eclectic. So, as apologist for Wicca, here goes:

A parody showing that the age of a religion has no significance

An essay showing that old religions have no monopoly on the sacred

and, for pro-Gardnerian fundamentalists:

An article showing that Gardner was a gross innovator, and arguing that if he was allowed to this, then so can Wiccans today

For the one who asked why I didn’t respond to the thread so much: I now have too much of real life to be here often.

Blessed be,
HD

Shven

Will you do me a favour and stop labelling me a fundamentalist?

And yes, Gardner was very innovative and so can Wiccans today be. However ignoring the requirement for initiation isn't Wiccans being innovative - its non Wiccans appropriating Wicca. I have made it quite clear that I have no problem with non-Wiccans following Wiccan practise (as much of neo-paganism is based on Wicca), I'd jsut appreciate it if they called themself something else, in respect to what wicca is about. Do you need to be a Wiccan to worship the Horned God and Triple Goddess? No. Do you need to be a Wiccan to follow the rede or the rule of three? No. So whats wrong with calling yourselves neo-pagans and witches and being done with it?

Heathen Dawn

Sure—when you stop saying things like this:

Shven

<sigh>

I dont know why you bother replying to me - you never actually address any of my points