No offense, but....

[SilverPiston]

No offense but, just like my idle, Silver Ravenwolf, said, "Due to Dogma beliefs and traditions, Christo-Pagans are kind of an oxymoron to the whole Pagan(or Wiccan) religion." and i kind of agree.... a classmate of mine thought he was Wiccan and Christian. I informed him that if you belived both, it kinda defeates a porpose for any religious beliefs.... I just wanna know what you guys think....


Always in question,
"Silly"SilverPiston
"Snook"

[HorseCrow]

Take a look further down in this forum... there are already several threads on the subject :)

[mydemand]

I don't see what's wrong in combining Christianity and Wicca, considering that both of them have a similar set of core values.

Both belief systems emphasize on loving everyone equally ("love thy neighbour"), generosity, kindness, helpfulness, compassion, patience, and general good will. All that differs really is HOW they go about practicing such values.

Jesus could be seen as a male symbol of Peace and Love (if you take his core teachings) and the Virgin Mary has been said by many to be a symbol of the Goddess, or at least have Goddess-like attributes. Some spirituality-related people (writers especially) use Jesus or "The Christ Consciousness" as a metaphor for the soul, without tagging a specific religion.

For the record, I never was Christian. I was brought up Muslim but consider myself more of an Eclectic Pagan Freethinker. And I believe that in its core, every religion is the same - it's how they go about showing it that differs. Personally, I am sick of religions discriminating each other - not just Christians being discriminating to Pagans or Muslims to Jews or whatever, but also the other way round - for being different on the outside; for goodness sake we are all the SAME in the inside anyway!

Maybe you'd like to go do some research on this beforehand - there should be many threads about Christo-Wiccan or Christo-Paganism on MysticWicks, and many more on the Internet in general.

btw, it's "idol" not "idle" :hahugh:

B*B, Tiara

[SilverPiston]

well, i really don't mind the whole Christo-Pagan thing, it just kinda gives me a weird "i don't understand" feeling..... You know, with the whole "Satan" bit.... I've been asked by christians if i worship satan just because i said i was Talking about the Pagan religion and how i feel comfortable with it.... i don't only find it irritating, but kind of an insult! I belive the only evil is what you create... so, in a manner of speaking, if you belive in no evil, there shall be no evil.... But that's only MY opinion.... And not very many people respect opinions of others, so i dunno why i even brought it up.... But anyways, i just wanted to know what others felt........



Always wondering,
"Silly"SilverPiston
"Snook"

[Aine of the Fae]

well, i really don't mind the whole Christo-Pagan thing, it just kinda gives me a weird "i don't understand" feeling..... You know, with the whole "Satan" bit.... I've been asked by christians if i worship satan just because i said i was Talking about the Pagan religion and how i feel comfortable with it.... i don't only find it irritating, but kind of an insult! I belive the only evil is what you create... so, in a manner of speaking, if you belive in no evil, there shall be no evil.... But that's only MY opinion.... And not very many people respect opinions of others, so i dunno why i even brought it up.... But anyways, i just wanted to know what others felt........



Always wondering,
"Silly"SilverPiston
"Snook"

You'll find that a good majority of the people at MysticWicks respect peoples opinions. You'll also find that SEVERAL of us are Christo-Pagans, myself included. To be more precise I'm a Christian Witch, not a Christian Pagan, however my path draws from a variety of Pagan traditions.

Just because it makes you uncomfortable does not mean it is not a valid path, nor does it mean it's a 'wierd' path. I'm a Christian and I don't think you worship Satan, unless of course you do, which is a whole other topic of discussion. In fact I don't believe Satan exists as a physical entity, but is more representive of the evil that humans are capable of. And humans are quite capable of Evil.

*sigh* You may idolize Silver Ravenwolf, or you may be joking. Whichever the case may be, I think you need to explore MW a bit more thoroughly before making statements such as those you've made in this thread.

[Morr]

Most Christo-Pagans dont follow the Church's teachings/dogma. Only the teachings of Jesus & what he stood for. There *IS* a difference. Also, if you look at Catholicism - its based on Pagan traditions/holidays/concepts.

as someone said here, scroll down a bit in this specific forum and you'll see threads that had discuissions about this subject.

Also, I'd like to remind you that Chriso-Pagans arent always Christo-Wiccans. There is a great difference. Wicca is not the only Pagan tradition/religion/path.

And RavenWolf's words should be taked as 100% complete truth or only view point in Wicca. There are a lot more great authors & experienced Wicca leaders who are, in my opinion, ona higher level then she is.

[scaerie faerie]

*sigh* You may idolize Silver Ravenwolf, or you may be joking.

My thoughts exactly... :bouncysmi

[Inuus]

In my opinion, if someone wants to combine the two then the best things to do are:

-Don't call yourself a Christian Witch, just a DIY Witch or DIY Christian.
-Call yourself a Witch but combine alot of Christian mysticism.
-Identify yourself a Witch to other Pagans.
-Identify yourself a Christian to other Christians.
-Identify yourself a Witch with Christian elements to others.

[mara]

As far as I'm concerned A person's religious beliefs only need to make sense to that person. As a former Baptist, I don't totally understand it, but I certainly believe that it does to a great many others and don't look down on it. I think what is starting to become clearer in my mind is that If you just look at the teachings of Jesus- without bringing in things you were taught before, it makes much more sense. I think that most of what I know about Jesus and the bible are actually other people's opinions and interpretations and maybe not what was intended at all.

[Pol]

Worship of Mary is, essentially, Isis worship incognito. Down to the very titles and such by which she is called.

I was raised a Christian, and still believe in the same God I always have, just now I accept the fact of other spirits and goddesses/gods. A common realisation these days is that the bible is extremely mistranslated/added to. That opens a lot of doors.

[Aine of the Fae]

In my opinion, if someone wants to combine the two then the best things to do are:

-Don't call yourself a Christian Witch, just a DIY Witch or DIY Christian.
-Call yourself a Witch but combine alot of Christian mysticism.
-Identify yourself a Witch to other Pagans.
-Identify yourself a Christian to other Christians.
-Identify yourself a Witch with Christian elements to others.

So in other words I should conform myself to your standards.

[Aine of the Fae]

Worship of Mary is, essentially, Isis worship incognito. Down to the very titles and such by which she is called.

I was raised a Christian, and still believe in the same God I always have, just now I accept the fact of other spirits and goddesses/gods. A common realisation these days is that the bible is extremely mistranslated/added to. That opens a lot of doors.


One thing that I've always wondered is that if YHWH is the One True God, then why the need for all of the rules about worshipping other Gods? I always got the feeling that it was sort of a jealousy thing, you know "If you worship me properly, and don't worship any other gods, then I'll do for you. But if you worship other gods then you can't call me God." Like an "it's all or nothing" sort of thing. Not that He was the only God, but that he would give special consideration to those who worshipped and obeyed him exclusively.

[mara]

One thing that I've always wondered is that if YHWH is the One True God, then why the need for all of the rules about worshipping other Gods? I always got the feeling that it was sort of a jealousy thing, you know "If you worship me properly, and don't worship any other gods, then I'll do for you. But if you worship other gods then you can't call me God." Like an "it's all or nothing" sort of thing. Not that He was the only God, but that he would give special consideration to those who worshipped and obeyed him exclusively.
I always wondered about that too..The fact that the bible mentions other gods made me wonder if that meant that other gods exist.

[Pol]

I agree completely.
I've had to come to the point where I say "do I accept the God of the New Testament that teaches love, or the jealous - often childish god of the OT?"
I've kind of decided that the jews made up most of the OT anyway. :D

Also, as for that set of rules about the DIY witch et cetera - calling myself a Christo-Pagan is the same as saying a Witch with Christian Elements. I believe in the God of the Christians, I enjoy worshipping them (the trinity), I feel they are very powerful and have a lot to offer to me. I believe in the teachings of the apostles and such, only that it should not be a unique religion as some treat it.

I think it's highly unfair to tell someone else what they can and cannot be. Maybe you won't accept them as they are, but that doesn't change what they are.

[Pol]

mara: I agree. A lot of how we interpret the works of the the apostles and such is very much influenced by what we are told it says - if we believe something is there, we find it if we want to.

[Aine of the Fae]

mara: I agree. A lot of how we interpret the works of the the apostles and such is very much influenced by what we are told it says - if we believe something is there, we find it if we want to.

Let's also not forget that a LOT of modern Christianity is based on the works of Paul, a man who never actually met Jesus during his lifetime. We are supposed to accept his interpretation of Christ's life based on a vision he had in the middle of the road? Considering the area, I kind of wonder if it wasn't a heat induced hallucination....

[Lunacie]

So in other words I should conform myself to your standards.
I'm sorry that Innus's post upset you, but come on. He was only sharing his thoughts which is what we do on a discussion board. He was hardly dictating what everyone should do.

[Pol]

His post didn't upset me personally, but I can understand why one would be upset by it. He did basically dictate to others how they should go about their own religion.

[Aine of the Fae]

I'm sorry that Innus's post upset you, but come on. He was only sharing his thoughts which is what we do on a discussion board. He was hardly dictating what everyone should do.

His post did not upset me! When I'm upset, my posts are much, much, much longer than one line :lol: However, I was pointing out how... discriminatory his post seemed.

[Lunacie]

Difference of perspective, I guess, we just see it differently. Maybe Innus would like to explain what his intention was?

[Mab]

One thing that I've always wondered is that if YHWH is the One True God, then why the need for all of the rules about worshipping other Gods? I always got the feeling that it was sort of a jealousy thing, you know "If you worship me properly, and don't worship any other gods, then I'll do for you. But if you worship other gods then you can't call me God." Like an "it's all or nothing" sort of thing. Not that He was the only God, but that he would give special consideration to those who worshipped and obeyed him exclusively.

yes, isn't there a verse that states "for your God is a jealous God"? I seem to remember that somewhere in the OT......

[Pol]

Yes, there is a verse that says God is a jealous God.

[Pol]

Hmm...That gave me an insane idea.
What if: The God of the Christians is actually the god of the underworld/dead, and if we worship any but him he won't give us happiness but will punish us instead. Heheheh.

[Kalika]

No offense but, just like my idle, Silver Ravenwolf, said, "Due to Dogma beliefs and traditions, Christo-Pagans are kind of an oxymoron to the whole Pagan(or Wiccan) religion." and i kind of agree.... a classmate of mine thought he was Wiccan and Christian. I informed him that if you belived both, it kinda defeates a porpose for any religious beliefs.... I just wanna know what you guys think....


Always in question,
"Silly"SilverPiston
"Snook"

Idol, you mean.... :) (Sorry... I'm kinda a freak about spelling)

You're entitled to your opinion - but why wouldn't someone be able to blend Christianity and Paganism, if it suited their beliefs, when paganism is ABOUT what suits your beliefs, and embracing what resonates to you? Christo-Paganism means that they aren't wholly Christian, and they aren't wholly pagan - but a combination of the two. Even Christians don't always embrace all aspects of the faith - so why is choosing what works for you wrong?

I seriously think that a lot of people have such a problem with this (Christo-Paganism, and Christian Witches) because of how much Christianity gets bashed by other religions - by those who haven't really done the research, and learned what each faith is about, what it encompasses, and what those who follow each path believe, and feel. Walk a mile in their shoes... maybe you'd see it in a different light.

(No offense to anyone!! :p I used to be "one of those people" way back when I was new to paganism - so I feel pretty comfortable saying what I think. ;) )

[Mab]

there's always been a constant "what if" in my head..........which is why I go with my gut & not what ppl tell me to do.

[Kalika]

well, i really don't mind the whole Christo-Pagan thing, it just kinda gives me a weird "i don't understand" feeling..... You know, with the whole "Satan" bit.... I've been asked by christians if i worship satan just because i said i was Talking about the Pagan religion and how i feel comfortable with it.... i don't only find it irritating, but kind of an insult! I belive the only evil is what you create... so, in a manner of speaking, if you belive in no evil, there shall be no evil.... But that's only MY opinion.... And not very many people respect opinions of others, so i dunno why i even brought it up.... But anyways, i just wanted to know what others felt........



Always wondering,
"Silly"SilverPiston
"Snook"

If you don't understand something, the BEST thing to do is ask, or do research. :) So kudos for that.

Again, Christians asking if Wiccans/Witches worship Satan goes in with the uneducated bit - they fear what they don't know/don't understand - so they assume that somehow it relates to the negative aspect of their religion.

Nobody is disrespecting your opinion. :) You're entitled to it - and if its how you feel, you have every right to it - nobody should say otherwise... and I don't think anyone has.

Just make sure that you aren't putting anyone down for their beliefs... whether you agree with them or not. ;)

[Druchii]

No offense but, just like my idle, Silver Ravenwolf, said, "Due to Dogma beliefs and traditions, Christo-Pagans are kind of an oxymoron to the whole Pagan(or Wiccan) religion." and i kind of agree.... a classmate of mine thought he was Wiccan and Christian. I informed him that if you belived both, it kinda defeates a porpose for any religious beliefs.... I just wanna know what you guys think....


Always in question,
"Silly"SilverPiston
"Snook"


Well, I still believe in the Easter Bunny so what does that make me? A neo-gothic-punk-wiccan-catholic-anime-elf-waterbuffalo-grandpuba-artmajor-transvestite-hairy-poopy head?! :D I think you can believe in WHATEVER you want... really. I mean its in YOUR heart and YOUR head... so if you want to belief you are a cashew. YOU are. A dragon? YOU are. A vampire? YOU can be. :)
What I mean is that in every aspect of life you will find dicotomies like that. Just because I LOVE to eat pig intestines doesn't mean that you do... :) and that doesn't mean either one of us is less of anything else...

[Sibylle]

The thing is that there are so many different christian churches and belief systems... it's hard to generalize. Another important point is that christianity and (whichever) christian church are completely different matters. Throughout the middle ages, lots of people kept up practices that we today would call pagan/magical, while being nominally christian and going to church. And for centuries it wasn't a big deal either, until about the time of the reformation, when suddenly the bible was translated and common people could actually understand what christianity was all about... including the "no god but me" dogma.

And yet, up to this day, a lot of the more traditional witches are deeply catholic and would never dream of calling themselves anything else.

Bottom line: like several others have said in this thread, your conscience is your own. No church, pope, or dogma can change that.


Well, I still believe in the Easter Bunny so what does that make me? A neo-gothic-punk-wiccan-catholic-anime-elf-waterbuffalo-grandpuba-artmajor-transvestite-hairy-poopy head?! :D
LOL!

[Erebus]

No offense but, just like my idle, Silver Ravenwolf, said,

Since when is Silver Ravenwolf idle? Doesn't she publish a new book every 11 minutes?

I'd also like to point out that the phrase "No offense, but..." ONLY EVER follows a statement that's offensive. And if you didn't know if was going to be offensive before you said it, you wouldn't have tried to CYA with "No offense, but...".

[Sleet]

I think you'll also find that "informing" people that their own beliefs are (fill in the blank) won't get you very far.

[Pol]

Indeed, indeed.

[Morr]

I agree completely.
I've had to come to the point where I say "do I accept the God of the New Testament that teaches love, or the jealous - often childish god of the OT?"
I've kind of decided that the jews made up most of the OT anyway. :D



HOLD IT RIGHT THERE!

Jesus - WAS JEWISH.
Y-H-V-H - WAS JESUS' GOD & "FATHER".
The God of the New Testament - SAME GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
The Jews - Probably DID make up parts in the OT.
But guess what... The Early Christians & The Church up untill the 15th Century - ALSO MADE UP CHRISTIAN RELIGION, LAWS & MYTHS.

Also, a lot of Christians use the OT as proof (through various prophacies within it) that Jesus fulfilled his destiny as the one true Messiah - If the OT is mostly made up - Jesus did not fulfill these prophacies - Therefore, is not the Messiah.

[Pol]

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make?

Jesus did not abide the law.

Also, I said most of the OT. I was talking about all of the "God wants us to go and murder this entire village of people, man woman and suckling babe," and that sort of thing.
I further agree that most of the bible was also made up during the middle ages and such. I've formed quite a few unorthodox ideas about the bible lately, about the Christ, and what his true purpose was.

[Pol]

Also, when I said "jews," i was not meaning that at all in a racist way nor even speaking of modern jews. I was talking about the hebrew people of old, and the jewish peoples of old.

[Morr]

Jesus did not abide the law.




Where does it say that Jesus did not abide to the Jewish law?

He worshiped the God of the Jews - Y-H-V-H.
He is a great student & rabbi of the Torah.
He celebrates one of the largest Jewish feasts, one day before he dies - The Passover Feast/Seder Dinner (aka - The Last Supper).
He preached for following the 10 Comandments (sure, he said that two of them were the most important ones, but still - they are take straight out of the CORE of Jewish law).



However i do agree with you that Jesus' teachings are far different then what the Church & its Church Fathers, as well as Christian Doctrines tell us.

[Pol]

Well, he taught disregard for the law - he did not teach to follow the 10 commandments. He taught what sums up the ten commandments: Love of God and your neighbour (and your self). If you do those things, you will follow the 10 commandments out of common decency.
He WAS the god of the jews, from his own mouth.
My opinion, however, was that the jews were capitalising on God and changing around the truth. I don't think he was an horribly jealous god who wanted a group of elitist hebrews following him and only him. I think that the coming of their messiah was to bring them that message - of love, tolerence, and living.
Jesus was a jewish person, but he did not abide the laws. Celebrating passover is not abiding the laws. I have friends who do that, and they're not jews.

[IvyWitch]

No offense but, just like my idle, Silver Ravenwolf, said, "Due to Dogma beliefs and traditions, Christo-Pagans are kind of an oxymoron to the whole Pagan(or Wiccan) religion." and i kind of agree.... a classmate of mine thought he was Wiccan and Christian. I informed him that if you belived both, it kinda defeates a porpose for any religious beliefs.... I just wanna know what you guys think....

Yes, and your idol also not only said it's ok, but she advocates lying to your parents!

Maybe if you both learned something about Christianity as a faith and not as a body of people with thier own politics.....

That being said I completely disagree. They are not incompatible.

[Lady Jade]

Utimately, its all the same religion/God. What makes religion special to each person is how they use the tools available to them.

[Brinclhof]

Well, he taught disregard for the law - he did not teach to follow the 10 commandments. He taught what sums up the ten commandments: Love of God and your neighbour (and your self). If you do those things, you will follow the 10 commandments out of common decency.
He WAS the god of the jews, from his own mouth.
My opinion, however, was that the jews were capitalising on God and changing around the truth. I don't think he was an horribly jealous god who wanted a group of elitist hebrews following him and only him. I think that the coming of their messiah was to bring them that message - of love, tolerence, and living.
Jesus was a jewish person, but he did not abide the laws. Celebrating passover is not abiding the laws. I have friends who do that, and they're not jews.

"Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18


"In the same way after supper he took the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you." Luke 22:20

Jesus did not break the jewish laws. The laws were given to Moses by God at the establishment of the original covenant with Israel. Through Jesus crucifixion for our sins Jesus established a new covenant which replaced the old covenent. No longer is it necessary to offer sacrifices to God for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus offered the the ultimate sacrifice through his death on the cross. With the establishment of the new covenant those who accepted Jesus as the messiah and accepted the cup of the new covenant were no longer bound by the old covenant.

So he didn't abolish the old covent just established a new agreement for a new group of people.

[Nissala]

To me personally, ias a former baptist, its a "to each his own" feeling. I do not judge anyone and do not expect to be judged. If it feels right to that person, who am I to say it is wrong? There are so many paths and if someone finds a way to combine two of them, and feel good about it, so be it.

just my humble opinion:)

[Morr]

Well, he taught disregard for the law - he did not teach to follow the 10 commandments. He taught what sums up the ten commandments: Love of God and your neighbour (and your self). If you do those things, you will follow the 10 commandments out of common decency.
He WAS the god of the jews, from his own mouth.
My opinion, however, was that the jews were capitalising on God and changing around the truth. I don't think he was an horribly jealous god who wanted a group of elitist hebrews following him and only him. I think that the coming of their messiah was to bring them that message - of love, tolerence, and living.
Jesus was a jewish person, but he did not abide the laws. Celebrating passover is not abiding the laws. I have friends who do that, and they're not jews.

He did not teach to disregard the law.
and excuse me? Common decency? Did Jesus say that whoever is not a Christian is a sinner and deserves to die at the hand of the Church? Tell that to the millions the Church prosecuted - Jews, Witches, Muslims, Pagans, etc.
LOVE THEY NEIGHBORE?
The teachings of Christianity is probably nothing like what Jesus taught, and Love Thy Neighbore is no where near the teachings of the Church.

What if I tell you that Christians (or rather the Fathers of the Church & the Early Church Leaders INCLUDING Peter Simon and Paul) were the ones who changed around history, truth and fact. And Jesus is NOT the Jew's Messiah. He never fulfilled ANY prophacy at all. There is not one Jewish prophacy regarding the TRUE Jewish Messiah that applies to Jesus.

And personally, you have a VERY wrong idea of the acient Jews & the writers of the Torah & Jewish law. Coming from a Jewish background, and studying Bible Studies & Judaism History - I can tell you that what you state is simply a rationalization & an apologetic approach to why Christianity has come to exist and for the role of Jesus.

and Newsflash - Celebrating the Passover feast in first century Judea (not 21st century america) WAS a thing only done by Jews who believed & followed the traditions & laws of passover. Why do you think the bread they give you in mass is NOT real bread? Because its identical to MATZA bread the Jews eat on Passover. The same type of bread Jesus ate while he was reading the Hagada & Celebrating the deliverence of his people from the hands of the Egyptians, in Exodus, thanks to the same exact God you love & worship today, aka - Y-H-V-H.

The God of Christianity is the same exact God of the Jews - He does NOT tolarate anyone who doesnt follow his teachings, he does NOT accept anyone who isnt open to the religious thought & dogma he offers, he damns the people who dont follow his word to hell/death/banishment from the Kingdom of Heaven.

I can, however, understand why you view the situation the way you do - because the apostles, after Jesus died, have changed it around. It was Peter Simon who in fact broke the Kosher laws, and the Pauline Christianity that called Christians the new Israel.


"Do not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." Matthew 5:17-18


"In the same way after supper he took the cup saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood which is poured out for you." Luke 22:20

Jesus did not break the jewish laws. The laws were given to Moses by God at the establishment of the original covenant with Israel.

I agree completely.


Through Jesus crucifixion for our sins Jesus established a new covenant which replaced the old covenent. No longer is it necessary to offer sacrifices to God for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus offered the the ultimate sacrifice through his death on the cross. With the establishment of the new covenant those who accepted Jesus as the messiah and accepted the cup of the new covenant were no longer bound by the old covenant.

So he didn't abolish the old covent just established a new agreement for a new group of people.

The concept of Sins was invented by St. Augustine and the early Fathers of the Church who followed his teachings/concepts. Augustine's book - "The Confessions" pretty much sums it up.

Jesus never said a word about a new religion, nor about a new way of worship or a new covenent. He *might* have led an attempt for a reformation of Judaism - but all in the lines, laws & context of Judaism as he knew it back then. He never said a word about himself being the Ultimate sacrifice - this is an interpertation done by the church. It has nothing to do with sacrificing & the Jewish tradition of asking for forgivness from God.

Christianity and its laws were never fully written/known/established untill the 15th Century. The various Church councils, starting with the Nicean Council of 325AD came up with laws & "answers" to the random theological questions the people asked as time went by (regarding life, the nature of god & Jesus, wars, epidemics - specifically the black pleague, etc). Christianity is a Historical Religion. It was molded as time went by, and this whole "dying for our sins" and "jesus as the ultimate sacrifice" or "the new covenent of god and the new Israel" was invented later on, AFTER Jesus died. Hence - none of these were HIS teachings or HIS words.

Basically - He was a Reformed Jewish Rabbi, with a lot of mystical & Kabbalhistic influences who tried to cause a reformation within the lines of the Jewish Community - who obviously wasnt ready for it. And due to political agendas of both the Romans and the Jewish Eldars Council (Sanhendrin) - He was put to death... like millions of others, by the way (Pontius Pilate alone, during the time of his Praerfector reign, crucified 1/4 million Jews in the Judea region). Jesus' followers just happened to be lucky enough to spread the word - Unfortunately, they twisted his words & teachings around and brought modern Christianity to what it is today. Which in my humble opinion is very far fetched from the truth and from Jesus' intents & teachings.

[SilverPiston]

Look, i didn't know this would be a big discussion, all i wanted to say is just that i didn't mean to offend any "Christian Witches", it's just that there's so many cleches. All i want to say is that i just don't understand it, your just putting two religions together..... just call it a whole other religon..... it can't be two religons, cuz (according to my total 100% christian grandparents) almost 95% christans belive that only christianity exists and i hate it when people preach abot it! I just wanted to know in short answers "yes" or "no", do you agree or not?

I just don't get either religons fully, and no offense, but i could care less about christianity... I grew up with it getting drilled in my head, and that everything i did was wrong, and i got sick of it! so i kinda developed a dis-like of christianity.... an i want to find somewhere where i can be AWAY from it all.... and obviously, this is the wrong place...
I'll just stay alone in Nottoway Virginia, and do everything alone....

:sadman:

[mydemand]

SilverPiston...*hugs*

There are always going to be different views about religion, even IN the religion itself. And it's not fair to dislike or be prejudiced against a religion just because you had a bad experience with it.

I grew up Muslim. I consider myself more Pagan now because it ties in more to my personal beliefs. Do I think Islam is wrong and bad? No. Do I dislike it? No. Do I disagree with it? Yes. But that is my perogative. I don't hate it; I just prefer something else.

Essentially all religions are the same - love and respect for yourself, others, and the world. Only the practices and the specifics differ.

You can't get away from a religion; the best you can do is learn to accept it. Everyone's different - don't avoid that, embrace that! Embrace diversity. Accept that it exists. Then, and only then, will there be harmony. There won't be harmony if people keep avoiding each other, trying to get away from something that's different. Everything's special.

ok, hun? *hugs*

B*B, Tiara

[Pol]

If you knew anything about me, you'd know what I believe, and that I have no connection to the Church or anything like that. I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by acting like you know more than me, but you've said/done nothing that I disagree with or have said the opposite of (except my belief that Christ did not abide the jewish law).

I've said nothing about the Church, as far as I can tell. I believe that the only laws we are to abide are the laws of love. That is my Christianity, the one of love taught in the new testament.
Perhaps because I said that the hebrew peoples corrupted God with their holy book?
Well, that's what I believe. No study can prove one way or the other. I'd rather believe that the people who taught death and destruction of a wicked god were the corrupters than the one who taught love and peace.

I have a rather unorthodox idea that the Christ came to set right the wicked image given to God. I believe he was sent to show us the truth of god - the white dove and shining light of peace and love.

[Pol]

Silver Piston..
What you have said is true. A lot of Christians do feel this way. However, the great thing about Christianity is that the book upon which it is based is thousands of years old, and can be translated to mean - basically - whatever you want it to. Each person can find their own truth in it. The truth that I have found - and I am sure the other Christian Pagans here have found as well - is that a lot of the bull in the bible that is preached by modern churches is not at all from the bible. It is my opinion that a lot of the problems came in with King James translating a cultic book into what he wanted it to say/mean/be.

Yes, it is true for most that Christianity is the only way. But I believe that Christianity is a tailor-made religion just like paganism, and as such the two are easily combined for me.

[Morr]

i am saying that you cant say the OT is curropt because this is the same OT Jesus followed.
He used the same comandments that were previously there given by God - if the writers of the OT were so curropt, then why did they leave the comandments? Why not curropt them?

and I was showing you that its the writers of the gospels who did also curropt the story of Jesus - exactly like you say the hebrews did to the OT.

Also, I dont know if you've ever fully read & studied the Old Testament, however, it is not the way you view it. Most of it is about heros, love, respect, loyalty, devotion & praise of God.
Look at Psalms, Ecclestiastes, Exodus, the stories of Moses, Aberaham & the Prophets & Kings.
If anything, the OT is more of a history book then anything. Sure parts probably didnt come true, but that goes both ways with the New Testament and Jesus' teachings & existance.



And SilverPiston -
theres no harm in theology conversation/debate.
im sorry if we hijacked your thread.

[samiaminsane]

Look, i didn't know this would be a big discussion, all i wanted to say is just that i didn't mean to offend any "Christian Witches", it's just that there's so many cleches. All i want to say is that i just don't understand it, your just putting two religions together..... just call it a whole other religon..... it can't be two religons, cuz (according to my total 100% christian grandparents) almost 95% christans belive that only christianity exists and i hate it when people preach abot it! I just wanted to know in short answers "yes" or "no", do you agree or not?

Well, there won't be a short answer for everything, especially when your questions open up a big can of worms. As for 95% of Christians believing that only Christianity exists, I must know the other 5%! Most of the people I know are Christian and have no problem with my religion, they don't try to convert me, I don't shove my religion down their throats, etc. My greatest friend in the world is Christian, we have the loveliest conversations about spirituality and religions and have never argued or gotten mad at each other over it. I find no problem with Christian Witches, I think it's wonderful that we can take what we love and blend it together to create something of our own. I don't see what the problem is with that. Think about modern day Wicca, about alot of the Paganism religions branching off out there, they are combinations of many different religions.

[Witchy Cowgirl]

Look, i didn't know this would be a big discussion, all i wanted to say is just that i didn't mean to offend any "Christian Witches", it's just that there's so many cleches. All i want to say is that i just don't understand it, your just putting two religions together..... just call it a whole other religon..... it can't be two religons, cuz (according to my total 100% christian grandparents) almost 95% christans belive that only christianity exists and i hate it when people preach abot it! I just wanted to know in short answers "yes" or "no", do you agree or not?

I just don't get either religons fully, and no offense, but i could care less about christianity... I grew up with it getting drilled in my head, and that everything i did was wrong, and i got sick of it! so i kinda developed a dis-like of christianity.... an i want to find somewhere where i can be AWAY from it all.... and obviously, this is the wrong place...
I'll just stay alone in Nottoway Virginia, and do everything alone....

:sadman:



Well, there are and always have been witchs in every relgion.
Being a witch does not automatically mean that one is Wiccan.
A witch is someone who is in touch with nature and the power held within. That power is put there by the Creator, whoever one believes that creator may be.
So I do believe that witchs can be Christian - or any other relgion for that matter.

[Pol]

I actually have studied the OT. I have said numerous times that the bible was corrupted by others than just the jews - but I feel that a lot of the corruption was their demonising of other religions. I do not think that Christ followed the same old testament that we have. The two Gods of the NT and the OT are so completely opposite. I know there must be a balance of righteousness and justice, but the God of the hebrews in the OT ordered mass murder and complete lack of tolerence to others - whereas the NT teaches that we're to love our neighbours. You don't mass murder a village of your neighbours you love.
The OT teaches prejudice against others, whereas stories such as the Good Samaritan[sp] teach tolerence of others.

I simply believe that the OT is nothing more than an historical text - though a very biased, cultic historical text not much different from the Nordic historical myths, complete with bloodthirsty Gods and heroes.

Look at the 'Patriarchs.'
Wicked, raping, murdering, decietful men - yet were men "after God's own heart."

[Aine of the Fae]

I actually have studied the OT. I have said numerous times that the bible was corrupted by others than just the jews - but I feel that a lot of the corruption was their demonising of other religions. I do not think that Christ followed the same old testament that we have. The two Gods of the NT and the OT are so completely opposite. I know there must be a balance of righteousness and justice, but the God of the hebrews in the OT ordered mass murder and complete lack of tolerence to others - whereas the NT teaches that we're to love our neighbours. You don't mass murder a village of your neighbours you love.
The OT teaches prejudice against others, whereas stories such as the Good Samaritan[sp] teach tolerence of others.

I simply believe that the OT is nothing more than an historical text - though a very biased, cultic historical text not much different from the Nordic historical myths, complete with bloodthirsty Gods and heroes.

Look at the 'Patriarchs.'
Wicked, raping, murdering, decietful men - yet were men "after God's own heart."

I have to respectfully disagree here. Christ followed the same OT that we have now, at least according to the NT text that we have now.

However, I do believe both sets of scripture have been warped beyond recognition. I don't believe that God is as depicted in the Old Testament, however was depicted as such for the furtherance of powerful people's political agendas.

I believe that Christ came to correct the misinformation about God, and after his death, his words were twisted, again for the furtherance of powerful people's political agendas.

Consider that Christianiy did not really begin to spread until Constantine embraced the religion and made all of his subjects convert. Religion has been used as a way to unite people to further political/power agendas. It's happened with early Judaism, it's happened with Christianity, it's happened with Islam. It will happen again and again until humanity grows up.

[Pol]

I don't believe that Christ followed the old testament because - what's there to follow?
He replaced all but the ten commandments (which he covered with love). The old testament is an epic story of wars and murders and violence - what is there to follow?

Also, I said earlier in the thread the same thing you did - I didn't know there were others that believed that Christ came to correct the bad image God had gained.

[Kalika]

Look, i didn't know this would be a big discussion, all i wanted to say is just that i didn't mean to offend any "Christian Witches", it's just that there's so many cleches. All i want to say is that i just don't understand it, your just putting two religions together..... just call it a whole other religon..... it can't be two religons, cuz (according to my total 100% christian grandparents) almost 95% christans belive that only christianity exists and i hate it when people preach abot it! I just wanted to know in short answers "yes" or "no", do you agree or not?

I just don't get either religons fully, and no offense, but i could care less about christianity... I grew up with it getting drilled in my head, and that everything i did was wrong, and i got sick of it! so i kinda developed a dis-like of christianity.... an i want to find somewhere where i can be AWAY from it all.... and obviously, this is the wrong place...
I'll just stay alone in Nottoway Virginia, and do everything alone....

:sadman:

Just because people disagree with your opinion in this instance, doesn't mean that this isn't the place for you.

Any intelligent question, or a statement such as you made, on such a controversial subject is going to spark debate. That's NOT A BAD THING. And I'm not quite sure why you're taking it as such - you shouldn't. The people posting here are trying to explain to you, and others, what a Christian Witch or Christo-Pagan is - to help you better understand this, and expand your knowledge of the subject.

See my signature - DISAGREEMENT DOES NOT MEAN DISRESPECT.

It's there for a reason, and the majority of people here will say the exact same thing.

Just because people don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean that you shouldn't continue to offer them, and share in the discussion.

If you could "care less" about Christianity - then why do Christo-Pagans/Christian Witches -bother you? You said yourself you don't really understand either religion - so how can you claim that a Christian Witch is an oxymoron?

Just because something doesn't fit into your view doesn't mean that it can't or doesn't exist. Maybe you just aren't ready to see it yet. :)

Blessings,

Kalika

[Erebus]

How can you say that a man who said "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man" in reference to the kosher laws (Matthew 15:11) was not out to break/change the OT laws?

[IvyWitch]

Look, i didn't know this would be a big discussion, all i wanted to say is just that i didn't mean to offend any "Christian Witches", it's just that there's so many cleches. All i want to say is that i just don't understand it, your just putting two religions together..... just call it a whole other religon..... it can't be two religons, cuz (according to my total 100% christian grandparents) almost 95% christans belive that only christianity exists and i hate it when people preach abot it! I just wanted to know in short answers "yes" or "no", do you agree or not?

Well, see the problem is the way you worded your first post made it sound like you were telling everyone that Christo-Paganism was just impossible. The way it sounded to me is that you made a judgement and then wanted to know who agreed. I'm not surprised that many disagreed.

I'm not trying to get down on you, but you should keep in mind that whether or not you agree with it respect is key. And, I'm sure you meant no disrespect, but now you know.

:huddle:

Don't feel bad, it's a very touchy subject.

[Erebus]

He knew exactly what he was doing, Taiyo. Someone only says "No offense but..." if they know perfectly well that the statement following it is offensive. Usually, it's even intentionally offensive, and "No offense but..." is used to give a little escape hatch when people actually (*gasp!*) get offended and turn up the heat.

[Morr]

I don't believe that Christ followed the old testament because - what's there to follow?
He replaced all but the ten commandments (which he covered with love). The old testament is an epic story of wars and murders and violence - what is there to follow?


have you ever sat down and read the entire old testament. wars & violence is part of its story, not the entire story of it.
He did NOT replace everything.
Do you believe that Jesus is the Messiah? Because the concept of Messiah is originally from the Old Testament.

And if the Old Testament is a bunch of bull, howcome the New Testament isnt a bunch of bull? What makes it any difference. Both were written by man, saying that both are the revelation of God to man.

Not much difference, except one is an epic story of a community of people, and one is an epic story of a leader of a Jewish cult and his people.


How can you say that a man who said "Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man" in reference to the kosher laws (Matthew 15:11) was not out to break/change the OT laws?


has nothing to do with the Kosher laws, but to the law of washing one's hands before sitting down to eat. The Pharasees came to Jesus and asked him why his diciples werent washing their hands before they sit down to eat (which is a matter of hygine AND is part of Jewish law), and Jesus was like - it doesnt matter what goes into your mouth (ie - germs & fun stuff that come from your hands through the food into your body), but what what you say & your behavior, etc.. Because food goes into your body, but then out of it..

Its right there in the chapter. Has nothing to do with any TYPE of food or KOSHER law... Peter (or Paul, I dont remember which one of the two) was the one who took out the KOSHER laws. He claimed that now since the Messiah came, the people who accept him are the New Israel and all other OT laws are out since Jesus came to replace those. Which is wrong because Jesus never said that. He did preach and teach his own little philosophy - Like any scholar would do. But he never claimed he was the Messiah or that a new religion breaking the Acient Jewish Law to be born.

In fact, along the New Testament he DOES say that the Law should not be broken or mistreated.

[Erebus]

So he didn't actually MEAN that you can't be defiled (made unclean) based on what you put in your mouth?

The short of it: He was either lying, or changing the law. One or the other. If you cannot be made unclean by things you put in your mouth (like pork), then he's changing the law. If you CAN be made unclean by things you put in your mouth (like pork), then he's lying in this verse.

[Druchii]

I thought Jesus was a white man from Oxford. ( <---that was a silly remark)
:D

[IvyWitch]

He knew exactly what he was doing, Taiyo. Someone only says "No offense but..." if they know perfectly well that the statement following it is offensive. Usually, it's even intentionally offensive, and "No offense but..." is used to give a little escape hatch when people actually (*gasp!*) get offended and turn up the heat.

I know, but I am making an effort to be nice.

[Morr]

So he didn't actually MEAN that you can't be defiled (made unclean) based on what you put in your mouth?

The short of it: He was either lying, or changing the law. One or the other. If you cannot be made unclean by things you put in your mouth (like pork), then he's changing the law. If you CAN be made unclean by things you put in your mouth (like pork), then he's lying in this verse.


he meant that you cant be defiled by what you put in your mouth, but where is the pork in the passage?
you cant say he talked about one thing, when he specifically talks about washing your hands. its THERE in the chapter... At one point Peter is like "what?", and Jesus is all like "you dimwit, if you dont wash your hands before you sit down to eat, thats not going to piss off god... what you say to others will".

[dr_zeus440]

I don't see what's wrong in combining Christianity and Wicca, considering that both of them have a similar set of core values.

core values do not a religion make tho. and what about the concept of salvation and original sin, they are actually pretty central to christianity, but completely absent from almost all forms of paganism, definitely including wicca. i believe we could all learn something from these guys:

:nicetie: :fpeace: :fpipesmok :nicetie: :nicetie:

I think you need to explore MW a bit more thoroughly before making statements such as those you've made in this thread.

aah, why??? if this is his/her opinion, why does it need to be informed by the general populace of MW? dwindling individuality in the pagan community at large, bugger that, in the human community at large, is a problem not a solution.

Most Christo-Pagans dont follow the Church's teachings/dogma. Only the teachings of Jesus & what he stood for. There *IS* a difference. Also, if you look at Catholicism - its based on Pagan traditions/holidays/concepts.

well that in itself is problematic. being a christian isnt about following the teachings of jesus as you interpret them, its about following the dogma (no, dogma is not a dirty word...turnip, however.....) of the church of christ, whatever particular denomination that you derive your beliefs from. so, if the situation in question is about a person who is a wiccan/pagan but follows the teachings of jesus, then thats perfectly fine, but its got nothing to do with christianity so why call it christian wicca/paganism/witchcraft? and im not going to even go into the idea of jesus installing the church as the embodiment of his ideals... :nicetie: :nicetie:

this raises an important point (the previous paragraph, not the guy with the tie...but it is rather a nice tie aye); half the 'issues' in the neo-pagan community are to do with labels and/or definitions, the whole fluffy-bunny/fluffy-hater dichotomy is caused by it, and this whole concept of christo-/christian paganism and the varying opinions about are also direct results of a lack of a solid place to stand from in paganism (now, whether or not this is to do with the fluidity of the practice of the religion...is relatively obvious) so PLEASE!!! if you're gunna start a thread or even a serious post on the topic, please bung in some definitions somewhere, it helps the rest of us get an idea of where you're coming from, and HALF the time, there won't even be a dispute, because, unless your definitions are shockingly mismatched to your beliefs, most people will recognise that your beliefs fit in with your understanding...and THEN, instead of people perceiving attacks on their beliefs (for the record, both the attacking and the rampant, ignorant and false accusation of attacking are immature), critical posts will be seen as an attempt to educate someones understanding. exiting rant mode...

As far as I'm concerned A person's religious beliefs only need to make sense to that person....I think that most of what I know about Jesus and the bible are actually other people's opinions and interpretations and maybe not what was intended at all.

your first point is true while the person keeps their beliefs private, but as soon as you express your beliefs, you make them public and therefore open to scrutiny. im not saying that you have to stick around and be scrutinised, but atleast be prepared that people will question your beliefs if they dont make sense to that other person. and the second, well thats the same with any text, any experience, its all tainted by the collection of biases of those who write it, re-write it, translate it etc. but still, the bible particularly, doesnt deny this bias, for the bias is the agenda of the church, and the church is the installment of the religion, and the bible, even jesus' preachings in the bible, supports the role of the church as the interpreter of the contents of the bible.

Worship of Mary is, essentially, Isis worship incognito.

i disagree, its like saying the combustion of butane is, essentially, combustion of methane incognito. suuuuuuuuure, one is derived from the other, but both have very very different identities...similar yes, but still very different. and, depending on which denomination you ascribe to, the worshiping of mary as a godform is blasphemy. so yeah, there are similarities between mary and isis, like there are some similarities between paganism (or some forms of it) and christianity (or some denominations of it), but theyre still vastly different.

So in other words I should conform myself to your standards.

inuus is trying to help, dont pick a fight where there is none, imo, its not very christian...

I think it's highly unfair to tell someone else what they can and cannot be.

you cant be an apple and an orange at the same time. unfair, or fact? difference of definitions, see above.

Walk a mile in their shoes... maybe you'd see it in a different light.


hmm, maybe, and then again maybe not. i used to be a christian, a good one. and i used to be a wiccan, a good one. all it's done has informed my opinion that the two don't mix perfectly without the elimination of some aspects or the invention of entirely new ones. but that is just me, its entirely different for alot of other people.
:nicetie: :nicetie: :nicetie:

eh, bored now. if i was to form some conclusion it would be this, believe what you want, its utterly and entirely upto you and no-one has the right to tell you that your religious beliefs are wrong, but dont call it something that its not, because that's the point were people do have the right to say that youve got it wrong, not on the grounds of religious beliefs, but on the grounds of *socially recognised* labels. an apple is an apple because it is what an apple is defined to be. an orange is an orange because it is what an orange is defined to be. oh yeah, and if i've offended anyone, please be directed to my signature:

[Erebus]

he meant that you cant be defiled by what you put in your mouth, but where is the pork in the passage?
you cant say he talked about one thing, when he specifically talks about washing your hands. its THERE in the chapter... At one point Peter is like "what?", and Jesus is all like "you dimwit, if you dont wash your hands before you sit down to eat, thats not going to piss off god... what you say to others will".

:rolleyes:

What are you if you break the kosher laws?

You are unclean.

How did you become unclean?

You put something unclean in your mouth.

Jesus said: You cannot become unclean based on what you put in your mouth.

God said: You can indeed become unclean based on what you put in your mouth. There are lots of things you can put in your mouth that will make you unclean. Pork, shellfish, insects, rabbit, etc.

Who is telling the truth? God says in the OT that what goes into your mouth defiles you. Jesus says in the NT that what goes into your mouth does not defile you.

Please note that Jesus didn't say "Well, you know, except for lobster and stuff, obviously," in that passage. He said, and you agreed with him, that there is nothing you can put in your mouth that will make you unclean. This means you DO NOT BELIEVE pork, or anything else non-kosher, when put in your mouth, will make you unclean. THEREFORE, you do not believe the kosher laws, and THEREFORE the Old Testament laws were changed by Jesus.

[IvyWitch]

:rolleyes:

What are you if you break the kosher laws?

You are unclean.

How did you become unclean?

You put something unclean in your mouth.

Jesus said: You cannot become unclean based on what you put in your mouth.

God said: You can indeed become unclean based on what you put in your mouth. There are lots of things you can put in your mouth that will make you unclean. Pork, shellfish, insects, rabbit, etc.

Who is telling the truth? God says in the OT that what goes into your mouth defiles you. Jesus says in the NT that what goes into your mouth does not defile you.

Please note that Jesus didn't say "Well, you know, except for lobster and stuff, obviously," in that passage. He said, and you agreed with him, that there is nothing you can put in your mouth that will make you unclean. This means you DO NOT BELIEVE pork, or anything else non-kosher, when put in your mouth, will make you unclean. THEREFORE, you do not believe the kosher laws, and THEREFORE the Old Testament laws were changed by Jesus.

Wait, I was under the impression that with the coming of the Messiah the followers were freed from the laws of the OT - which is why Christians don't celebrate jewish holidays or live under the dietary restrictions.
Now I'm all comfused...
:eyebrow:

[Brinclhof]

eh, bored now. if i was to form some conclusion it would be this, believe what you want, its utterly and entirely upto you and no-one has the right to tell you that your religious beliefs are wrong, but dont call it something that its not, because that's the point were people do have the right to say that youve got it wrong, not on the grounds of religious beliefs, but on the grounds of *socially recognised* labels. an apple is an apple because it is what an apple is defined to be. an orange is an orange because it is what an orange is defined to be. oh yeah, and if i've offended anyone, please be directed to my signature:

Ok Dr_zeus440 I have a question for you.

I believe in Jesus Christ as my lord and savior. I believe in God the father, God the son and God the holy spirit as different aspects of the same being. I believe God created the world and therefore the world is filled with his energy. I believe it is possible to harness that energy to do magick through meditation, energy manipulation, the use of stones and crystals etc. I believe the bible is a book that is a guide towards understanding God and drawing closer to him. Through drawing closer to God and understanding his world by learning to maniuplate its latent energies we get closer to enlightenment and the divine.

Based on that definition of my beliefs what *socially recognized* label would you use to define me? I call myself a christo-pagan because to me that seems to fit.

I mean no offense but I am just curious. You seemed to make a good point about the fact that our beliefs don't fit within the norm. so neither will our label.

[Morr]

:rolleyes:

What are you if you break the kosher laws?

You are unclean.

How did you become unclean?

You put something unclean in your mouth.

Jesus said: You cannot become unclean based on what you put in your mouth.

God said: You can indeed become unclean based on what you put in your mouth. There are lots of things you can put in your mouth that will make you unclean. Pork, shellfish, insects, rabbit, etc.

Who is telling the truth? God says in the OT that what goes into your mouth defiles you. Jesus says in the NT that what goes into your mouth does not defile you.

Please note that Jesus didn't say "Well, you know, except for lobster and stuff, obviously," in that passage. He said, and you agreed with him, that there is nothing you can put in your mouth that will make you unclean. This means you DO NOT BELIEVE pork, or anything else non-kosher, when put in your mouth, will make you unclean. THEREFORE, you do not believe the kosher laws, and THEREFORE the Old Testament laws were changed by Jesus.


my darling,
it says specifically that he talks about the not washing your hands deal... Jesus says so himself...

"then peter said, "Tell us what the parable means". Jesus answered, "are you still as dull as the rest? do you not see that whatever goes in by the mouth passes into the stomach, and so is discharged into the drain? But what comes out of the mouth has its origins in the heart; and that is what defiles a man. Wicked thoughts, murder, adulatry, fornication, theft, perjury, slander - these all proceed from the heard; and these are the things that defile a man; But to eat without first washing his hands, that cannot defile him.
~Matthew 15:16-20

the subject matter is not left open to interpertations. it says so right there that Jesus is talking specifically about the matter or washing hands before eating. No Kosher laws at all. Now if there was pork involved in this, I'd agree with you completely.
But theres not. And there is no place left for any other interpertation whatesoever.

[Aine of the Fae]

core values do not a religion make tho. and what about the concept of salvation and original sin, they are actually pretty central to christianity, but completely absent from almost all forms of paganism, definitely including wicca. Original sin is not central to Christianity, it was invented by a monk hundreds of years after Christ.


well that in itself is problematic. being a christian isnt about following the teachings of jesus as you interpret them, its about following the dogma (no, dogma is not a dirty word...turnip, however.....) of the church of christ, whatever particular denomination that you derive your beliefs from. so, if the situation in question is about a person who is a wiccan/pagan but follows the teachings of jesus, then thats perfectly fine, but its got nothing to do with christianity so why call it christian wicca/paganism/witchcraft? and im not going to even go into the idea of jesus installing the church as the embodiment of his ideals... :nicetie: :nicetie:
Really????? I thought being a Christian WAS about following the teachings of Jesus, not the church. If we continued to follow the word of the church, blindly, the Protestant Reformation never would have happened. It's people continually delving deeper into the Bible and questioning the 'traditional' interpretation that have allowed the religion of Christianity to evolve. Being a Christian is not about following the church, it's about following Christ, period.


this raises an important point (the previous paragraph, not the guy with the tie...but it is rather a nice tie aye); half the 'issues' in the neo-pagan community are to do with labels and/or definitions, the whole fluffy-bunny/fluffy-hater dichotomy is caused by it, and this whole concept of christo-/christian paganism and the varying opinions about are also direct results of a lack of a solid place to stand from in paganism (now, whether or not this is to do with the fluidity of the practice of the religion...is relatively obvious) so PLEASE!!! if you're gunna start a thread or even a serious post on the topic, please bung in some definitions somewhere, it helps the rest of us get an idea of where you're coming from, and HALF the time, there won't even be a dispute, because, unless your definitions are shockingly mismatched to your beliefs, most people will recognise that your beliefs fit in with your understanding...and THEN, instead of people perceiving attacks on their beliefs (for the record, both the attacking and the rampant, ignorant and false accusation of attacking are immature), critical posts will be seen as an attempt to educate someones understanding. exiting rant mode...

I agree that many misunderstandings have to do with labels and definitions. However, I'm not Pagan. I'm a Christian Witch. There is a difference, a HUGE difference. I follow Christ, the human embodiment of God. No other gods exist in my worldview. I might be wrong, but I that's what I believe.

Would you like my definitions? I'll give the to you now:

Christian - One who follows the teachings of Yeshua ben Joseph, also know as Jesus the Christ as the understand them.

Witch - One who is in touch with the natural flow of energies throughout the world, one who is in touch with nature and all of God's creation, one who knowingly embraces God's creation as the wonder that it is, one who seeks union with God through the knowing of God's creation.

Where in those two definitions are they mutually exclusive? Are my definitions really so different from the standard that they are invalid?

Well then, here are the standard definitions of those words:

Christian:
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

Witch
# A woman claiming or popularly believed to possess magical powers and practice sorcery.
# A believer or follower of Wicca; a Wiccan.
# A hag.
# A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing.
# Informal. A woman or girl considered bewitching.
# One particularly skilled or competent at one's craft: “A witch of a writer, [she] is capable of developing an intensity that verges on ferocity” (Peter S. Prescott).

Let me see. Yup, I'd say I've got Christian covered quite well. And hmmm... that definition of Witch, well I think all people possess 'magical powers' however I believe they are natural God given gifts surpressed by a male dominated culture that revels in abuse of power and elitism and doesn't like the idea that anyone could have that power. I'm not Wiccan, however I think many, many people would agree that being a Witch DOES NOT necessarily make one Wiccan. While I may not be a supermodel, I'm still a bit young to be a hag, although I confess I'm looking forward to my crone years if only because I think grey hair is pretty. I've been called spiteful and overbearing, in the same sentence at times. And ask my husband, he'll tell you that yes, I can definitely be bewitching, otherwise he might never have married me. Now that last definition of witch is interesting. Skilled or competent at one's craft. Hah! Yes, I am good at what I do. Because I work at it.

So, I'm pretty well covered not only by MY definitions of Christian and Witch, but also by the dictionary's definitions of Christian and Witch. By the way, have those been defined clearly enough for you?


your first point is true while the person keeps their beliefs private, but as soon as you express your beliefs, you make them public and therefore open to scrutiny. im not saying that you have to stick around and be scrutinised, but atleast be prepared that people will question your beliefs if they dont make sense to that other person. and the second, well thats the same with any text, any experience, its all tainted by the collection of biases of those who write it, re-write it, translate it etc. but still, the bible particularly, doesnt deny this bias, for the bias is the agenda of the church, and the church is the installment of the religion, and the bible, even jesus' preachings in the bible, supports the role of the church as the interpreter of the contents of the bible.
Sorry, but I don't think that the fact that beliefs become public opens them to scrutiny, particularly in regard to religious beliefs, and especially in the U.S. There is that pesky constitution and all. Not to mention that during most relationships of any kind, whether friendship or otherwise, the topic of religion comes up. Unless you live in a shack in the woods, isolated from the rest of the world, your beliefs will become publis. That does NOT make it ok for them to be criticised. Questioned, yes. It's through people questioning my beliefs that I've truly come to understand what my beliefs are. However telling me I can't be something because you don't understand is not valid. If that's the case than Pagans CANNOT exist in the U.S. which is dominated by those professing to be Christian because Christian's for the most part don't understand Paganism.





inuus is trying to help, dont pick a fight where there is none, imo, its not very christian...
Really? Trying to help? By telling me what I shouldn't do because it makes them feel uncomfortable? And you yourself said you are no longer Christian, so who are you to stand and judge what is and isn't very Christian of me?



hmm, maybe, and then again maybe not. i used to be a christian, a good one. and i used to be a wiccan, a good one. all it's done has informed my opinion that the two don't mix perfectly without the elimination of some aspects or the invention of entirely new ones. but that is just me, its entirely different for alot of other people.

I'M NOT WICCAN. MOST CHRISTIAN WITCHES ARE NOT WICCAN. However, that does not mean the two are mutually exclusive. It can and has worked. It takes a LOT of working at it, and tends to get very frustrating at times, however you must remember that WICCA WAS MADE UP. If you are going to tell a Christian Wiccan that they can't be then you'd better get your butt out there and tell every Wiccan that isn't initiated into a Gardnerian coven that they can't be either.


eh, bored now. if i was to form some conclusion it would be this, believe what you want, its utterly and entirely upto you and no-one has the right to tell you that your religious beliefs are wrong, but dont call it something that its not, because that's the point were people do have the right to say that youve got it wrong, not on the grounds of religious beliefs, but on the grounds of *socially recognised* labels. an apple is an apple because it is what an apple is defined to be. an orange is an orange because it is what an orange is defined to be. oh yeah, and if i've offended anyone, please be directed to my signature:

No one EVER has the right to say I've got it wrong when it comes to my personally held religious beliefs. EVER. If they do, then I have the right to tell you you're going to Hell for eternity for turning your back on God.

[Equinox]

however you must remember that WICCA WAS MADE UP.


*chimes in to support Aine *

She’s right. It is important to remember that Wicca was made up recently, and that Christianity was made up 1800 years ago, and that all religions are made up in their own day. We all make up in our own minds how to put our spiritualities together. If you don’t believe me, just ask a group of Christians what baptism means or what will happen at when Jesus comes back. They’ll have all kinds of different answers that don’t agree, because each answer is made up, and is based on different bible verses, some of which support one view, and some of which support other views.

So even if Aine was the only Christian Witch (and she isn’t…), and even if she just made it up herself, it would still be a legitimate spiritual path, at least for her.

Yes, there are lot’s of things in the Bible that aren’t compatible with being a witch, and lots of things that Aine probably doesn’t want (like “Blessed is he who smashes the heads of the infants against the rocks” Ps 137), but that’s OK. She can take what she wants from the bible and leave the rest. Because so many parts of the Bible contradict each other, every Christian has to do the same thing, they just won’t admit it. At least Aine is up front about it. Putting together your own spirituality is a good way to avoid the nasty stuff that is hidden in many of the prepackaged spiritualities we are handed. Aine has my respect, whether we walk on the same path or not.

[Aine of the Fae]

*chimes in to support Aine *

She’s right. It is important to remember that Wicca was made up recently, and that Christianity was made up 1800 years ago, and that all religions are made up in their own day. We all make up in our own minds how to put our spiritualities together. If you don’t believe me, just as a group of Christians what baptism means or what will happen at when Jesus comes back. They’ll have all kinds of different answers that don’t agree, because each answer is made up.


Also remember that early European converts would be considered Christian Witches today. They still practiced their Pagan ways in a Christian context.


So even if Aine was the only Christian Witch (and she isn’t…), and even if she just made it up herself, it would still be a legitimate spiritual path, at least for her.
Nope, not the only one, and I'm finding out quickly just how many there really are!


Yes, there are lot’s of things in the Bible that aren’t compatible with being a witch, and lots of things that Aine probably doesn’t want (like “Blessed is he who smashes the heads of the infants against the rocks” Ps 137), but that’s OK. She can take what she wants from the bible and leave the rest. Because so many parts of the Bible contradict each other, every Christian has to do the same thing, they just won’t admit it. At least Aine is up front about it. Putting together your own spirituality is a good way to avoid the nasty stuff that is hidden in many of the prepackaged spiritualities we are handed. Aine has my respect, whether we walk on the same path or not.

There are lot's of things in the Bible that aren't compatible with being an American.

And thank you Equinox! I 'pick and choose' because everyone 'picks and chooses' their spirituality. It's why there are so many religions and so many divisions within religions. We pick and choose what works for us. I'm just a LOT more open about it.

[Pol]

i disagree, its like saying the combustion of butane is, essentially, combustion of methane incognito. suuuuuuuuure, one is derived from the other, but both have very very different identities...similar yes, but still very different. and, depending on which denomination you ascribe to, the worshiping of mary as a godform is blasphemy. so yeah, there are similarities between mary and isis, like there are some similarities between paganism (or some forms of it) and christianity (or some denominations of it), but theyre still vastly different.

The worship of Mary came directly from the worship of Isis. When "Christianity" began covering the lands, people continued to worship Isis, only they began to call her Mary and say she was the father of God, or so. That's rough, but more or less correct.

Also, true - one cannot be an apple and an orange - but what of an apple and a pear? Ever had a Japanese pear that looks just like an apple and is like a mixture of both? In the same way, one can blend both Christianity and Paganism to suit them.
Who said pagans and christiasn are either apples or oranges? That's not your place to dictate.

[Lunacie]

Also, true - one cannot be an apple and an orange - but what of an apple and a pear? Ever had a Japanese pear that looks just like an apple and is like a mixture of both? In the same way, one can blend both Christianity and Paganism to suit them.
Who said pagans and christiasn are either apples or oranges? That's not your place to dictate.
A very large number of people over a large number of years have agreed on the basic beliefs and practices of Christianity and Paganism. That's who says they are different, yet there are certain similarities. Both apples and oranges are fruit but they grown on different trees in different climates and have similar yet different health benefits. If you want to make a fruit salad and put both apples and oranges in it there's nothing wrong with that, or with you, but don't call it apple salad 'cause it's fruit salad, eh?

[Pol]

If you make a salad of apples and oranges, you have an apple and orange salad.
You specify the fruits that make up the salad.

I think everyone agrees that Paganism is not a first-come first-decide religion, otherwise most everyone would not be here or be called Pagans.

[Kalika]

hmm, maybe, and then again maybe not. i used to be a christian, a good one. and i used to be a wiccan, a good one. all it's done has informed my opinion that the two don't mix perfectly without the elimination of some aspects or the invention of entirely new ones. but that is just me, its entirely different for alot of other people.
:nicetie: :nicetie: :nicetie:

Have you explored mixing the two together? That WOULD involving elimination of some aspects of both - blending religions normally does. Have you tried to BE a Christian Witch, truly, and found it didn't work for you?

If not, then yours is just another opinion, not based upon facts and the benefit of trying the religion on for size - it obviously works for some people, so why CAN'T it be a religion? You feel it wouldn't work for you - it probably wouldn't. But for Aine, and others... it does.

(Sorry, that was more directed at the people who keep saying it can't be...)

[Erebus]

Morr:

Sorry, I didn't realize that verse was to be interpreted so narrowly. He doesn't seem to leave room for exceptions, which is why I was confused.

[dr_zeus440]

Original sin is not central to Christianity, it was invented by a monk hundreds of years after Christ.

the concept of original sin, whether or not it was invented by a monk hundreds of years after christ, is still a part of christian doctrine and is therefore still a part of christianity. another example is the churchs teachings on IVF. IVF is a very modern process, one that was not foreseen nor accounted for by the bible in its original form. however, the rejection of IVF by the churchs interpretation of the bible (i.e. that a cluster of cells is, for all intents and purposes, a human being deserving of the rights of all other humans) is also a part of christian doctrine, and is therefore a part of christianity.

Really????? I thought being a Christian WAS about following the teachings of Jesus, not the church. If we continued to follow the word of the church, blindly, the Protestant Reformation never would have happened. It's people continually delving deeper into the Bible and questioning the 'traditional' interpretation that have allowed the religion of Christianity to evolve. Being a Christian is not about following the church, it's about following Christ, period.

you mean that your opinion of being a christian is that its about following christ, who incidentally installed the church as the government of his people. i could be wrong, and i mean no offense, but i really think that you've hit a brick wall here. doing what jesus says, all of it, means following the church.

I agree that many misunderstandings have to do with labels and definitions. However, I'm not Pagan. I'm a Christian Witch. There is a difference, a HUGE difference. I follow Christ, the human embodiment of God. No other gods exist in my worldview. I might be wrong, but I that's what I believe.

there certainly may be a huge difference, but that is also of little value to this debate, because the same applies to witchcraft, there is no solid place to stand, no definitive definition, due to the fluidity of modern practice of it.

Would you like my definitions? I'll give the to you now:

Christian - One who follows the teachings of Yeshua ben Joseph, also know as Jesus the Christ as the understand them.

Witch - One who is in touch with the natural flow of energies throughout the world, one who is in touch with nature and all of God's creation, one who knowingly embraces God's creation as the wonder that it is, one who seeks union with God through the knowing of God's creation.

Where in those two definitions are they mutually exclusive? Are my definitions really so different from the standard that they are invalid?

Well then, here are the standard definitions of those words:

Christian:
1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus.
2. Relating to or derived from Jesus or Jesus's teachings.
3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus; Christlike.
4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity or its adherents.
5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

Witch
# A woman claiming or popularly believed to possess magical powers and practice sorcery.
# A believer or follower of Wicca; a Wiccan.
# A hag.
# A woman considered to be spiteful or overbearing.
# Informal. A woman or girl considered bewitching.
# One particularly skilled or competent at one's craft: “A witch of a writer, [she] is capable of developing an intensity that verges on ferocity” (Peter S. Prescott).

Let me see. Yup, I'd say I've got Christian covered quite well. And hmmm... that definition of Witch, well I think all people possess 'magical powers' however I believe they are natural God given gifts surpressed by a male dominated culture that revels in abuse of power and elitism and doesn't like the idea that anyone could have that power. I'm not Wiccan, however I think many, many people would agree that being a Witch DOES NOT necessarily make one Wiccan. While I may not be a supermodel, I'm still a bit young to be a hag, although I confess I'm looking forward to my crone years if only because I think grey hair is pretty. I've been called spiteful and overbearing, in the same sentence at times. And ask my husband, he'll tell you that yes, I can definitely be bewitching, otherwise he might never have married me. Now that last definition of witch is interesting. Skilled or competent at one's craft. Hah! Yes, I am good at what I do. Because I work at it.

So, I'm pretty well covered not only by MY definitions of Christian and Witch, but also by the dictionary's definitions of Christian and Witch. By the way, have those been defined clearly enough for you?

i would challenge your definitions, thereby challenging your debate. please notice, i am challenging your debate, not criticising your beliefs.

my definition of what a christian is is someone who follows the teachings of the church because jesus installed the papacy, the church to govern his "flock", christians. i also propose that the church's definition of what a christian is is more valid because it comes from the church, the authority on christianity. even jesus would support this as he installed the church to be the authority on his teachings. as the church does not support the amalgamation of witchcraft and christianity, i can see no way that there can be such a thing as a christian witch. as i say below, a practicioner of magic who follows their interpretation of the teachings of jesus, but not a christian witch.

Sorry, but I don't think that the fact that beliefs become public opens them to scrutiny, particularly in regard to religious beliefs, and especially in the U.S. There is that pesky constitution and all. Not to mention that during most relationships of any kind, whether friendship or otherwise, the topic of religion comes up. Unless you live in a shack in the woods, isolated from the rest of the world, your beliefs will become publis. That does NOT make it ok for them to be criticised. Questioned, yes. It's through people questioning my beliefs that I've truly come to understand what my beliefs are. However telling me I can't be something because you don't understand is not valid. If that's the case than Pagans CANNOT exist in the U.S. which is dominated by those professing to be Christian because Christian's for the most part don't understand Paganism.

firstly, i should probably explain what i mean by 'scrutiny'. i dont mean criticising, i mean challenging, i mean calling to explain and support. by publicising your opinions of what is true, you leave them open to be 'challenged', you leave yourself open to be called to explain and/or support them, even if your support is just "this is my opinion, i cannot support it with fact".

i cant account for the correctness of this information, my own understanding, though i am not american, is that it is incorrect, but;
Not quite, since the Constitution only limits government, not the people.
however, even operating under the umbrella that the constitution applies to the public, the constitution also allows for the freedom of speech, the freedom to express opinions and to call others to explain and support their own opinions.

i would also argue that your expression that a persons beliefs will always, at some point, become public is not only incorrect, my religious beliefs are known to no-one but myself, but of no consequence to this debate. because you have joined a message board and made your beliefs public, you have left yourself open to being called to explain and support them, and also to having people express opinions that are contrary to your own.

Really? Trying to help? By telling me what I shouldn't do because it makes them feel uncomfortable? And you yourself said you are no longer Christian, so who are you to stand and judge what is and isn't very Christian of me?

i probably should apologise here, as i probably did overstep the mark without explaining why i was saying what i said. by the church's, and even by your, definition of what a christian is, picking fights is not christian. jesus says, and the church supports, "love one another as i have loved you" (probably not the correct wording, but please, if you know it, feel free to correct me). loving one another, arguably, doesnt allow for becoming angry at a suggestion meant to help. the fact that i am no longer a christian means nothing to this debate. the fact that i am not an apple does not mean that i have no idea what an apple is.

I'M NOT WICCAN. MOST CHRISTIAN WITCHES ARE NOT WICCAN. However, that does not mean the two are mutually exclusive. It can and has worked. It takes a LOT of working at it, and tends to get very frustrating at times, however you must remember that WICCA WAS MADE UP. If you are going to tell a Christian Wiccan that they can't be then you'd better get your butt out there and tell every Wiccan that isn't initiated into a Gardnerian coven that they can't be either.

ok, my reply to this is based on an understanding that "it can and has worked" means that mixing christianity and wicca can and has worked.

one example...
christianity, as it is laid down by the authority installed by jesus, the church; "i am the lord your god...you shall have no other gods before me"
wicca, as it is laid down by gardner in the ardanes; "3. The Wicca should give due worship to the Gods". in fact, atleast 6 of the first 10 ardanes make reference to 'gods' as opposed to the singular, 'god'. and to further this, ardane no. 11 makes direct reference to a 'goddess'.

christianity has only one god, wicca must have more than one. these are mutually exclusive events, if it were possible in this medium, id draw you a venn diagram. how can these be mixed together without one being omitted and the other taking precedence, or both being altered? what im saying is that this alteration means that the resulting religious beliefs are no longer wiccan or christian, but possibly influenced by both. again, it comes down to labels.

No one EVER has the right to say I've got it wrong when it comes to my personally held religious beliefs. EVER. If they do, then I have the right to tell you you're going to Hell for eternity for turning your back on God.

you do have that right, im not going to say that you cant tell me that, you can tell me whatever you want to tell me, freedom of speech, i honestly do not have a problem with that. but im not telling you that your beliefs are wrong, im telling you that, in my opinion, christianity and witchcraft dont mix because the labels imply two entities that are oppositional. according to your definition, your interpretation of what a christian is is that it is someone who follows christ. but i would say, who could be better at defining what a christian is than the authority installed by jesus christ i.e. the church. and they define christians as being people who follow the teachings of the church, their interpretation of the teachings of jesus, and the bible. because the teachings of the church do not allow for the amalgamation of witchcraft and because the church defines what is christian, i see it as impossible for someone to be a christian witch. a practicioner of magic who follows the teachings of jesus as they are interpreted by the practicioner, yes, but not a christian witch.

i would pose you one final question; why do you call yourself a christian witch? if it simply because you want to, then say so, because i have no problem with this and will stop posting. in my mind, the best reason for doing something is because you want to do it (call it immoral, i call it an amoral derivation of atheism and existentialism). if it because it most accurately expresses your beliefs, then we can continue this, because i dont believe it does, as i view the two terms being fundamentally contradictory.

Based on that definition of my beliefs what *socially recognized* label would you use to define me?

thats entirely up to you. but, i would say that you shouldnt call yourself by a term that is already recognised and attributed to another set of beliefs or one that is a mixture of two different sets of beliefs, atleast one of which does not allow for the amalgamation of the two.

She’s right. It is important to remember that Wicca was made up recently, and that Christianity was made up 1800 years ago, and that all religions are made up in their own day. We all make up in our own minds how to put our spiritualities together. If you don’t believe me, just ask a group of Christians what baptism means or what will happen at when Jesus comes back. They’ll have all kinds of different answers that don’t agree, because each answer is made up, and is based on different bible verses, some of which support one view, and some of which support other views.

certainly, all religions are made up. but even so, they are still defined, and in the case of christianity, defined by an installed authority on the matter. and i do believe you that we all make up, in our own minds, how to put our spiritualities together, but this does not mean that one label can encompass two spiritualities because they are derived from a common source. judaism spawned christianity (which in turn spawned islam...correct me if im wrong, i might be), but due to the differing nature of their beliefs, they are different religions.

So even if Aine was the only Christian Witch (and she isn’t…), and even if she just made it up herself, it would still be a legitimate spiritual path, at least for her.

im not questioning the legitimacy of her spiritual path, im questioning the label she uses to describe it. see above in my replies to her.

Yes, there are lot’s of things in the Bible that aren’t compatible with being a witch, and lots of things that Aine probably doesn’t want (like “Blessed is he who smashes the heads of the infants against the rocks” Ps 137), but that’s OK. She can take what she wants from the bible and leave the rest. Because so many parts of the Bible contradict each other, every Christian has to do the same thing, they just won’t admit it. At least Aine is up front about it. Putting together your own spirituality is a good way to avoid the nasty stuff that is hidden in many of the prepackaged spiritualities we are handed. Aine has my respect, whether we walk on the same path or not.

i see absolutely no problem with putting together your own spirituality, but mislabelling it is where i see a problem. do you see a problem with someone who claims to be wiccan and claims that satan is their wiccan lord and master? i dont see a problem with their beliefs, but i see a problem with their labels.

The worship of Mary came directly from the worship of Isis. When "Christianity" began covering the lands, people continued to worship Isis, only they began to call her Mary and say she was the father of God, or so. That's rough, but more or less correct.

hmm, could you provide some research to back this up, because i do have a hard time believing it.

Also, true - one cannot be an apple and an orange - but what of an apple and a pear? Ever had a Japanese pear that looks just like an apple and is like a mixture of both? In the same way, one can blend both Christianity and Paganism to suit them.
Who said pagans and christiasn are either apples or oranges? That's not your place to dictate.

a japanese pear is still a pear, thats why its called a japanese pear. pagans and christians are two separate things because christianity, the church (see my replies to aine re why the church has the authority to define itself), defines itself as being separate to paganism. its not my place to dictate, but it is the churchs, atleast to the extent of what christianity is. i am merely using their dictations.

If you want to make a fruit salad and put both apples and oranges in it there's nothing wrong with that, or with you, but don't call it apple salad 'cause it's fruit salad, eh?

sheer brilliance :uhhuhuh:

Have you explored mixing the two together? That WOULD involving elimination of some aspects of both - blending religions normally does. Have you tried to BE a Christian Witch, truly, and found it didn't work for you?

im not saying that mixing the two together isnt possible, im saying that the result isnt christian witchcraft. christianity separates itself from witchcraft.

If not, then yours is just another opinion, not based upon facts and the benefit of trying the religion on for size - it obviously works for some people, so why CAN'T it be a religion? You feel it wouldn't work for you - it probably wouldn't. But for Aine, and others... it does.

im not saying it cant be a religion, im not question the validity of mixing elements of christianity and elements of witchcraft, im questioning the use of the term christian witch, im questioning the validity of mixing the entirety of both practices and calling them 'christian witchcraft'.

[Pol]

Those outside of "the church" do not follow the dictates of "the church," as most see them as userpers to God himself.

I don't pretend to know a lot of the Isis stuff, but the information I have came from an Isis organisation site of some sort (about the history and such). According to the site (you'd have to find it yourself, I don't have the URL), even names such as Star of the Sea (now used for mary) belonged to Isis. They apparently painted over the pictures of her and horus (i think?) to be Mary and the Christ.

Try typing in July 17th paganism or so. I was trying to find if my birthday had any sort of connections when I found the site about Isis. (apparently, it has a very big one :D)

[Pol]

Also, a lot of people call them apple-pears. ;)

[dr_zeus440]

Those outside of "the church" do not follow the dictates of "the church," as most see them as userpers to God himself.

i dunno, im outside of the church, but their dictates on what they are their followers are are what i would go by when considering said church or followers. also, jesus, supposedly one third of god, installed the church...so how can it usurp god? but i see what you mean, the modern church has assumed the position of god, but i see this as more jesus' fault than that of the church. after all, he did give them that authority.

Also, a lot of people call them apple-pears

haha, sneaky. still, argumentum ad populat...ionem, i cant remember the exact name/spelling, is a fall of logic.

anyway, ive done MORE than enough replying to a thread for one night.

[seraphx]

it seems like the old testament of the christian bible might be being confused here for the jewish torah. they are not quite the same. the old testament represents the jewish heritage of christianity.

i copied the following from this link
http://www.christian-bible.com/oldtestament.htm

"The Old Testament
In the first century CE the Jewish scriptures were not bound in a book, but were written on scrolls that contained one or more texts. Jewish scholars referred to these scrolls as the Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nebi'im), and the Writings (Kethubim). Today Jews often refer to their scripture as the Tanakh, an acronym using the first three Hebrew letters for these groups of scripture.

In the synagogues of Galilee during the time of Jesus there would have been readings on the sabbath from scrolls in Hebrew. Also there would have been readings from the Targums, commentaries on the scriptures in Aramaic, the spoken language of the people of Galilee. The disciples of Jesus, who became the apostles of the church in Jerusalem, would also have used as their scriptures Hebrew and Aramaic readings from the Torah, the Nebi'im, and the Kethubim.

Paul and the other authors of the New Testament read these Jewish scriptures in Greek. In the first churches within Roman cities the only written scripture was the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures that was read throughout the Roman Empire by Greek-speaking Jews. In the fourth century, when the Christian Bible was authorized in Greek as the Christian canon of scripture, the Old Testament includes the books of the Septuagint.

Translators of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek or English must consider how to render a Semitic language into an Indo-European language, which is not always straightforward. In addition, there are variant readings of the Hebrew scriptures. Before about 100 CE there did not exist a single standard version of the various Hebrew scrolls read as scripture by the Jews. It is misleading, therefore, to refer to the "canon" of the Old Testament before this date.

When Jewish scriptures were written on scrolls they did not have a set order, for no single scroll contained all the texts. However, the Prophets were read after the Torah and before the Writings. When the church in the fourth century created its canon, it changed this order by placing the Prophets after the Writings. In the Old Testament the story of God moves from the giving of the law to Israel, to psalms and reflections on the law, and then to the prophetic witness that judges Israel and hopes for renewal of the covenant.

At the time of the Reformation Protestant translators of the Christian Bible used the Hebrew canon established about 100 A.D. for the Old Testament, rather than the Septuagint. This is why Protestant Bibles do not contain all the Old Testament books that are in Roman Catholic Bibles, which based the Old Testament on the books included in the Septuagint read by first century Jews and Christians. Protestants refer to the books in the Septuagint, which are excluded from the Old Testament in Protestant Bibles, as the Apocrypha."

[seraphx]

i completely posted this on the wrong thread...oops

[Brinclhof]

Dr. Zeus,

It seems the main point of your argument is that you do not like the label of christian witch or christo paganism. Again I ask you what term would better describe someone who follows the teachings and has accepted Jesus Christ, and practices magick in order to better understand the divine?

Surely you have another term in mind. The only terms I know are Christian witch or Christo-pagan.

would you prefer something more politically correct like... christian with strong magickal tendencies, or a witch with Jesus as the God and the Holy spirit as the Goddess.

That is the only way to describe how we worship.

[Aine of the Fae]

to dr_zeus440:

You keep saying that Christianity is "the church" but tell me, what church are you referring to? The Catholic church? Methodist? Pentacostal? How about Baptist? Are they all the same church? Put the music minister of my Pentecostal church in a room with my Catholic best friend and I guarantee they'll both say their's is the right church, the other is the wrong church, and they are the one going to Heaven with the other going to Hell.

What church did Jesus start? Does it still exist? Highly unlikely. Jesus instated Peter as the head of his church "The rock upon which I will build my house." Peter is acknowledged as the first Pope, however how much has that religion changed in the years since? 2000 years later do you really think that we have the same religion?

You asked me to define Christian and Witch. I did. Not only did I give my definition, I gave valid, socially acceptable definitions of both words. And you told me they are wrong, because you think that being a Christian means being a part of the "church."

Jesus' definition of the church is, quite simply, his followers. Period. It is not the dogma associated with the religion. It is not the pastors or the buildings, it is the people who profess faith in Christ as their Savior. I do.

Yes, I call myself a Christian Witch because I want to. If I didn't want to I wouldn't do it. I don't do things I don't want to do. However, I also believe that Christian Witch is the phrase that most accurately describes who I am and what I believe. I have stated why I feel that, I have defined those words, and, while you may not believe that those definitions are accurate, they are accurate enough to have made it to a dictionary, which has rigorous standards for defining words.

[Pol]

In truth, a person is either a Pagan or a Christian. If the two are mixed together, they become a Pagan with Christian ideas, background, et cetera. However, this can easily be called a Christian Pagan, Christian Witch, Christo-Pagan, or whatever that person wishes to call themselves to express their cocktail religion.
Just like a Japanese Pear looks and feels like an apple and tastes like a pear, so a Christian Pagan can seem as both. To my Christian friends, I'm a Christian with some pagan ideas. To my Pagan friends, I'm a Pagan with some christian ideas. To myself, I am both.


As for the Church, the idea that Christ created the Church as we know it is feeble and up to a lot of argument. I believe the Church to be nothing more than a powerhouse, but that's my opinion. As a protestant, I do not asign myself to the beliefs of the Church. I read the bible for myself and draw my own conclusions. I may at some time asign myself to a denomination which holds doctorines similiar to my own. However, I am my own guide - with the help of the Spirit - through the maze that is the Scriptures.

(why does that sound like a class description from morrowind?)

[Aine of the Fae]

The meaning of a word is not what one single person thinks it means. It is not what you define it as, it's what society in general accepts it to mean.

Society in general, at least American society, the society I live in, defines a Christian as ANYONE who follows Christ. I do. Therefore, according to society's definition, I am a Christian.

My definition of Christian is one who has dedicated themselves to knowing Christ and to living their lives accordingly. Again, that makes me a Christian.

Society defines a witch as: a. an ugly green hag or b. someone who uses naturalistic magic or reveres nature or follows an earth centered path, etc. etc. etc.

I've got B.

My definition of Witch is someone who actively seeks to know God through physical means not limited to prayer, but including energy/magic work, reverence of nature and all of God's creation and knowledge of self and faith through study.

Yup, got that.

Do I need to further define those words for anyone?

Tell me dr_zeus440 what is your definition of Witch? Not of Pagan, not of Wiccan, but of Witch?

We already know what you're definition of Christian is, and a majority of Christian's I know would argue with that definition.

In fact I just got off the phone with my pastor, who has given me the definition of Christian accepted by the Assemblies of God churches:

One who has professed faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

Doesn't have anything to do with church. And that is a generally accepted definition of Christian, by fundamentalist Christians.

I am not a fundamentalist Christian, and my being a Christian Witch has lead to some very, very interesting discussions with my fundamentalist pastor. It will probably eventually lead me to another church.

But according to my pastors definition of Christian, and the "church's" definition of Christian, I'm still a Christian.

[Ben Gruagach]

In truth, a person is either a Pagan or a Christian. If the two are mixed together, they become a Pagan with Christian ideas, background, et cetera. However, this can easily be called a Christian Pagan, Christian Witch, Christo-Pagan, or whatever that person wishes to call themselves to express their cocktail religion.

Keep in mind that there is no requirement that witches are Pagan. Witchcraft is the practice of magick and can be practiced in any (or no) religious setting, including both Paganism and Christianity or even atheism.

Instead of trying to use ill-fitting labels that are borrowed from other systems and combining them in what appear to be conflicting ways, why not use a new term, or perhaps do more research to see if there are existing terms that fit better? For instance, a lot of what is described as "Christian Pagan" sounds to me like Gnostic, or Golden Dawn, or Theosophy, or Unitarian Universalism, or Creation Spirituality?

Even if none of these particular groups match exactly what a person mixing Christianity and Paganism believes or does, they could lead you to the names of other groups to investigate that might be exactly what you are looking for.

Try Google.com searches on those terms and you'll find lots of info.

[Pol]

I've done some looking into Gnosticism, and it just doesn't appeal to me.

I have my own form of Christianity and my own form of Paganism.

I understand not all witches must be pagans, I was just saying that people can call themselves that.

[Aine of the Fae]

Keep in mind that there is no requirement that witches are Pagan. Witchcraft is the practice of magick and can be practiced in any (or no) religious setting, including both Paganism and Christianity or even atheism.

Instead of trying to use ill-fitting labels that are borrowed from other systems and combining them in what appear to be conflicting ways, why not use a new term, or perhaps do more research to see if there