Christian Wicca

[Pardus]

What holidays do you celebrate?

 

[jeffrey]

You haven't been listening now have you?

I think I know what it is. You hate Christianity so much that when using that dreaded 'C' word combined with Wicca, you go :biglaugh:

 

[Darkdale]

I am not disrespecting your beliefs, i'm am just offended that you are disrespecting the beliefs of others.

This is what I don't think they understand. Their vulgar use of language is disrespectful, or annoying at the very least, as it shows neither an innate understanding of Christianity or Wicca. The two simply cannot be combined in a meaningful way, without disrespecting both Christianity and Wicca. The idea that you can be a Christian and practice witchcraft is simply not-biblical and it is therefore disrespect to Christians to call yourself one, while not respecting their scriptures or traditions. Wiccans believe in the God and Goddess (Lord and Lady), not the Middle Eastern Omni-God. It therefore shows a complete lack of respect for the beliefs and traditions of Wiccans to attempt to combine it with Christianity. More to the point, Christians have mercilessly slaughtered thousands of people for being witches, and now the latest trend is trying to be both? At the very least, I don't think it is in good taste.

So they are going to accuse you of hating Christianity and Christians, when you have more respect for biblical Christianity and Christian traditions than they do. It's a shame.

 

[jeffrey]

'Opens the door, walks out, shaking his head at the total lack of open-mindedness, lack of comprehension, and the unwillingness to accept change..'

 

[Pardus]

That's amusing, shaking his head at everything he has done.

 

[Darkdale]

'Opens the door, walks out, shaking his head at the total lack of open-mindedness, lack of comprehension, and the unwillingness to accept change..'

lol, that's what is so damn frustrating about this "debate". I honestly don't feel like we are the ones' being close-minded or not comprehending what is going on here. While being 100% open to your beliefs, all we are criticizing is the disrespectful language you've chose to use to describe your beliefs. All we are asking is for people to be more respectful to the uniqueness of Christianity and Wicca, and to not insult them, to treat them as if they are liquids that can just be mixed together. They are not. They are religions in and of themselves. I can't think of any other religious label that is this troubling. I know it wasn't Christians that started treating Wicca like it was some kind of thing you could just take in part and Wiccans certainly haven't done a very good job of protecting their religious identity, but that doesn't make it right. Now, I'm neither Christian or Wiccan, so I have nothing invested in this, other than my opinion, that Christian Wicca is a vulgar and disrespectful term. I'm sure your beliefs are quite wonderful, but it wouldn't hurt to consider a better name for them. I know you won't, but you should be tolerant of those who simply do not like the language you use. Words have actual meanings and when you screw with the meanings of words, it just confuses things and it disrespects the nature of language.

 

[mr.guy]

Reminds me of the gay marriage debate...lots of religious folk insisted that the term marriage was "theirs", and the queers should go find a new word for themselves. I find it halarious that your argument (based on whatever snapshot of the two religions you've decided are the "real" ones) goes little further than to tell us that we, much like the betrothed to be homosexuals, have confused your word. "I guess facts are facts", and that's the best we can expect out of your kind.

 

[Darkdale]

Reminds me of the gay marriage debate...lots of religious folk insisted that the term marriage was "theirs", and the queers should go find a new word for themselves. I find it halarious that your argument (based on whatever snapshot of the two religions you've decided are the "real" ones) goes little further than to tell us that we, much like the betrothed to be homosexuals, have confused your word. "I guess facts are facts", and that's the best we can expect out of your kind.

Don't be so trite and silly. One thing has nothing to do with the other. As you should know, I fully support homosexual rights to marriage. This is not a matter of civil rights. This is not a matter of religion or belief. It's a matter of language and respect. It's a matter of the misuse of language and a lack of respect for two religions in the guise of a desire for the respect of one.

 

[mr.guy]

That's my point: this particular homosexual debate was also aboiut language and respect. Many considered such particular consideration of two men (things that ought not be mixed together) was offensive and disrespectful to the word marriage. Your argument has a perfect resemblance; gives vague, thusfar unspecified reasons as to why your points are valid. Insists that it's just "wrong". Need i go on? Deja vu.

 

[Darkdale]

That's my point: this particular homosexual debate was also aboiut language and respect. Many considered such particular consideration of two men (things that ought not be mixed together) was offensive and disrespectful to the word marriage. Your argument has a perfect resemblance; gives vague, thusfar unspecified reasons as to why your points are valid. Insists that it's just "wrong". Need i go on? Deja vu.

ok, well, as long as you aren't accusing me of... I see your point. However, I feel that I have argued quite well for my point of view; you my disagree. The difference is, between the homosexual argument and this one, is that no one is claiming that the beliefs or actions of the so called Christian Wiccans is wrong or bad or anything. The argument stops with the language itself. There is nothing deeper in question. This is an academic matter.

 

[mr.guy]

Then please, enlighten. Surely someone here can appreciate the academia. I don't see how the language is prohibative, as "god" can give countless anthropomorphic interpretations, moneist and pantheinistic simultaneously. We have several christians who disagree with the "language" of how Jesus is to be divinely described; they might benifit from your clarity if it's truly so plain.

 

[Darkdale]

Then please, enlighten. Surely someone here can appreciate the academia. I don't see how the language is prohibative, as "god" can give countless anthropomorphic interpretations, moneist and pantheinistic simultaneously. We have several christians who disagree with the "language" of how Jesus is to be divinely described; they might benifit from your clarity if it's truly so plain.

Of course, I could help them in interpreting their scriptures and their history, but that is not so much my place. It is, however, quite clear that Christian Scripture prohibits witchcraft and that it goes so far as to list death as the punishment for the practice of Witchcraft. Wicca is based primarily on the religion of witches. Christian scripture is also very clear on the idea of worshiping other gods. Wicca worships two gods, and sometimes more than that. God and Goddess.

There is simply no way in which Wicca can be considered "Christian" nor way that Christianity can be considered "Wiccan". They have no historical, theological or cultural connection. The are two unique religions. What these Christians have done is adopted modern pagan spirituality and added it to their Christian framework. It has nothing to do with Wicca. It's New-Age Christianity.

 

[mr.guy]

It is, however, quite clear that Christian Scripture prohibits witchcraft and that it goes so far as to list death as the punishment for the practice of Witchcraft.

Hate being a broken record, but the same goes for homosexuality. Does this not make homosexual christians an impossibiliy?

Wicca is based primarily on the religion of witches. Christian scripture is also very clear on the idea of worshiping other gods. Wicca worships two gods, and sometimes more than that. God and Goddess.

Yet some catholics pray to saints. Smarti hindus, while monists, have maintained a small pantheon. Muslims might tell you that worshipping jesus is akin to a pantheon as well; the metaphysics of "directed worship" has a little more wiggle room then some would willingly admit.

There is simply no way in which Wicca can be considered "Christian" nor way that Christianity can be considered "Wiccan".

I see how the two aren't interchangeable. But the question is their fusion, not their equitable replacements.

They have no historical, theological or cultural connection. The are two unique religions. What these Christians have done is adopted modern pagan spirituality and added it to their Christian framework. It has nothing to do with Wicca.

Simillarly, we could invalidate voodoo. Don't tell New Orleans just yet, though.

It's New-Age Christianity.

Isn't "new-age" a catch-all term most theists use to politely describe "non-sensical" or "fake" religions?

 

[Darkdale]

Hate being a broken record, but the same goes for homosexuality. Does this not make homosexual christians an impossibiliy?

I cannot imagine why a homosexual would want to be a Christian. There are so many religions out there that view homosexuals with respect and tolerance, why they want to associate themselves with gods and people that hate them is beyond my ability to understand.

Yet some catholics pray to saints. Smarti hindus, while monists, have maintained a small pantheon. Muslims might tell you that worshipping jesus is akin to a pantheon as well; the metaphysics of "directed worship" has a little more wiggle room then some would willingly admit.

Yes, but catholics and protestants and mormons all operate under the same mythology and general theology. Wicca has nothing to do with that mythology.

I see how the two aren't interchangeable. But the question is their fusion, not their equitable replacements.

I have no problems with Christians taking on pagan ways, but I do desire them to respect the religions they are taking from and to recognize their sovereignty and unique identity.

Isn't "new-age" a catch-all term most theists use to politely describe "non-sensical" or "fake" religions?

Not really. New Age describes a kind of modern misinterpretation of pagan spirituality. Crystals, tarot cards, candles and a little magic are all very much a part of the New Age. It isn't so much a thing in itself though, it's a kind of spirituality picked up by various traditions. Whereas Wicca is a thing in itself.

 

[jeffrey]

Walks back in long enough to give mr. guy some Karma...

 

[Quiddity]

I cannot imagine why a homosexual would want to be a Christian. There are so many religions out there that view homosexuals with respect and tolerance, why they want to associate themselves with gods and people that hate them is beyond my ability to understand.

That would be a wonderful question to ask a happy homosexual catholic priest. Some seem to think that is impossible for some reason.

~Victor

 

[mr.guy]

I cannot imagine why a homosexual would want to be a Christian. There are so many religions out there that view homosexuals with respect and tolerance, why they want to associate themselves with gods and people that hate them is beyond my ability to understand.

Fair enough. Yet this has happened. Is the christian who's homosexual a "false/misinterpretive" christian?

Yes, but catholics and protestants and mormons all operate under the same mythology and general theology. Wicca has nothing to do with that mythology.

And christmas has little to do with christianity; religious fusion is not limited to/strictly defined by operational mythology (although some reconciliation would presumably be in order).

I have no problems with Christians taking on pagan ways, but I do desire them to respect the religions they are taking from and to recognize their sovereignty and unique identity.

Should jews ask the same of christians, muslims, sikhs, ba'hais, etc. I'm afraid religion is inevitably prone to "open source" reinterpretation/reavaluation.

Not really. New Age describes a kind of modern misinterpretation of pagan spirituality.

How valid a religion can it be? I think my statement would be an inevitable conclusion.

 

[mr.guy]

Just a little appendment food-for-thought: what do ya get when you cross a hindu with a muslim?

 

[Darkdale]

I'm afraid religion is inevitably prone to "open source" reinterpretation/reavaluation.

Yes, but you are talking about the religions. I am talking about the words. I'm talking language here. There is no rule that their breaking. It's just vulgar is all. I don't care what they believe, but I find their label to be vulgar and disrespectful. So what? It says nothing about their religious beliefs.

 

[Green Gaia]

Just a little appendment food-for-thought: what do ya get when you cross a hindu with a muslim?

A Sikh?