PDA

View Full Version : No offense, but....



SilverPiston
July 3rd, 2004, 06:53 AM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 07:11 AM
Take a look further down in this forum... there are already several threads on the subject :)

mydemand
July 3rd, 2004, 07:15 AM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 07:34 AM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 08:58 AM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 09:02 AM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 04:02 PM
*sigh* You may idolize Silver Ravenwolf, or you may be joking.

My thoughts exactly... :bouncysmi

Inuus
July 3rd, 2004, 04:11 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 04:48 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 05:02 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 05:12 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 05:14 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 05:20 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 08:03 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 08:05 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 08:10 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 08:19 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 08:20 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 08:20 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 08:21 PM
Difference of perspective, I guess, we just see it differently. Maybe Innus would like to explain what his intention was?

Mab
July 3rd, 2004, 08:31 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 08:32 PM
Yes, there is a verse that says God is a jealous God.

Pol
July 3rd, 2004, 08:33 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 08:34 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 08:34 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 08:38 PM
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
July 3rd, 2004, 09:16 PM
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
July 4th, 2004, 07:58 AM
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
July 4th, 2004, 10:27 AM
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
July 4th, 2004, 12:57 PM
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
July 4th, 2004, 12:59 PM
Indeed, indeed.

Morr
July 4th, 2004, 03:48 PM
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
July 4th, 2004, 05:05 PM
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
July 4th, 2004, 05:06 PM
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
July 4th, 2004, 05:18 PM
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
July 4th, 2004, 05:36 PM
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
July 4th, 2004, 05:47 PM
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
July 4th, 2004, 06:07 PM
Utimately, its all the same religion/God. What makes religion special to each person is how they use the tools available to them.

Brinclhof
July 4th, 2004, 07:09 PM
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
July 4th, 2004, 07:15 PM
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
July 5th, 2004, 07:50 AM
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
July 5th, 2004, 08:03 AM
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
July 5th, 2004, 08:51 AM
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
July 5th, 2004, 11:34 AM
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
July 5th, 2004, 11:37 AM
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
July 5th, 2004, 12:07 PM
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
July 5th, 2004, 12:25 PM
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
July 5th, 2004, 01:06 PM
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
July 5th, 2004, 01:37 PM
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
July 5th, 2004, 02:34 PM
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
July 5th, 2004, 07:24 PM
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
July 5th, 2004, 07:51 PM
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
July 5th, 2004, 09:19 PM
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
July 5th, 2004, 09:21 PM
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
July 6th, 2004, 07:39 AM
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
July 6th, 2004, 08:24 AM
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
July 6th, 2004, 08:26 AM
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
July 6th, 2004, 08:36 AM
I thought Jesus was a white man from Oxford. ( <---that was a silly remark)
:D

IvyWitch
July 6th, 2004, 08:39 AM
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
July 6th, 2004, 10:11 AM
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
July 6th, 2004, 11:40 AM
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
July 6th, 2004, 11:56 AM
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
July 6th, 2004, 12:18 PM
: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
July 6th, 2004, 12:19 PM
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
July 6th, 2004, 12:28 PM
: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
July 6th, 2004, 12:34 PM
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
July 6th, 2004, 01:09 PM
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
July 6th, 2004, 01:27 PM
*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
July 6th, 2004, 04:22 PM
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
July 6th, 2004, 04:29 PM
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
July 6th, 2004, 04:30 PM
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
July 6th, 2004, 07:49 PM
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
July 6th, 2004, 09:58 PM
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
July 7th, 2004, 01:54 PM
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
July 7th, 2004, 02:01 PM
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
July 7th, 2004, 02:01 PM
Also, a lot of people call them apple-pears. ;)

dr_zeus440
July 7th, 2004, 02:17 PM
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
July 7th, 2004, 02:25 PM
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
July 7th, 2004, 02:36 PM
i completely posted this on the wrong thread...oops

Brinclhof
July 7th, 2004, 03:24 PM
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
July 7th, 2004, 03:45 PM
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
July 7th, 2004, 03:49 PM
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
July 7th, 2004, 04:06 PM
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
July 7th, 2004, 04:18 PM
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
July 7th, 2004, 04:24 PM
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
July 7th, 2004, 04:28 PM
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.

I don't call myself Christian Pagan, because that's not what I am. However I know people who do. I've found that often they are in a state of trying to define who they are and what they believe. And somebody telling them "they can't be..." doesn't help them at all.

Gnosticism works for some, but it's a bit... well... I don't know... but it's not right for me.

Equinox
July 7th, 2004, 05:02 PM
Aine of the Fae wrote:

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.

Actually, I’ve heard some fundamentialists define “Christian” as “someone who adheres to the Nicene Creed”. This is obviously to separate out “heretical” groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. I disagree with this definition, I think that “Christian” is just “a follower of Christ” – regardless of how closely that person understands of knows what Jesus’s teachings were, or what part (if any part) of the Bible they follow. I’ve pointed out to them that this creed also excludes all protestants from being called “Christian”!! :geez:

The Nicene creed was the main product of the Council of Nicea, and making this creed was the main reason the council was called (to refute all other forms of Christianity). So it is no surprise that the Nicene Creed is largely a laundry list of refutations of these rival Chrisitianities. Here it is (((and I’ve added the names of the refuted Christianities in paranetheses))).


The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. (((Refutation of the Marcionites & the Gnostics )))

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; (((refutation of the Arians)))

who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, (((ref of ebionites))) and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried ((( refutation of the Docetists))), and the third day he rose again according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. And he shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. ((((Refutation of the Gnostics)))

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified (((Refutation of various Monarchianists))), who spoke by the prophets ((( Refutation of the Marcionites))).

And we believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. (((refutation of any other rival churches, such as the Novatists, in case you haven’t gotten the picture that the Roman Church is to be in charge)))

And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. (((refutation of “spiritual resurrectionists, such as those in 2 Corinthians”)))

Here is a good site for some of these other Christianities:
http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Heresy

Brinclhof
July 7th, 2004, 05:19 PM
I don't call myself Christian Pagan, because that's not what I am. However I know people who do. I've found that often they are in a state of trying to define who they are and what they believe. And somebody telling them "they can't be..." doesn't help them at all.

Gnosticism works for some, but it's a bit... well... I don't know... but it's not right for me.

gnosticism just sounds to much like agnostic to me. I understand that the two are totally different but Living here in the bible Belt if I told some one I was gnostic they would think I was saying agnostic and would immediately start preaching. Personally that Is why I am keeping away from that term.

Kalika
July 7th, 2004, 08:45 PM
im not saying that mixing the two together isnt possible, im saying that the result isnt christian witchcraft. christianity separates itself from witchcraft.



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'.
Um, you did it again.

"I'm saying that the result isn't Christian witchcraft. Christianity seperates itself from witchcraft."

That is saying that CHRISTIAN WITCHCRAFT is not possible - plain and simple.

You obviously didn't read the post very closely. I have not seen anywhere that someone said you had to mix witchcraft and Christianity entirely in order to be a Christian Witch. Believing in parts of each is what makes the two work - if you believed solely in the teachings of Jesus - you would be a Christian. If you believed solely in magick and revered Nature, you would be a Witch or a Pagan. The two do not have to be mutually inclusive OR exclusive.



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.

Not necessarily - the teachings of Jesus, as taught by the "church" as you keep referring to it, are widely varied. And the teachings are up for individual interpretation - the bible is one of them - but people ARE allowed (and sometimes encouraged) to explore the teachings and find their definitions for themselves. You don't have to go to church to be a Christian - so why would you have to "follow" the church to be a Christian witch?

Wouldn't following Jesus' teachings be following Jesus?

(Not seeing the brick wall yet.)



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

Its a very common belief that most Christian traditions and ideals stem from ancient pagan traditions, gods and goddess. IF you take the time to do the research, you'll find out where this stems from, and why. Pagan beliefs (not neopagan - PAGAN) are some of the oldest in the world - Christianity in comparison is relatively new. The worship of a goddess, a trinity, and nature can be found throughout history, prior to Christian beginnings. Does that mean Christianity isn't a valid religion? No. But they all have come from somewhere, and personally, I think that in some way or another, all religions tie into one another - maybe not closely, but in some way. It's just a matter of finding what came first, and where you want to go from there. You have an interest in learning - feel free to do the research yourself. I've found books more helpful than websites on the matter, but I can't think of any titles/authors off hand.



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.

The difference between Paganism and Witchcraft DO have a place in this debate. Otherwise Aine would be calling herself a Christo-Pagan. She is calling herself a Christian Witch for a reason. Let her state that. Witches DO NOT HAVE TO BE PAGANS, and vice versa.


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.


Christian Witch, Christian Pagan, Christo-Pagan, etc - are all terms that are used to incorporate different aspects of the persons faith and personal beliefs - to show their true colors, and to show that they don't fit solely and exclusively into the category of Pagan or Christian. It's not really true that a person who describes themself as the above is truly a Christian or a Pagan - they are BOTH. Hence the terminology. Some Christians may have Pagan ideas, but they may not consider themselves a Christo-Pagan. Some Pagans may have Christian ideas, but may not consider themselves Christo-Pagans either. There is a difference. You can think things, have ideas, even opinions, without incorporating them into your chosen path.

Not everyone fits into a nice little slot, Christian, Pagan, Witch, Wiccan, etc - that's why these terms come about - when people find what works for them - they give it a name.

And that was MUCH too much on a subject that has nothing to do w/ me. :)

Blessings,

Kalika

Kalika
July 7th, 2004, 08:56 PM
...oops. :p Didn't mean to post it twice. No reason to waste space!!

Pol
July 8th, 2004, 10:09 AM
Oh, I agree. I was just speaking on my own account.

dr_zeus440
July 8th, 2004, 01:58 PM
Brinclhof:
no, the main point of my argument is that it is impossible to be true to the tenets of christianity as layed down by the church installed by jesus to be the deciding authority on christianity and still be a witch, the weakest definition of which is 'a practitioner of magic'. the fact that i dont like the term is caused by entirely different and subjective reasons, so i havent bothered stating them here because they dont form the basis of an argument. i do not have a better term in mind, what im trying to say is that im not trying to impinge on your freedom to label yourself, but that the term 'christian' is already taken to mean something that doesnt mix with witchcraft. lastly, it is not the only way to describe your beliefs (ben gruagach has some good suggestions), make up your own term, dont use one that already exists and means something else, thats what im trying to say!


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.

i dont know for sure, but i would say that when a new denomination begins, theres a rift in which the old has set some kind of rule and the new disagrees. therefore, i would say that if there is one denomination that hasnt rifted, it would be the form of christianity most true to the original (im not 100% on my history of christianity, but i think catholicism has an unbroken line of popes that supposedly go back to peter, but then again, i am probably horribly horribly wrong. it doesnt matter, im only proposing them as a possible candidate IF this information is true). but, even if there was no such denomination i.e. one that had never rifted, i dont think it matters, because as far as i know, there are no denominations that are OK with the amalgamation of themselves and witchcraft. so i dont think it matters which denomination we're talking about. which denomination of christianity do you ascribe to? assume that im talking about this denomination whenever i say 'the church'. its not a matter of who's the right church or the wrong church, but who is closest to the original.


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?

i doubt that the church jesus started still exists in either the form he installed it or the form he imagined it, but that again doesnt matter, he installed a church of which many variants exist today. but again, that doesnt matter, because, as far as i know, christianity in any form does not allow for the amalgamation of witchcraft. i certainly dont think that we have the same religion, it's evolved, but nonetheless, it is still recognised as the religion. all things change with time.


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."

i stated why i think my definition is more valid, because its recognised by the church, by any denomination, as installed by jesus. at the start of any debate, the negative side will usually challenge the affirmative sides definitions, i could be misinterpreting you but you make it sound like ive done something unforgivable here.


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.

where does he say this? to the best of my knowledge, jesus installed the church to lead his followers, therefore they are separate entities. would you agree that following buddha is different to being a buddhist, or that following mohammed is different to being a muslim, or that following the teachings of the torah etc. is different to being a jew? religions are what they are because they have rules and structures. by your argument, someone who doesnt eat meat can call themself a buddhist, someone who partakes in jihad can call themself a muslim, and someone who doesnt go outdoors from sunset on friday to sunset on saturday can call themself a jew. im arguing that the teachings of jesus are, unfortunately, a small part of christianity. if christianity was only about his teachings, do you think that the crusades would have happened?


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.

i meant if the only reason you called yourself a 'christian witch' is because you wanted to. just as a side question, are you certain that you dont do things you dont want to do? can you honestly say that everything you have done and/or will do will be because you want to do it? and as my argument, i have stated why i feel that you have mislabelled yourself, and why i believe that, though your definitions are certainly recognised by the dictionary, that there are more accurate definitions that can be obtained by consulting the installed authority representing that term.


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.

1) "the meaning of a word is not what one single person thinks it means". having said that, why does your definition even come in play? i understand that i did ask you to put forth your own definitions, but having said that the meaning of one word is not what a single person thinks it means, we might as well abandon personal definitions. so really, what you have to work from is the dictionaries definition that a christian is someone who follows the teachings of jesus. i would say that the church, the representative

2) saying that something is what it is accepted by a large number of people to be is an example of argumentum ad numeram (found the name), the fallacy of logic i was talking about before. simply because more people believe something, it doesnt make it more true. i still say that the church knows best how to define itself.


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.

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

the loosest definition of a witch is a practicioner of magic, but by that definition, someone who prays to cause change is engaging in theurgy and is therefore a witch. the next step up is a practicioner of magic who calls their practices witchcraft. christianity has a problem with the very term, so i dont see how someone adhering to christian doctrine could possibly call their practices witchcraft. however, the individual and society cannot define witchcraft, the same two reasons as above, and there is no authority to define it (this is what im talking about , so we cant really define witchcraft, its a subjective practice. christianity, however, is not subjective, its defined and clear cut.


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

by your pastors definition of 'christian' you may be a christian, but remember, he is still just one individual. certainly, he is a representative of the church, but he is not the church. and nowhere have you attempted to challenge my saying that the church's definition of a christian is someone who follows the tenets of the christian church, so how can you say that by the church's definition of christian, you are one?


Um, you did it again. "I'm saying that the result isn't Christian witchcraft. Christianity seperates itself from witchcraft." That is saying that CHRISTIAN WITCHCRAFT is not possible - plain and simple. You obviously didn't read the post very closely. I have not seen anywhere that someone said you had to mix witchcraft and Christianity entirely in order to be a Christian Witch. Believing in parts of each is what makes the two work - if you believed solely in the teachings of Jesus - you would be a Christian. If you believed solely in magick and revered Nature, you would be a Witch or a Pagan. The two do not have to be mutually inclusive OR exclusive.

thats because being a witch and being a christian are mutually exclusive events by the churchs definition of what a christian is. therefore, being a 'christian witch' is impossible, but being a practicioner of magic who follows their own interpretation of jesus teachings is entirely possible and totally respectable. ok, well, sure, no-one here says that you have to mix witchcraft and christianity entirely to be a 'christian witch'. but to be a christian at all, to call yourself a christian, means to adhere to the definition of what a christian is, and the church puts forward a definition that does not allow for the mixture of itself and witchcraft. certainly, believing in parts of each is what makes the two work...but the result isnt a form of christianity. i think that it is you who did not read my post very closely, because im certain that im repeating myself.


Not necessarily - the teachings of Jesus, as taught by the "church" as you keep referring to it, are widely varied. And the teachings are up for individual interpretation - the bible is one of them - but people ARE allowed (and sometimes encouraged) to explore the teachings and find their definitions for themselves. You don't have to go to church to be a Christian - so why would you have to "follow" the church to be a Christian witch? Wouldn't following Jesus' teachings be following Jesus? (Not seeing the brick wall yet.)

true, theyre widely varied. so we need to refine it down to a particular denomination, or go with the original. ive asked aine of the fae to specify her denomination, so we can go from there. also true, that people are allowed to explore the teachings. tell me, where in these teachings is the practice of witchcraft condoned in a christian paradigm? one of my points is that im certain that it isnt, not by the teachings of any of the denominations of christianity. also, regarding your point saying "wouldnt following jesus teachings be following jesus?". yes, yes it would. so by saying that you follow jesus, you are saying that you follow his teachings, so you are saying that you follow his teaching that the church is the leader of his followers and therefore, that they give the best definition of what being one of his followers is. so, in other words, i think youre disproved by your own statement (said brick wall). and again, i dont think you read my post very closely.


Its a very common belief that most Christian traditions and ideals stem from ancient pagan traditions, gods and goddess. IF you take the time to do the research, you'll find out where this stems from, and why. Pagan beliefs (not neopagan - PAGAN) are some of the oldest in the world - Christianity in comparison is relatively new. The worship of a goddess, a trinity, and nature can be found throughout history, prior to Christian beginnings. Does that mean Christianity isn't a valid religion? No. But they all have come from somewhere, and personally, I think that in some way or another, all religions tie into one another - maybe not closely, but in some way. It's just a matter of finding what came first, and where you want to go from there. You have an interest in learning - feel free to do the research yourself. I've found books more helpful than websites on the matter, but I can't think of any titles/authors off hand.

its not just a common belief, its a theory that is quite well supported (yes, i have taken the time to do some of the research). however, mary and isis are still two different identities. i admit, i have trouble seeing what point youre trying to get at here, could you be more specific?


The difference between Paganism and Witchcraft DO have a place in this debate. Otherwise Aine would be calling herself a Christo-Pagan. She is calling herself a Christian Witch for a reason. Let her state that. Witches DO NOT HAVE TO BE PAGANS, and vice versa.

i know that witches dont have to be pagans. paganism isnt even a religion, so even if witches had to be pagans, this particular detail wouldnt conflict with the notion of a christian witch. and for the point that i was trying to make, the difference between paganism and witchcraft is irrelevant, because either way, they both have the prefix 'christian'. again, im not sure what youre trying to get at, ive addressed the issues to do with witchcraft instead of paganism in previous posts.


Christian Witch, Christian Pagan, Christo-Pagan, etc - are all terms that are used to incorporate different aspects of the persons faith and personal beliefs - to show their true colors, and to show that they don't fit solely and exclusively into the category of Pagan or Christian. It's not really true that a person who describes themself as the above is truly a Christian or a Pagan - they are BOTH. Hence the terminology. Some Christians may have Pagan ideas, but they may not consider themselves a Christo-Pagan. Some Pagans may have Christian ideas, but may not consider themselves Christo-Pagans either. There is a difference. You can think things, have ideas, even opinions, without incorporating them into your chosen path.

if you dont fit solely into the categories of either pagan of christian, then why use the terms? if you are a christian witch, a christian pagan or a christo-pagan, by your statement "they are both", then a christian witch should be both a christian and a witch, and a christian pagan or a christo-pagan should be both christian and pagan. so, assumably, they should fit the definitions of both 'christian' and 'witch'. however, the two terms are contradictory. again, i dont see what you're driving at by saying "some christians may have pagan ideas" etc.


Not everyone fits into a nice little slot, Christian, Pagan, Witch, Wiccan, etc - that's whythese terms come about - when people find what works for them - they give it a name.

i think the brick wall is again apparent. if you find what works for you is a mixture of your interpretation of the teachings of jesus and the practice of magic, then why not name it (and i mean, why not name it without using a term that is already used to describe something else)?

Equinox
July 8th, 2004, 02:49 PM
Dr. Zeus440 wrote:

but i think catholicism has an unbroken line of popes that supposedly go back to peter, but then again, i am probably horribly horribly wrong. it doesnt matter, im only proposing them as a possible candidate IF this information is true).

There is little evidence that Jesus ever “installed a church” (it hard to even say that he "installed" Peter). In fact, it appears that Jesus expected God to violently overthrow the government of Jesus’ day, and institute a new world order, so he wouldn’t have thought starting a church was needed. Jesus appears to have thought this would happen before everyone alive in his day had died (see Mk 9:1). This is the conclusion of most Biblical scholars, and has been for about 100 years. It was Paul who changed the Jewish religion that Jesus had into a new religion ABOUT Jesus. Catholic tradition does have a continuous line of popes, but first 60 years could be made up or not. After that, of course there was a Roman church, but there were also literally dozens of other Christianities, all of which were different. I’ve written a short summary here (page down about halfway to where I start talking about history). There are links in there too for more info.
http://www-personal.engin.umich.edu/~leta/TREATISE/tjchap6.htm

If you are serious about learning about early Christian history (and from scholars, not just me), I recommend these courses on tape:

http://www.teach12.com/ttc/assets/coursedescriptions/6593.asp (audio form)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/qid=1085748569/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-6867012-7485562?v=glance&s=books (book form, $20)

I found that listening to them in my car on my commute worked great.

Dr. zeus440 wrote:
no, the main point of my argument is that it is impossible to be true to the tenets of christianity as layed down by the church installed by jesus to be the deciding authority on christianity and still be a witch, the weakest definition of which is 'a practitioner of magic'.

Well, the “tenets of Christianity” are all over the map, so maybe it is better to say “what is in the Bible”. With that change, I pretty much agree with you, but someone could ignore the parts of the Bible that conflict, and then it works. That isn’t as illegitimate as it may sound, please see my post #67 – all Christians do this because the different books of the Bible don’t agree on some important points, so taking some parts over others is necessary if you are going to base anything on the collection of different books that we call the Bible.

Kalika
July 8th, 2004, 09:18 PM
Brinclhof:
no, the main point of my argument is that it is impossible to be true to the tenets of christianity as layed down by the church installed by jesus to be the deciding authority on christianity and still be a witch, the weakest definition of which is 'a practitioner of magic'. the fact that i dont like the term is caused by entirely different and subjective reasons, so i havent bothered stating them here because they dont form the basis of an argument. i do not have a better term in mind, what im trying to say is that im not trying to impinge on your freedom to label yourself, but that the term 'christian' is already taken to mean something that doesnt mix with witchcraft. lastly, it is not the only way to describe your beliefs (ben gruagach has some good suggestions), make up your own term, dont use one that already exists and means something else, thats what im trying to say!



i dont know for sure, but i would say that when a new denomination begins, theres a rift in which the old has set some kind of rule and the new disagrees. therefore, i would say that if there is one denomination that hasnt rifted, it would be the form of christianity most true to the original (im not 100% on my history of christianity, but i think catholicism has an unbroken line of popes that supposedly go back to peter, but then again, i am probably horribly horribly wrong. it doesnt matter, im only proposing them as a possible candidate IF this information is true). but, even if there was no such denomination i.e. one that had never rifted, i dont think it matters, because as far as i know, there are no denominations that are OK with the amalgamation of themselves and witchcraft. so i dont think it matters which denomination we're talking about. which denomination of christianity do you ascribe to? assume that im talking about this denomination whenever i say 'the church'. its not a matter of who's the right church or the wrong church, but who is closest to the original.



i doubt that the church jesus started still exists in either the form he installed it or the form he imagined it, but that again doesnt matter, he installed a church of which many variants exist today. but again, that doesnt matter, because, as far as i know, christianity in any form does not allow for the amalgamation of witchcraft. i certainly dont think that we have the same religion, it's evolved, but nonetheless, it is still recognised as the religion. all things change with time.



i stated why i think my definition is more valid, because its recognised by the church, by any denomination, as installed by jesus. at the start of any debate, the negative side will usually challenge the affirmative sides definitions, i could be misinterpreting you but you make it sound like ive done something unforgivable here.



where does he say this? to the best of my knowledge, jesus installed the church to lead his followers, therefore they are separate entities. would you agree that following buddha is different to being a buddhist, or that following mohammed is different to being a muslim, or that following the teachings of the torah etc. is different to being a jew? religions are what they are because they have rules and structures. by your argument, someone who doesnt eat meat can call themself a buddhist, someone who partakes in jihad can call themself a muslim, and someone who doesnt go outdoors from sunset on friday to sunset on saturday can call themself a jew. im arguing that the teachings of jesus are, unfortunately, a small part of christianity. if christianity was only about his teachings, do you think that the crusades would have happened?



i meant if the only reason you called yourself a 'christian witch' is because you wanted to. just as a side question, are you certain that you dont do things you dont want to do? can you honestly say that everything you have done and/or will do will be because you want to do it? and as my argument, i have stated why i feel that you have mislabelled yourself, and why i believe that, though your definitions are certainly recognised by the dictionary, that there are more accurate definitions that can be obtained by consulting the installed authority representing that term.



1) "the meaning of a word is not what one single person thinks it means". having said that, why does your definition even come in play? i understand that i did ask you to put forth your own definitions, but having said that the meaning of one word is not what a single person thinks it means, we might as well abandon personal definitions. so really, what you have to work from is the dictionaries definition that a christian is someone who follows the teachings of jesus. i would say that the church, the representative

2) saying that something is what it is accepted by a large number of people to be is an example of argumentum ad numeram (found the name), the fallacy of logic i was talking about before. simply because more people believe something, it doesnt make it more true. i still say that the church knows best how to define itself.



the loosest definition of a witch is a practicioner of magic, but by that definition, someone who prays to cause change is engaging in theurgy and is therefore a witch. the next step up is a practicioner of magic who calls their practices witchcraft. christianity has a problem with the very term, so i dont see how someone adhering to christian doctrine could possibly call their practices witchcraft. however, the individual and society cannot define witchcraft, the same two reasons as above, and there is no authority to define it (this is what im talking about , so we cant really define witchcraft, its a subjective practice. christianity, however, is not subjective, its defined and clear cut.



by your pastors definition of 'christian' you may be a christian, but remember, he is still just one individual. certainly, he is a representative of the church, but he is not the church. and nowhere have you attempted to challenge my saying that the church's definition of a christian is someone who follows the tenets of the christian church, so how can you say that by the church's definition of christian, you are one?



thats because being a witch and being a christian are mutually exclusive events by the churchs definition of what a christian is. therefore, being a 'christian witch' is impossible, but being a practicioner of magic who follows their own interpretation of jesus teachings is entirely possible and totally respectable. ok, well, sure, no-one here says that you have to mix witchcraft and christianity entirely to be a 'christian witch'. but to be a christian at all, to call yourself a christian, means to adhere to the definition of what a christian is, and the church puts forward a definition that does not allow for the mixture of itself and witchcraft. certainly, believing in parts of each is what makes the two work...but the result isnt a form of christianity. i think that it is you who did not read my post very closely, because im certain that im repeating myself.



true, theyre widely varied. so we need to refine it down to a particular denomination, or go with the original. ive asked aine of the fae to specify her denomination, so we can go from there. also true, that people are allowed to explore the teachings. tell me, where in these teachings is the practice of witchcraft condoned in a christian paradigm? one of my points is that im certain that it isnt, not by the teachings of any of the denominations of christianity. also, regarding your point saying "wouldnt following jesus teachings be following jesus?". yes, yes it would. so by saying that you follow jesus, you are saying that you follow his teachings, so you are saying that you follow his teaching that the church is the leader of his followers and therefore, that they give the best definition of what being one of his followers is. so, in other words, i think youre disproved by your own statement (said brick wall). and again, i dont think you read my post very closely.



its not just a common belief, its a theory that is quite well supported (yes, i have taken the time to do some of the research). however, mary and isis are still two different identities. i admit, i have trouble seeing what point youre trying to get at here, could you be more specific?



i know that witches dont have to be pagans. paganism isnt even a religion, so even if witches had to be pagans, this particular detail wouldnt conflict with the notion of a christian witch. and for the point that i was trying to make, the difference between paganism and witchcraft is irrelevant, because either way, they both have the prefix 'christian'. again, im not sure what youre trying to get at, ive addressed the issues to do with witchcraft instead of paganism in previous posts.



if you dont fit solely into the categories of either pagan of christian, then why use the terms? if you are a christian witch, a christian pagan or a christo-pagan, by your statement "they are both", then a christian witch should be both a christian and a witch, and a christian pagan or a christo-pagan should be both christian and pagan. so, assumably, they should fit the definitions of both 'christian' and 'witch'. however, the two terms are contradictory. again, i dont see what you're driving at by saying "some christians may have pagan ideas" etc.



i think the brick wall is again apparent. if you find what works for you is a mixture of your interpretation of the teachings of jesus and the practice of magic, then why not name it (and i mean, why not name it without using a term that is already used to describe something else)?

:lol:

No offense or anything. We could use a little humor at the moment.



if you dont fit solely into the categories of either pagan of christian, then why use the terms? if you are a christian witch, a christian pagan or a christo-pagan, by your statement "they are both", then a christian witch should be both a christian and a witch, and a christian pagan or a christo-pagan should be both christian and pagan. so, assumably, they should fit the definitions of both 'christian' and 'witch'. however, the two terms are contradictory. again, i dont see what you're driving at by saying "some christians may have pagan ideas" etc.

Maybe it would help if you gave specifics of what contradictions you are thinking of between Christian and Witch. I know there are some obvious ones, but it would make the debate a little more centered if you were more specific.

Pol is the one who mentioned "Pagan/Christian ideas". I was supporting and refuting parts of what he said in my post. Christians may have thoughts that concern nature etc or a reverence for nature similar to that of a Pagan, but would not consider themselves partially on a Pagan path. Pagans may have "ideas" that are considered Christian (love thy neighbor; thou shalt not commit adultery) but would not consider themselves Christian in the least.

A Christo-Pagan, or Christian Witch, would be one who walks down a different path - one that borders on both faiths, but maybe does not wholely embrace solely one.



i think the brick wall is again apparent. if you find what works for you is a mixture of your interpretation of the teachings of jesus and the practice of magic, then why not name it (and i mean, why not name it without using a term that is already used to describe something else)?

For the record - I am not a Christian Witch. Just a Witch here, but found this debate interesting.

Ok, since you think Christian Witch isn't an accurate term, what would YOU call it? And have it be easily (or not so easily - but at least give someone an idea) understood?

Still not seeing a brick wall. You're just telling me I'm wrong, you're not offering alternatives, suggestions, theories or ideas to support that.



i know that witches dont have to be pagans. paganism isnt even a religion, so even if witches had to be pagans, this particular detail wouldnt conflict with the notion of a christian witch. and for the point that i was trying to make, the difference between paganism and witchcraft is irrelevant, because either way, they both have the prefix 'christian'. again, im not sure what youre trying to get at, ive addressed the issues to do with witchcraft instead of paganism in previous posts.

Whoa, paganism isn't a religion? That's news to me and probably quite a few people here as well.

I must have missed the posts (and other people did as well) where you address the difference between paganism and witchcraft, and center your arguement around witchcraft rather than paganism.



its not just a common belief, its a theory that is quite well supported (yes, i have taken the time to do some of the research). however, mary and isis are still two different identities. i admit, i have trouble seeing what point youre trying to get at here, could you be more specific?

Noone said they weren't two different identities. I believe what Pol was trying to get at is that Mary has many of the same attributes as Isis, hence the theory that Isis is the predecessor of Mary. (Which in fact is true, to a point - but that's off topic)


true, theyre widely varied. so we need to refine it down to a particular denomination, or go with the original. ive asked aine of the fae to specify her denomination, so we can go from there. also true, that people are allowed to explore the teachings. tell me, where in these teachings is the practice of witchcraft condoned in a christian paradigm? one of my points is that im certain that it isnt, not by the teachings of any of the denominations of christianity. also, regarding your point saying "wouldnt following jesus teachings be following jesus?". yes, yes it would. so by saying that you follow jesus, you are saying that you follow his teachings, so you are saying that you follow his teaching that the church is the leader of his followers and therefore, that they give the best definition of what being one of his followers is. so, in other words, i think youre disproved by your own statement (said brick wall). and again, i dont think you read my post very closely.

The point isn't whether or not other Christians "condone" the practice of being a Christian Witch. You're correct in saying that most of them wouldn't. The point is the arguement that a Christian Witch "cannot" exist, or is an oxymoron. Again, I request the specifics of this statement - reasons why it is - so that those can be discussed. I'm not just going to assume that I know what you're talking about, because you could have one of many arguements.

And yes, I have read through all of your posts, several times. I read every post several times before making my response. But, if you want to try and throw at me what is very obviously untrue, that's quite alright. Not going to hurt my feelings any. :)


thats because being a witch and being a christian are mutually exclusive events by the churchs definition of what a christian is. therefore, being a 'christian witch' is impossible, but being a practicioner of magic who follows their own interpretation of jesus teachings is entirely possible and totally respectable. ok, well, sure, no-one here says that you have to mix witchcraft and christianity entirely to be a 'christian witch'. but to be a christian at all, to call yourself a christian, means to adhere to the definition of what a christian is, and the church puts forward a definition that does not allow for the mixture of itself and witchcraft. certainly, believing in parts of each is what makes the two work...but the result isnt a form of christianity. i think that it is you who did not read my post very closely, because im certain that im repeating myself.

As with any term, the term Christian is widely varied, as has been stated several times here. Why is the only one that matters is the "church's" definition? I know alot of Christians who have never set foot in a church, and yet still manage to be VERY Christian without it, and more open-minded for that matter. Alot of the "church's" definitions have been twisted and turned around to suit particular pastor's desires and thoughts. Or no, not just that, even interpretations of the bible have been twisted around to suit the people and the times. How many interpretations were given during the times of the Inquisition, or other trying times? And how do we know what is actually correct? Maybe the original interpretations are skewed. Man isn't perfect, and its mans interpretation that we see today.

Have you ever played the game gossip? You start out with a sentence that is completely harmless, and it gets passed secretly around the room via word of mouth, and by the end, is always a completely skewed version of the truth. How do we know that the commonly accepted interpretations of the bible and of the church's "authority" and terms are not the same, that they haven't been completely twisted and reorganized over the past 2000 years? Odds are, they have, and quite a bit. Does that make the essence of the bible wrong - I don't think so. But nitpicking at specifics could be.

(Sorry, kinda went off topic a little there.)



christianity, however, is not subjective, its defined and clear cut.

ALL religions are subjective, as all religions are open to each person's interpretation and understanding. You can follow blindly, or you can lead and forge new paths.

YOUR definition is obviously well defined and clear cut. But why must everyone agree with YOUR definition? They don't have to. Just as you don't have to agree with mine, or Aine's or Morr's, or Pol's or anyones. Everything is up for interpretation, whether we like it or not. No one definition is going to be truly wrong - and the only definition that's going to be truly right - for you - is the one that's in your heart.


and as my argument, i have stated why i feel that you have mislabelled yourself, and why i believe that, though your definitions are certainly recognised by the dictionary, that there are more accurate definitions that can be obtained by consulting the installed authority representing that term.

More accurate according to whom? You? Who should we ask for the "true" definition of a Christian? The pope? Or God? And how are you to say that God himself doesn't accept the Christian Witch? If you have a line to that, I'd sure like the number, 'cause I have quite a few questions.

Again, I say the only person who can define, truly define, your religion is yourself. You're entitled to opinions on someone else's religion - but you don't have the authority to tell them that they can't be a Christian Witch, or whatever. Noone on Earth has that power.


i dont know for sure, but i would say that when a new denomination begins, theres a rift in which the old has set some kind of rule and the new disagrees. therefore, i would say that if there is one denomination that hasnt rifted, it would be the form of christianity most true to the original (im not 100% on my history of christianity, but i think catholicism has an unbroken line of popes that supposedly go back to peter, but then again, i am probably horribly horribly wrong. it doesnt matter, im only proposing them as a possible candidate IF this information is true). but, even if there was no such denomination i.e. one that had never rifted, i dont think it matters, because as far as i know, there are no denominations that are OK with the amalgamation of themselves and witchcraft. so i dont think it matters which denomination we're talking about. which denomination of christianity do you ascribe to? assume that im talking about this denomination whenever i say 'the church'. its not a matter of who's the right church or the wrong church, but who is closest to the original.

"Christian" does not have to be classified by a denomination. Is your only view of Christianity that of the denominations? Baptist, Methodist, Catholic, etc? I don't see anyone calling themselves a Methodist Witch....

The denomination arguement would be a very good one if that were the case... but it isn't. "Christian" is follower of Christ. Not of a later invented denomination.

You keep saying that you're defining "Christian" and "Witch" and the reasons that the two are mutually exclusive - but the thing I keep reading here is you saying exactly that - they are exclusive - and then going onto something else about Christianity and the denominations. And that your arguements are clear and defined... but I am not seeing this in place either.... maybe I am missing something, but I've read through this several times, and for as far as this debate has gone, the answers still seem vague. Maybe its just me though. *shrugs*


christianity has a problem with the very term.

Christianity tends to take the harsher of the version into mind when speaking or thinking of a witch. The green hag variety that only completes curses and evil spells. It's the people FOLLOWING this religion that make the term a bad one - not the religion itself.
This is a common stereotype, and largely true. But not 100% - and it is that minority that makes Christian Witchcraft/Christian Paganism possible - those who are willing to open their minds and their hearts rather than follow blindly what other people are telling them Jesus or God said, when they have no way to know if that is true or not. Goes back to my arguement of bible interpretations, and that a church's definition of a Christian is only as good as the person who made up the definition - it stems from their view and their desires and such - not always taking into account that not everyone is a sheep.

"Impossible" is not a word I understand. :) I understand the meaning - but I don't accept that this, or many things, are impossible. It was once thought that it was impossible to travel to the moon, to mars, etc. It was once thought impossible and even foolhardy that the earth revolved around the sun - and people were almost persecuted for this belief, and considered to be refuting the church and its teachings. Early versions of the bible said that the sun revolved around the earth - yet this was incorrect, as discovered later. And the bible was altered at that time. Who knows how many times other things have been altered? Why should we think that the interpretations we have now are perfect? That to be a Christian you have to follow the "socially accepted" path of a Christian, or you aren't one at all? (I keep coming back to this again and again don't I?)

"Pagan" isn't widely socially accepted as "nature revering", but is more socially accepted as "heathen". Does this make it true? If the social stigma to be a witch is to be an ugly green hag, does that automatically make it true? No.

My point is - social acceptance really has nothing to do with this subject. Social acceptance isn't necessary to be something. I don't have to have social acceptance as a witch in order to be one. Hell, alternative medicine wasn't socially accepted a small number of years ago, or was thought to be a fraud - but look at what it is now. As you said, things change.

I keep jumping around here as my train of thought changes, so I'm sorry if any of this is confusing.

And, if it seems like I'm picking on you... I'm not. I encourage you to argue with me - it helps me to learn and to grow - and I hope it helps others too. :p


by your pastors definition of 'christian' you may be a christian, but remember, he is still just one individual.

But I'm sure that his definition would be considered socially acceptable, yes? By a large majority of people.


and nowhere have you attempted to challenge my saying that the church's definition of a christian is someone who follows the tenets of the christian church, so how can you say that by the church's definition of christian, you are one?


Ok, so what are YOUR requirements for someone to be a Christian? Everyone holds some belief as to what a Christian actually is and is supposed to do in order to fall into that classification. What's yours?

I would say the following (my opinion of a Christian):

Someone who believes in and receives Jesus as the son of God and/or their personal savior. Who chooses to read, understand, review, challenge, and interpret the doctrines and studies set forth by this person/Son of God, and who chooses to model a life reflective of said being.

Now, if I remember correctly - Jesus was a healer, he revered nature, he loved EVERYONE - even those who were not his followers....

I could go on and on............

IvyWitch
July 8th, 2004, 10:29 PM
Maybe it's just because I am catching the tail end of this new thread direction, but zeus, it really seems to me that you are simply arguing semantics. Who cares if someone's picked a label for themselves that doesn't fir the classical definition of Christianity -OR- Paganism? It's a personal choice and it doesn't matter to anyone but the person applying the label to themselves. I find it interesting that you are so intent on convincing someone that because of the connotations of the word "Christian" that they are not allowed to use it. It's a label. It's an easy way to define one's beliefs without having to go into a 20 minute long explanation (although in this case it'll probably happen anyway..). Who are you to take that away from someone? Since when did someone's personal beliefs (and what they call it) depend on one standard view?

And I second Kalika, I was unaware that Paganism isn't a religion, and frankly that statement makes me doubt the validity of just about anything else you have to say....

And for the record, not everyone defines "Christian" in the same way, you know. Many denominations have differing views on what is a "Real Christian" (TM). The evangelical protestants believe you must be "saved" and "born again" while the Catholics believe something entirely different, while others just believe all you have to do is believe Jesus was the son of God, or God, everything else is up for personal debate. So, what you're really saying is that there is only ONE definition of Christian, and anyone who wants to take the label has to beleive in that version. Sure....that'll go over real well in the Christian community.

Pol
July 8th, 2004, 11:55 PM
As long as your argument is basing on 'the Church,' it's going to be pretty pointless. I, for one, am not a catholic, so what 'The Church' says doesn't really matter to my beliefs.

Raivynne
July 9th, 2004, 03:09 AM
Well I know a lot of people are probably going to come up with a ton of things wrong with my idea, but I'm going to post it anyway. I've thought it through, and it sounds pretty good to me. There are lots of different denominations of Christianity, correct? And all those denominations had to start somewhere, and I'm sure they were controversial when they did. So why can't Chriso-Paganism,Christian Witches, etc. be thought of as just another denomination? It may not be an organized one, and all Christo-Pagans and Christian Witches won't be from the same denominations, but they could be a small sect of the different denominations they're from. Christianity, like many have said, has evolved and changed over the years. This may be a pretty drastic change for some, but it's still just another change right? I mean what's wrong with changing the bad view of witches and Pagans within Christianity? What's bad with educating the public that witches aren't old, evil hags who curse everyone? And that Pagans aren't devil worshipping barbarians? It may not be accepted right away, and many will consider it heretical, but who cares? As long as it makes sense to the practitioners, as long as they have their Faith, that's all that matters.

Anyway, that's my two cents. :whistle:

-Raivynne

IvyWitch
July 9th, 2004, 10:46 AM
Well I know a lot of people are probably going to come up with a ton of things wrong with my idea, but I'm going to post it anyway. I've thought it through, and it sounds pretty good to me. There are lots of different denominations of Christianity, correct? And all those denominations had to start somewhere, and I'm sure they were controversial when they did. So why can't Chriso-Paganism,Christian Witches, etc. be thought of as just another denomination? It may not be an organized one, and all Christo-Pagans and Christian Witches won't be from the same denominations, but they could be a small sect of the different denominations they're from. Christianity, like many have said, has evolved and changed over the years. This may be a pretty drastic change for some, but it's still just another change right? I mean what's wrong with changing the bad view of witches and Pagans within Christianity? What's bad with educating the public that witches aren't old, evil hags who curse everyone? And that Pagans aren't devil worshipping barbarians? It may not be accepted right away, and many will consider it heretical, but who cares? As long as it makes sense to the practitioners, as long as they have their Faith, that's all that matters.

Anyway, that's my two cents. :whistle:

-Raivynne

I think part of the argument here is that Christian Witches or Christo Pagans would not be accepted by any of the Christian denominations. That be so, my question is "why do we give a crap what the Christians think?" I don't think any Christian Pagans strive to be accepted by normal Christians, and they are (usually *cough*) accepted by Pagans.
I do agree with you Rai, I definately see the possibility for them to consider themselves a new Christian denomination (after all, the Protestants were evil defilers of the Holy Mother Church originally...), though as a matter of convience a tradition of Paganism might be easier. But hey, I haven't tried it so I don't know. I suppose it depends on which one you have more of than the other - Pagans who use jesus and Mary as thier God and Goddess would better be considered a Pagan trad, whereas Christians who see nothing wrong with the practice of modern witchcraft would be better in a Christian denomination.
And now I'm just rambling...

Pol
July 9th, 2004, 12:24 PM
I don't know of a denomination that'd have me. :D

StephanieAine
July 9th, 2004, 12:38 PM
I'm entering the conversation late, but I just wanted to pop in with a basic bit of Christian info (info that isn't specific to Catholic teaching, or to Protestant teaching, or to Orthodox teaching - but to all three). The term "church" as used in the Bible refers not to an organized church of buildings, political structures, whatever; it refers to "the church universal" which is comprised of *the body of believers.* (Christ's "body" = all believers, regardless of denomination). To make it more confusing, people do speak of "going to church" meaning the *place/building* or "my church teaches" referring to denominational affiliation. People generally speak of church as 'big c or small c' to clarify which is meant if it gets confusing <g>.

In any case, the church spoken of in scripture is the universal body of believers, not a specific denomination; there weren't Methodist churches or Baptist churches back then, and besides, even today the church universal is one body with many parts (branches and denominations).

Denominations aren't important - even to the denominations themselves, for the most part; what matters is faith, and if a person says they accept Jesus Christ, then they're considered part of the church universal. You carry church around *with* you because you *are* within the body of Christ if you're a believer.

Just wanted to say that, since it seemed like there was a lot of 'church' confusion going on <g>....

Kalika
July 9th, 2004, 08:26 PM
:)

I'm glad others have finally joined in the discussion and posted their thoughts! :)



Well I know a lot of people are probably going to come up with a ton of things wrong with my idea, but I'm going to post it anyway. I've thought it through, and it sounds pretty good to me. There are lots of different denominations of Christianity, correct? And all those denominations had to start somewhere, and I'm sure they were controversial when they did. So why can't Chriso-Paganism,Christian Witches, etc. be thought of as just another denomination? It may not be an organized one, and all Christo-Pagans and Christian Witches won't be from the same denominations, but they could be a small sect of the different denominations they're from. Christianity, like many have said, has evolved and changed over the years. This may be a pretty drastic change for some, but it's still just another change right? I mean what's wrong with changing the bad view of witches and Pagans within Christianity? What's bad with educating the public that witches aren't old, evil hags who curse everyone? And that Pagans aren't devil worshipping barbarians? It may not be accepted right away, and many will consider it heretical, but who cares? As long as it makes sense to the practitioners, as long as they have their Faith, that's all that matters.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

-Raivynne

Actually, this is part of what I was getting at in my last post - things change. If there is enough of a calling for it, it MAY become a "denomination" or at least a recognized group. Just something to think about. :)



And I second Kalika, I was unaware that Paganism isn't a religion, and frankly that statement makes me doubt the validity of just about anything else you have to say....

:lol:


I'm entering the conversation late, but I just wanted to pop in with a basic bit of Christian info (info that isn't specific to Catholic teaching, or to Protestant teaching, or to Orthodox teaching - but to all three). The term "church" as used in the Bible refers not to an organized church of buildings, political structures, whatever; it refers to "the church universal" which is comprised of *the body of believers.* (Christ's "body" = all believers, regardless of denomination). To make it more confusing, people do speak of "going to church" meaning the *place/building* or "my church teaches" referring to denominational affiliation. People generally speak of church as 'big c or small c' to clarify which is meant if it gets confusing <g>.

In any case, the church spoken of in scripture is the universal body of believers, not a specific denomination; there weren't Methodist churches or Baptist churches back then, and besides, even today the church universal is one body with many parts (branches and denominations).

Denominations aren't important - even to the denominations themselves, for the most part; what matters is faith, and if a person says they accept Jesus Christ, then they're considered part of the church universal. You carry church around *with* you because you *are* within the body of Christ if you're a believer.

Just wanted to say that, since it seemed like there was a lot of 'church' confusion going on <g>....

:) Well put.

IvyWitch
July 9th, 2004, 08:41 PM
Well, the “tenets of Christianity” are all over the map, so maybe it is better to say “what is in the Bible”. With that change, I pretty much agree with you, but someone could ignore the parts of the Bible that conflict, and then it works. That isn’t as illegitimate as it may sound, please see my post #67 – all Christians do this because the different books of the Bible don’t agree on some important points, so taking some parts over others is necessary if you are going to base anything on the collection of different books that we call the Bible.

I missed this, and wanted to comment on this. It's very true - not all Christian denominations believe that the bible is a literal document, many believe that it is simply an inspirational document with some things thrown in by opinionated writers for good measure.
To repeat what everyone else has said, not all Christians believe the same way. Granted there is less diversity of beliefs there than in Paganism (ask ten Christians you get 5 different answers, ask 10 Pagans you get 12 different answers), but there is no one set of beliefs that makes up ALL of Christianity. Though I have to assume by "church" he means the Holy Catholic Church, and thier system is kind of outdated. A lot of Catholics don't read the bible anyway. (Seriously, in my Myth class we had to bring in Bibles and all three catholic girls brought in massals thinking thats what he meant... creepy...)

IvyWitch
July 9th, 2004, 08:44 PM
I'm entering the conversation late, but I just wanted to pop in with a basic bit of Christian info (info that isn't specific to Catholic teaching, or to Protestant teaching, or to Orthodox teaching - but to all three). The term "church" as used in the Bible refers not to an organized church of buildings, political structures, whatever; it refers to "the church universal" which is comprised of *the body of believers.* (Christ's "body" = all believers, regardless of denomination). To make it more confusing, people do speak of "going to church" meaning the *place/building* or "my church teaches" referring to denominational affiliation. People generally speak of church as 'big c or small c' to clarify which is meant if it gets confusing <g>.

In any case, the church spoken of in scripture is the universal body of believers, not a specific denomination; there weren't Methodist churches or Baptist churches back then, and besides, even today the church universal is one body with many parts (branches and denominations).

Denominations aren't important - even to the denominations themselves, for the most part; what matters is faith, and if a person says they accept Jesus Christ, then they're considered part of the church universal. You carry church around *with* you because you *are* within the body of Christ if you're a believer.

Just wanted to say that, since it seemed like there was a lot of 'church' confusion going on <g>....

Not only that, but Jesus was Jewish till the day he died - I could be wrong but I find it hard to believe he went out and purposefully installed a "new religion" or even a new faction of Judaism. So, "the church that Jesus built" seems a little silly to me... (besides, I thought it was common knowledge that Paul built the church, but hey, what do I know?)

dragenfly
July 9th, 2004, 11:18 PM
WOW! Everybody is so bent on the word "Christian" "Christo-pagan" "Church" so controversial. What does it matter? I was baptized catholic, brought up Born-again christian and I practice witchcraft. Does that mean you have to label me too. I believe in one all powerful God, I am commited to that God and I pray to no others. I make my offerings to him, he is who I ask for blessings, and he is who I ask for protection. I dont understand what all the debate is about, my beliefs and my faiths are mine to have and not yours to comment. I have been to many "christian" forums (and by the way anyone believing in Christ is a Christian thats a whole lot of religions be more specific) and the whole pegan think comes up once in awhile and some people get up on their soap boxes about it, but HERE every day I see a post about Christians whats the problem? Get over it.

Lunacie
July 10th, 2004, 12:03 AM
WOW! Everybody is so bent on the word "Christian" "Christo-pegan" "Church" so controversial. What does it matter? I was baptized catholic, brought up Born-again christian and I practice witchcraft. Does that mean you have to label me too. I believe in one all powerful God, I am commited to that God and I pray to no others. I make my offerings to him, he is who I ask for blessings, and he is who I ask for protection. I dont understand what all the debate is about, my beliefs and my faiths are mine to have and not yours to comment. I have been to many "christian" forums (and by the way anyone believing in Christ is a Christian thats a whole lot of religions be more specific) and the whole pegan think comes up once in awhile and some people get up on their soap boxes about it, but HERE every day I see a post about Christians whats the problem? Get over it.
#1. It's spelled Pagan.
#2. Labels and common definitions facillitate good, clear discussion.
#3. Yes, some Pagans do bad-mouth Christians, generally because they have a history of control issues and/or judgemental attitudes directed towards them.
#4. You don't understand the need for debate or discussion on the issue of labels, great, I'm glad you are comfortable with your beliefs and haven't been judged harshly for them. But, you don't have to understand it for it to be a valid concern for someone else. If you don't find any value in this thread, don't participate.

Um... no offence. ;)

StephanieAine
July 10th, 2004, 12:24 AM
Not only that, but Jesus was Jewish till the day he died - I could be wrong but I find it hard to believe he went out and purposefully installed a "new religion" or even a new faction of Judaism. So, "the church that Jesus built" seems a little silly to me... (besides, I thought it was common knowledge that Paul built the church, but hey, what do I know?)

Hi there, Taiyo!

You're right; Jesus was Jewish (of course, the 'until the day he died' implies that he died and remained dead, LOL - obviously - <that sounded odd, didn't it?> - but I have to mention that as Christians, we believe he is currently alive due to the Resurrection. But that's not the point of this thread!)

About Jesus setting out to start a new religion or faction of Judaism, you're partially correct and partially incorrect. He didn't set out to start a new religion; he set out to continue Judaism yet provide a fulfillment of Judaism (so to speak) - yet because it wasn't accepted by Judaism itself, it ended up becoming a separate religion. In Biblical times, followers of Jesus were referred to as being followers of "the Way" - the name used to identify disciples of Jesus Christ. Now, of course, they're called "Christians" exclusively, but it's still "the Way" when you get down to the nitty gritty.

As I mentioned, Jesus intended it as a fulfillment of Judaism, and the Bible speaks of gentiles being "grafted in" and becoming part of Judaism (so that when a person comes to Jesus Christ, he ends up being part of God's chosen people, Israel)... yet Israel/Judaism doesn't see it that way. To Christian thought, Christians become part of spiritual Israel; to Israel/Judaism, Christians can't be part of Israel because they aren't Jews and they worship a Trinity (Jews don't "get it" about God being Triune; they assume that "three" means we worship 3 different gods, when in fact it's one God in three persons that we worship. Depending on which side of the fence you're standing on, Christianity either looks like Judaism's younger sister - or like Christianity is the annoying stepsister!

About "church" - yes, Jesus *did* start "a church" - but it's important to make the distinction here that Jesus started a *body of believers from all places and times* - not the kind of "church" we think of today, as in some conglomeration of organizations... but people.

dragenfly
July 10th, 2004, 12:30 AM
#1. It's spelled Pagan.
#2. Labels and common definitions facillitate good, clear discussion.
#3. Yes, some Pagans do bad-mouth Christians, generally because they have a history of control issues and/or judgemental attitudes directed towards them.
#4. You don't understand the need for debate or discussion on the issue of labels, great, I'm glad you are comfortable with your beliefs and haven't been judged harshly for them. But, you don't have to understand it for it to be a valid concern for someone else. If you don't find any value in this thread, don't participate.

Um... no offence. ;)
Its spelled offense with an S. I am very comfortable with my beliefs, its to bad others arent. Weither I have been judged harshly or not isnt the issue. My oppinion is as valid as yours. And "...you don't have to understand it for it to be a valid concern..." is my point exactly so thank you for making it again... At what point did I say I found no value in this thread I find value in every thread I read. I find if very valuable that someone took the time to voice their oppinions, I find it very valuable everytime someone lets their emotions out and evertime someone opens a door, I find your post to me (not offensive) refreshing because I know that you believe and you are strong in your beliefs. I dont think we need a label for our faiths we just need to believe in them in our own way. My questions were.
1. Why do I need a label for my beliefs, what does it matter
2. "Christians" Whats the problem

ummmm NONE TAKEN... :hugz:

IvyWitch
July 10th, 2004, 12:57 AM
You're right; Jesus was Jewish (of course, the 'until the day he died' implies that he died and remained dead, LOL - obviously - <that sounded odd, didn't it?> - but I have to mention that as Christians, we believe he is currently alive due to the Resurrection. But that's not the point of this thread!)

Yeah, but just because he died and it's a ton of years later doesn't change the fact that he was Jewish, although some tend to believe otherwise *cough* ^.-


About Jesus setting out to start a new religion or action of Judaism, you're partially correct and partially incorrect. He didn't set out to start a new religion; he set out to continue Judaism yet provide a fulfillment of Judaism (so to speak) - yet because it wasn't accepted by Judaism itself, it ended up becoming a separate religion. In Biblical times, followers of Jesus were referred to as being followers of "the Way" - the name used to identify disciples of Jesus Christ. Now, of course, they're called "Christians" exclusively, but it's still "the Way" when you get down to the nitty gritty.

Yeah, but that's kind of not what I'm saying. Jesus' intentions were not to form "The Way" or even a seperate faction of Judaism. His intention was to reform Judaism, and the beginnings of Christianity happened after he died. Kind of like Buddism in a sense.... Buddah taught a philosophy, and through the years people familiar with his teachings created a religion out of it.


As I mentioned, Jesus intended it as a fulfillment of Judaism, and the Bible speaks of gentiles being "grafted in" and becoming part of Judaism (so that when a person comes to Jesus Christ, he ends up being part of God's chosen people, Israel)... yet Israel/Judaism doesn't see it that way. To Christian thought, Christians become part of spiritual Israel; to Israel/Judaism, Christians can't be part of Israel because they aren't Jews and they worship a Trinity (Jews don't "get it" about God being Triune; they assume that "three" means we worship 3 different gods, when in fact it's one God in three persons that we worship. Depending on which side of the fence you're standing on, Christianity either looks like Judaism's younger sister - or like Christianity is the annoying stepsister!

I think I agree with you, but I'm kinda sleepy so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense at the moment. Hold that thought? lol


About "church" - yes, Jesus *did* start "a church" - but it's important to make the distinction here that Jesus started a *body of believers from all places and times* - not the kind of "church" we think of today, as in some conglomeration of organizations... but people.[/font][/size][/font]

*nods* But even so, didn't "The Way" officially form years after his death?
And part of the issue here that really needs to be cleared up is zeus keeps referring to "the church" with no clarification as to what he means, or to which denomination he's referring to (I am assuming Catholic...), or whether or not he thinks that Christianity has one set of beliefs for every Christian. It is exeedingly confusing without an answer to that..
:smash:

Pol
July 10th, 2004, 01:02 AM
(wheezes) it's offence or offense. mweehehe.

StephanieAine
July 10th, 2004, 04:11 AM
Yeah, but just because he died and it's a ton of years later doesn't change the fact that he was Jewish, although some tend to believe otherwise *cough*

I'm puzzled by that - you know of Christians who think Jesus was something other than Jewish? He certainly couldn't have been *Christian* - that would mean he declared faith in Himself and worshipped Himself! (Then again, there IS that story I mentioned about my sweet but confused Gram that I mentioned in the other thread <g>... )

His Jewishness is a great influence on Christian belief and practice, whether Christians are consciously aware of it or not. (And of course, in Messianic Christian/Jewish congregations, the Jewishness of the faith is tremendously evident).







Yeah, but that's kind of not what I'm saying. Jesus' intentions were not to form "The Way" or even a seperate faction of Judaism. His intention was to reform Judaism, and the beginnings of Christianity happened after he died. Kind of like Buddism in a sense.... Buddah taught a philosophy, and through the years people familiar with his teachings created a religion out of it.


You're saying exactly what I said, except in a different way <g> - so we're on the same page.





I think I agree with you, but I'm kinda sleepy so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense at the moment. Hold that thought? lol


I'm holding it! <grimace; grunt; groan>





*nods* But even so, didn't "The Way" officially form years after his death?



Okay, I see what you're trying to say here; let me see if I can verbalize it. The official beginning of "The Church" itself - meaning what was to later become the conglomeration of church branches (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) which are further subdivided into denominations (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, variations of Protestantism from Presbyterian and Methodist to non-denominational 'bible churches' among others, and so on) - that official beginning took place at Pentecost as described in the Book of Acts....

However, "The Way" began when Jesus was still walking around in his earthly body, teaching in the synagogues, traveling around and teaching, and breaking bread with his disciples. We don't hear the term "The Way" being used to refer to the church universal in every book of the bible ('church universal' meaning the body of believers wherever they live and whatever specific local church group they're affiliated with - if they have one)... but we do hear about it, in passing, in Acts. I think the term "Christian" may appear just once in the New Testament, too, by the way; the important thing in those days wasn't whether one was called one thing or the other, but the fact of their belief and their commitment to it by free will.

It's interesting to note that Jesus is referred to in the New Testament as *being* "The Way" - just as his disciples were referred to as being members of "The Way" (as in the name they were known by). I think it's very interesting since believers - collectively, wherever they live and in whatever period in time - are "the body of Christ" (the universal church, made up of individual believers). The connection being that those who are believers, because they are indwelt by God, the Holy Spirit - and the entire triune godhead - are in Christ and Christ is in us. Same line of thought with "The Way."






And part of the issue here that really needs to be cleared up is zeus keeps referring to "the church" with no clarification as to what he means, or to which denomination he's referring to (I am assuming Catholic...), or whether or not he thinks that Christianity has one set of beliefs for every Christian. It is exeedingly confusing without an answer to that.



From what I've read so far, it sounds to me like he's speaking of Catholicism. (Nine times out of ten, whenever I hear a non-Christian speak of "Christian beliefs" or issues, they're talking about Catholicism specifically. It always surprises me how many people think that certain beliefs which are specific to Catholicism are *Christian in general* rather than unique to that particular branch of the church, or denomination, etc.) You're right - it is confusing!

Aine of the Fae
July 10th, 2004, 08:20 AM
I'm puzzled by that - you know of Christians who think Jesus was something other than Jewish? He certainly couldn't have been *Christian* - that would mean he declared faith in Himself and worshipped Himself! (Then again, there IS that story I mentioned about my sweet but confused Gram that I mentioned in the other thread <g>... )

His Jewishness is a great influence on Christian belief and practice, whether Christians are consciously aware of it or not. (And of course, in Messianic Christian/Jewish congregations, the Jewishness of the faith is tremendously evident).

Actually there is a movement, associated with the Neo-Nazi movement, that says that Jesus wasn't Jewish, the Hebrews weren't the chosen people and that they "stole" the Bible when the "killed Jesus" I've actually run across one of those people in a Christian forum. They were just a bit creepy. Also, there is at least one Essene group that says Jesus wasn't Jewish but Essene which, he may have been Essene, but the Essenes were Jewish, simply a radical sect of Judaism, so saying Jesus wasn't Jewish is a bit of a stretch. Jesus was fully Jewish, and from the way I understand the Bible, fully intended for the Jewish religion to be reformed, not for a brand new one to start. "The Way" refers to the "corrected" form of Judaism he was trying to instill in the people. Now of course people are extremely stubborn and generally don't like to be told they are doing something wrong (ever told a pastor you think his analysis/interpretation of a Bible verse is wrong? Oy!!! They're the educated one, they've been through the theology classes, so they are right. You can't possibly be right because you have no proper education. Uh huh.... sounds a lot like the Pharisees and Sanhedrin huh???)




From what I've read so far, it sounds to me like he's speaking of Catholicism. (Nine times out of ten, whenever I hear a non-Christian speak of "Christian beliefs" or issues, they're talking about Catholicism specifically. It always surprises me how many people think that certain beliefs which are specific to Catholicism are *Christian in general* rather than unique to that particular branch of the church, or denomination, etc.) You're right - it is confusing!


[/size][/font]

He hasn't quite managed to state what denomination he was talking about, and when asked he responded with "it doesn't matter, whatever denomination you are." Never mind that I consider myself non-denominational and have been considering starting a church of my own because I just can't seem to find one that fits me... So maybe, just maybe if I have a church building, then my label will be valid. At least according to dr zeus who seems to think that the "church" is a bunch of bricks.

As for all the questions of why we need labels at all: labels are easier than trying to explain to every last person we come across what exactly it is that we are. Most pagans, even if they don't believe it can be done, understand (sort of) what it means when someone says they are a Christian Witch. Saying "I'm a Christian Witch" is much easier than saying "I'm a non-traditional, non-fundamentalist, charismatic, nature-centric, mystical, eclectic Christian." I get funny looks when I say Christian Witch, but when I say the long label? I get dumb stares. Labels make it easy. Granted I end up having to spend the next week and a half arguing with people who are determined my label is incorrect, but that's fun in its own right :D

IvyWitch
July 10th, 2004, 08:21 AM
I'm puzzled by that - you know of Christians who think Jesus was something other than Jewish? He certainly couldn't have been *Christian* - that would mean he declared faith in Himself and worshipped Himself! (Then again, there IS that story I mentioned about my sweet but confused Gram that I mentioned in the other thread <g>... ) His Jewishness is a great influence on Christian belief and practice, whether Christians are consciously aware of it or not. (And of course, in Messianic Christian/Jewish congregations, the Jewishness of the faith is tremendously evident).

You know, I have heard worse. I have heard plenty of Chrisians tell me that Jesus was the first Christian and it makes me laugh. But one time somebody told me that dinosaurs couldn't have ever existed because they were not in the Bible, and all of the information on them science has is a government conspiracy. Not kidding here.



You're saying exactly what I said, except in a different way <g> - so we're on the same page.

Ohh, ok. That makes sense.


As I mentioned, Jesus intended it as a fulfillment of Judaism, and the Bible speaks of gentiles being "grafted in" and becoming part of Judaism (so that when a person comes to Jesus Christ, he ends up being part of God's chosen people, Israel)... yet Israel/Judaism doesn't see it that way. To Christian thought, Christians become part of spiritual Israel; to Israel/Judaism, Christians can't be part of Israel because they aren't Jews and they worship a Trinity (Jews don't "get it" about God being Triune; they assume that "three" means we worship 3 different gods, when in fact it's one God in three persons that we worship. Depending on which side of the fence you're standing on, Christianity either looks like Judaism's younger sister - or like Christianity is the annoying stepsister!

Ok now I'm going to take a stab at this...
Maybe I'm not fully understanding what you're saying here, but I'm kind of confused about the "Chosen People" thing and also this in relation to Messanics. Now, the Jews believe they are the chosen people of Israel, but Christianity has become pretty far from Judaism, but because of Christ they are actually the chosen? And then where do the Messanics fit in? They still follow the Jewish laws, but believe in Christ even though it was said that Christ liberated the people from the laws?
Ack, now I'm confusing myself....



Okay, I see what you're trying to say here; let me see if I can verbalize it. The official beginning of "The Church" itself - meaning what was to later become the conglomeration of church branches (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) which are further subdivided into denominations (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, variations of Protestantism from Presbyterian and Methodist to non-denominational 'bible churches' among others, and so on) - that official beginning took place at Pentecost as described in the Book of Acts....


Oh, ok that makes sense.


However, "The Way" began when Jesus was still walking around in his earthly body, teaching in the synagogues, traveling around and teaching, and breaking bread with his disciples. We don't hear the term "The Way" being used to refer to the church universal in every book of the bible ('church universal' meaning the body of believers wherever they live and whatever specific local church group they're affiliated with - if they have one)... but we do hear about it, in passing, in Acts. I think the term "Christian" may appear just once in the New Testament, too, by the way; the important thing in those days wasn't whether one was called one thing or the other, but the fact of their belief and their commitment to it by free will.


Ah ok. So then after he died his original followers continued his teaching and it simply gained in popularity and momentum?



From what I've read so far, it sounds to me like he's speaking of Catholicism. (Nine times out of ten, whenever I hear a non-Christian speak of "Christian beliefs" or issues, they're talking about Catholicism specifically. It always surprises me how many people think that certain beliefs which are specific to Catholicism are *Christian in general* rather than unique to that particular branch of the church, or denomination, etc.) You're right - it is confusing!


[/size][/font]

Yeah, I think thats pretty strange also considering the Protestant Evangellicals are the loudest, but I suppose Catholicism is considered the "original church". I dunno

Aine of the Fae
July 10th, 2004, 08:29 AM
You know, I have heard worse. I have heard plenty of Chrisians tell me that Jesus was the first Christian and it makes me laugh. But one time somebody told me that dinosaurs couldn't have ever existed because they were not in the Bible, and all of the information on them science has is a government conspiracy. Not kidding here.


My mother actually once said and I quote, "Dinosaurs never existed. The fossils are fake. God put them there to mess with scientists heads." Uh-huh. So I'm worshipping a trickster God huh?

There are creationist scientists who believe dinosaurs walked at the same time as people. There "evidence" holds up just as well as any evolutionary evidence, but then again I don't think we have nearly enough "facts" or "evidence" to decide one way or another and thus the faith thing comes into play. I believe God created the Earth, but I don't really care when or how He did it. If it was "Let their be light" seven literally days, then good for Him. If it was a gradual process over millions of years? Good for Him. It does not affect me or my belief in Him.

IvyWitch
July 10th, 2004, 08:54 AM
My mother actually once said and I quote, "Dinosaurs never existed. The fossils are fake. God put them there to mess with scientists heads." Uh-huh. So I'm worshipping a trickster God huh?

I'm surprised she actually said that God put them there - I've always heard people say that scientsists either made them and put them there or the pictures are fake for the purpose of drawing people away from God. And of course all the scientsists and archeologists are demon posessed and working for Satan.
Oi.

Kalika
July 10th, 2004, 11:16 AM
WOW! Everybody is so bent on the word "Christian" "Christo-pagan" "Church" so controversial. What does it matter? I was baptized catholic, brought up Born-again christian and I practice witchcraft. Does that mean you have to label me too. I believe in one all powerful God, I am commited to that God and I pray to no others. I make my offerings to him, he is who I ask for blessings, and he is who I ask for protection. I dont understand what all the debate is about, my beliefs and my faiths are mine to have and not yours to comment. I have been to many "christian" forums (and by the way anyone believing in Christ is a Christian thats a whole lot of religions be more specific) and the whole pegan think comes up once in awhile and some people get up on their soap boxes about it, but HERE every day I see a post about Christians whats the problem? Get over it.

Have you read through this thread? Its ABOUT the RIGHT to call yourself a Christian Witch if you so choose. Noone is putting down Christianity, but people here ARE having a discussion.

This thread was posted SO THAT OTHERS COULD COMMENT. If it offends you, by all means put your two cents in, but don't tell people here they do not have the right to discuss something. Its simply not true.

Kalika
July 10th, 2004, 11:19 AM
Its spelled offense with an S. I am very comfortable with my beliefs, its to bad others arent. Weither I have been judged harshly or not isnt the issue. My oppinion is as valid as yours. And "...you don't have to understand it for it to be a valid concern..." is my point exactly so thank you for making it again... At what point did I say I found no value in this thread I find value in every thread I read. I find if very valuable that someone took the time to voice their oppinions, I find it very valuable everytime someone lets their emotions out and evertime someone opens a door, I find your post to me (not offensive) refreshing because I know that you believe and you are strong in your beliefs. I dont think we need a label for our faiths we just need to believe in them in our own way. My questions were.
1. Why do I need a label for my beliefs, what does it matter
2. "Christians" Whats the problem

ummmm NONE TAKEN... :hugz:

Again... read through the whole thread if you haven't. The questions you are asking aren't really relevant to the thread. Noone here is saying they have a problem with Christianity, and noone is saying that you HAVE to label yourself. If people choose to do so, they should have the right to call themselves what they choose - and its about why the "label" of "Christian Witch" is valid to some, and not to others. Debate, plain and simple.

PS. If there is a thread on here where someone is bashing Christianity or any other religion... please be sure to report it to the admins- 'cause that isn't allowed here.

This thread just isn't one of them. :)

Kalika
July 10th, 2004, 11:23 AM
I'm puzzled by that - you know of Christians who think Jesus was something other than Jewish? He certainly couldn't have been *Christian* - that would mean he declared faith in Himself and worshipped Himself! (Then again, there IS that story I mentioned about my sweet but confused Gram that I mentioned in the other thread <g>... )

His Jewishness is a great influence on Christian belief and practice, whether Christians are consciously aware of it or not. (And of course, in Messianic Christian/Jewish congregations, the Jewishness of the faith is tremendously evident).

I know people who will argue that statement. And that will adamantly refuse to acknowledge that Christianity is even remotely similar, or stems from, Judaism.


He hasn't quite managed to state what denomination he was talking about, and when asked he responded with "it doesn't matter, whatever denomination you are." Never mind that I consider myself non-denominational and have been considering starting a church of my own because I just can't seem to find one that fits me... So maybe, just maybe if I have a church building, then my label will be valid. At least according to dr zeus who seems to think that the "church" is a bunch of bricks.

As for all the questions of why we need labels at all: labels are easier than trying to explain to every last person we come across what exactly it is that we are. Most pagans, even if they don't believe it can be done, understand (sort of) what it means when someone says they are a Christian Witch. Saying "I'm a Christian Witch" is much easier than saying "I'm a non-traditional, non-fundamentalist, charismatic, nature-centric, mystical, eclectic Christian." I get funny looks when I say Christian Witch, but when I say the long label? I get dumb stares. Labels make it easy. Granted I end up having to spend the next week and a half arguing with people who are determined my label is incorrect, but that's fun in its own right

:lol: I'd crack up if you gave me that spiel, just cause of the looks you'd get from other people. :)

Arguing is fun isn't it? I think so. (Most of the time anyways.)

:D

Holly Ariadna
July 10th, 2004, 12:13 PM
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.

Couldn't agree more. :)

Holly Ariadna
July 10th, 2004, 12:15 PM
As for all the questions of why we need labels at all: labels are easier than trying to explain to every last person we come across what exactly it is that we are. Most pagans, even if they don't believe it can be done, understand (sort of) what it means when someone says they are a Christian Witch. Saying "I'm a Christian Witch" is much easier than saying "I'm a non-traditional, non-fundamentalist, charismatic, nature-centric, mystical, eclectic Christian." I get funny looks when I say Christian Witch, but when I say the long label? I get dumb stares. Labels make it easy. Granted I end up having to spend the next week and a half arguing with people who are determined my label is incorrect, but that's fun in its own right :D

LMAO! I'm so gonna start saying that! :smile:

Aine of the Fae
July 10th, 2004, 12:31 PM
LMAO! I'm so gonna start saying that! :smile:

Now let's just see if you can say it 10 times fast!

Lunacie
July 10th, 2004, 02:25 PM
Its spelled offense with an S. I am very comfortable with my beliefs, its to bad others arent. Weither I have been judged harshly or not isnt the issue. My oppinion is as valid as yours. And "...you don't have to understand it for it to be a valid concern..." is my point exactly so thank you for making it again... At what point did I say I found no value in this thread I find value in every thread I read. I find if very valuable that someone took the time to voice their oppinions, I find it very valuable everytime someone lets their emotions out and evertime someone opens a door, I find your post to me (not offensive) refreshing because I know that you believe and you are strong in your beliefs. I dont think we need a label for our faiths we just need to believe in them in our own way. My questions were.
1. Why do I need a label for my beliefs, what does it matter
2. "Christians" Whats the problem

ummmm NONE TAKEN... :hugz:
Um, that wasn't my fault, the typo fairy got me. :T

I agree that what we believe is much more important that what we call our beliefs, but... labels and common definitions really do make it easier to communicate, and its exactly because none of us want someone else to dictate those definitions that we discuss and debate. Seems like a circle within a circle, eh?

StephanieAine
July 10th, 2004, 08:41 PM
Taiyo wrote, "You know, I have heard worse. I have heard plenty of Christians tell me that Jesus was the first Christian and it makes me laugh. But one time somebody told me that dinosaurs couldn't have ever existed because they were not in the Bible, and all of the information on them science has is a government conspiracy. Not kidding here."


Hi, Taiyo...
Fortunately, I've hardly *ever* heard a Christian from a mainstream Protestant denomination (Presbyterian, Methodist, etc.) say such things about science; however, I know that among some who are members of non-denominational 'Bible churches' and some Charismatic churches, there are people who believe dinosaurs didn't exist and so forth - but even within those churches, there are many who believe in science just as they believe in Scripture. But, there are some vocal people who just refuse to believe in science in any way. The 'government conspiracy' idea is very rare - but again, the people who believe in such things tend to be the most vocal, and the rest I suppose just sit back and watch (or try to hide, LOL).

As for my own perspective, as I mentioned in another thread, I'm a believer in literal scripture interpretation - however, that absolutely does *not* rule out believing in science. Some people scream about the issue of how long a Biblical day is, in reference to the Creation story in Genesis, trying to come to conclusions about how literally the Creation story should be taken. They'll say that if you believe the Creation story literally, you can't believe in the scientific views of the age of the earth and so forth.

Well, I see no contradiction in believing both... and I'm not the only person who sees things that way. I absolutely believe there were dinosaurs, and I don't see why there would be a problem there; after all, Genesis describes God creating living creatures, but scripture doesn't list specifics like 'tigers, horses, donkeys and rabbits.' It just doesn't *matter* to get into the details. If it needed to be written there, it would have been, and it wasn't, so - okie dokie then. <g>

I think that the people who say dinosaurs were fake and so forth may be reacting to the fact that they can't seem to reconcile their knowledge of scripture with their knowledge of science, so it seems like one would have to be true at the expense of the other. Granted, there are times when I disagree with scientific theory - but the reality is that scientific theory is just that: theory. Just because science proposes such theories, it doesn't mean they must be accepted as solid fact - even if there are times when we may be expected to believe it without question. The other reality is that questioning is extremely important - and without it, there really can be no learning. So, if they don't believe in dinosaurs, I would hope that they'd at least look in to *why* they don't believe it - rather than immediately deciding it had to be a conspiracy. If someone is going to say such things, I would hope they'd have at least a few tidbits of information to indicate how they arrived at such a theory of their own.

Taiyo wrote, "Ok now I'm going to take a stab at this...
Maybe I'm not fully understanding what you're saying here, but I'm kind of confused about the "Chosen People" thing and also this in relation to Messanics. Now, the Jews believe they are the chosen people of Israel, but Christianity has become pretty far from Judaism, but because of Christ they are actually the chosen? And then where do the Messanics fit in? They still follow the Jewish laws, but believe in Christ even though it was said that Christ liberated the people from the laws?
Ack, now I'm confusing myself.... "

The short answer is that Israel/the Jews were the chosen people - but there is such a thing as 'spiritual Israel' (for lack of a better way to put it), who would be the people who followed O.T. law and worshipped the One God etc... and as we established, Jesus was a Jew, and when disciples followed Him (both Jew and Gentile), they were essentially becoming Jews/part of spiritual Israel, in a sense, although they followed God based upon His Grace rather than His Law (because the highest Law, as taught by Jesus, is Love)... they didn't circumcise themselves as did the Jews, but rather their *hearts* were 'circumcised' and so forth. There are some interesting N.T. readings on the subject - it gets into the concept of worshipping God because of the Law and believing you must do that or be unclean, vs. worshipping "in Spirit and in Truth" and realizing that much of what was taught in the OT concerning the Law went much deeper than the way it looked on the surface. Jesus wasn't doing away with the Law; he was taking us to a deeper place within it, teaching the lessons of the Law in a way that explained who we are in relationship to God. And how we can come closer to Him. I could go on, but it would take a book (shameless plug! Book coming out soon hopefully, LOL)...

About the Messianics: they're really no different from any other non-Catholic Christians / Protestants/ nondenominationals.... they're just trying to worship in a way that Jesus and his disciples might have worshipped in the early days. They aren't making the Law more important than Grace; they're just following the feast schedule and so forth because they see no reason that such practices ended, since Jesus Himself followed all of the usual practices. As a Celtic Christian, I agree completely.


In response to what I had written, ( However, "The Way" began when Jesus was still walking around in his earthly body, teaching in the synagogues, traveling around and teaching, and breaking bread with his disciples. We don't hear the term "The Way" being used to refer to the church universal in every book of the bible ('church universal' meaning the body of believers wherever they live and whatever specific local church group they're affiliated with - if they have one)... but we do hear about it, in passing, in Acts. I think the term "Christian" may appear just once in the New Testament, too, by the way; the important thing in those days wasn't whether one was called one thing or the other, but the fact of their belief and their commitment to it by free will.)

Taiyo replied, "Ah ok. So then after he died his original followers continued his teaching and it simply gained in popularity and momentum?"

Exactly! Very well said. That's the ticket. <g>

Taiyo wrote, "Yeah, I think thats pretty strange also considering the Protestant Evangellicals are the loudest, but I suppose Catholicism is considered the "original church". I dunno."

I think that the nondenominational (Protestant category) believers are the loudest, personally; there are many who consider themselves Evangelical but have a completely different take on how to live that belief. As far as Catholicism being the "original church" - yes, if you're speaking to a Catholic, because they believe that it all began with the "on this rock" comment, and Peter, in the New Testament. To others (non-Catholic), the rock comment had nothing to do with Roman Catholicism, and the ultimate point is the universal body of Christ (all believers). Today, though, the term "the Church" often means Roman Catholicism, basically because they're so huge - and of course, there's tremendous power in the Vatican, so they're very *visible.* (That may also be why so many people get confused about Catholic beliefs and assume all Christians hold the same beliefs as Catholics).

StephanieAine
July 10th, 2004, 08:47 PM
There are creationist scientists who believe dinosaurs walked at the same time as people. There "evidence" holds up just as well as any evolutionary evidence, but then again I don't think we have nearly enough "facts" or "evidence" to decide one way or another and thus the faith thing comes into play. I believe God created the Earth, but I don't really care when or how He did it. If it was "Let their be light" seven literally days, then good for Him. If it was a gradual process over millions of years? Good for Him. It does not affect me or my belief in Him.

Beautifully spoken :-) :yourock:

dragenfly
July 10th, 2004, 09:55 PM
Um, that wasn't my fault, the typo fairy got me. :T

I agree that what we believe is much more important that what we call our beliefs, but... labels and common definitions really do make it easier to communicate, and its exactly because none of us want someone else to dictate those definitions that we discuss and debate. Seems like a circle within a circle, eh?

Thats all I am saying I agree with that statement completely thank you for hearing me out. Its seems like many circles within a circle...:hugz:

Morr
July 11th, 2004, 03:29 AM
Originally Posted by Aine
There are creationist scientists who believe dinosaurs walked at the same time as people. There "evidence" holds up just as well as any evolutionary evidence, but then again I don't think we have nearly enough "facts" or "evidence" to decide one way or another and thus the faith thing comes into play. I believe God created the Earth, but I don't really care when or how He did it. If it was "Let their be light" seven literally days, then good for Him. If it was a gradual process over millions of years? Good for Him. It does not affect me or my belief in Him.

maybe in "God Time" it took 7 days...
and in "human time" it took billions of years....


hey - just a thought...

Kalika
July 11th, 2004, 12:31 PM
maybe in "God Time" it took 7 days...
and in "human time" it took billions of years....


hey - just a thought...
Makes sense to me! :)

Morr
July 11th, 2004, 12:44 PM
but then again, maybe if God knew that in human time it would be billion of years, then it should say in the bible "Billions of years"... not 7 days... oh oh oh - and add the dinasors as a work accident or something...

That would save scientists' A LOT of headaches & heat caused by fundies....

Kalika
July 11th, 2004, 12:52 PM
but then again, maybe if God knew that in human time it would be billion of years, then it should say in the bible "Billions of years"... not 7 days... oh oh oh - and add the dinasors as a work accident or something...

That would save scientists' A LOT of headaches & heat caused by fundies....

:lol:

A work accident? That's good! You should start a stand up comedy routine. :)

Morr
July 11th, 2004, 12:55 PM
:lol:

A work accident? That's good! You should start a stand up comedy routine. :)


nah, i just feel silly today!
plus, im down with the man (god), so im forgiven for the dinasor joke :D

Kalika
July 11th, 2004, 12:58 PM
nah, i just feel silly today!
plus, im down with the man (god), so im forgiven for the dinasor joke :D

:)

Its all good. Funny, tho.

Aine of the Fae
July 11th, 2004, 01:30 PM
maybe in "God Time" it took 7 days...
and in "human time" it took billions of years....


hey - just a thought...


I once read a book by a Christian physicist explaining how a difference in perspective on God's part would make billions of our years seem like one day. It was long and complicated and full of scientific language, most of which I've forgotten, and I can't remember the title of it, but it really made sense at the time.

Also, it's even stated in the Bible that thousands of years are like a day to God. Your perspective of time changes the bigger you get.

Think about when you were a child. That time between your birthdays, just one year, seemed like FOREVER. Now as an adult? That time between your birthdays, still just one year, seems to whiz by way too fast. When you're talking eternal? A year would be just a piece of sand in the hourglass. If that.

I don't think the Bible was intended to be taken as literal scientific fact. It is stories exploring deeper spiritual truths in terms that could be understood by the people of the time. If the writer of the Bible had said "In the beginning, there was a big boom..." it kind of would have defeated the purpose. The Bible has great spiritual lessons, but we tend to lose sight of those when we focus on it being literal. The Bible is myth, the events may never really have happened (although some did) but that doesn't mean it's not powerful or from God. God is the greatest story-teller of them all. Look at the life he created for me? Better than a blockbuster movie I tell ya!

Morr
July 11th, 2004, 01:40 PM
yes, God does tend to have a sense of humor when it comes to my personal life...
See, if we take each and every person's life story - we'd get better action stories, love stories, revenge stories, drama stories, horror stories, moral stories, spiritual stories, etc - then all the sacred texts combined.

Not to mention 10 times more realistic & well learned & understood life lessons.

However, I dont believe that every single thing - good or bad - that happens to me, is Divine work. Only the big meaningful things that lead me to a conclusion of some sort (be it spiritual or material). Call it a lesson well learned, if you will.

But then again we are humans - and history tends to repeat itself, so God has plenty more blockbuster action movies and comedy fun shows to write & direct.
Busy guy...

As for the time deal - I dont think I'd want to have a whole year feel as if a second just went by... So many things can happen in one minute, not to mention a year. I dont want to miss a thing. I have so many things to do, see & learn.

But then again, I guess that if I was such a being as Divine - I would have done, seen & known all of these things ahead of time. To be honest - this makes me feel good. I dont want to know everything before they happen and/or be a know it all. Learning is exciting.. Surprises are exciting.. Being human is exciting (I think...).

And this has turned into way too much of a philosophical post then I intended it to be.

Pol
July 11th, 2004, 01:48 PM
It would be pretty easy for me to accept the god's time/man's time thing, except that the bible was written in the words of man and not god.

I think an instant creation is possible, and see no reason to say it's not because of what scientists think.

Besides, since when have the beliefs of pagans been aligned with science? ;)

Aine of the Fae
July 11th, 2004, 01:55 PM
yes, God does tend to have a sense of humor when it comes to my personal life...
See, if we take each and every person's life story - we'd get better action stories, love stories, revenge stories, drama stories, horror stories, moral stories, spiritual stories, etc - then all the sacred texts combined.

Not to mention 10 times more realistic & well learned & understood life lessons.

However, I dont believe that every single thing - good or bad - that happens to me, is Divine work. Only the big meaningful things that lead me to a conclusion of some sort (be it spiritual or material). Call it a lesson well learned, if you will.

But then again we are humans - and history tends to repeat itself, so God has plenty more blockbuster action movies and comedy fun shows to write & direct.
Busy guy...

As for the time deal - I dont think I'd want to have a whole year feel as if a second just went by... So many things can happen in one minute, not to mention a year. I dont want to miss a thing. I have so many things to do, see & learn.

But then again, I guess that if I was such a being as Divine - I would have done, seen & known all of these things ahead of time. To be honest - this makes me feel good. I dont want to know everything before they happen and/or be a know it all. Learning is exciting.. Surprises are exciting.. Being human is exciting (I think...).

And this has turned into way too much of a philosophical post then I intended it to be.


Oh, I don't think God's directing every little aspect of my life. Just... tweaking things here and there. And perhaps smacking me upside the back of the head when I'm being overly stubborn about a lesson I need to learn (I'm really, really stubborn, so my head gets smacked a lot...)

I wouldn't want to know everything, that would be boring. If I did know everything? I'd promptly choose to forget it all.

Morr
July 11th, 2004, 01:58 PM
It would be pretty easy for me to accept the god's time/man's time thing, except that the bible was written in the words of man and not god.

I think an instant creation is possible, and see no reason to say it's not because of what scientists think.

Besides, since when have the beliefs of pagans been aligned with science? ;)

i firmly believe that God created our world, and the rest of the worlds/realms, as well as the planets & universe... I believe that God used the tools of chemistry, biology, evolution, cosmology, physics, etc as engeneering tools for creation. It makes perfect sense to me, though I've had people tell me that I'm simply rationalizing my beliefs - which i totally am not.

I mean, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, etc - they are so absolutely complete & accurate & amazing. In my mind I have no doubt that it is work of a higher being. And just because - we as humans - can be let in on these awesome tools through science - Doesnt mean its a proof that God doesnt exist.

I find that Science & God can go together hand in hand. It doesnt have to be one or the other.

Aine of the Fae
July 11th, 2004, 03:23 PM
i firmly believe that God created our world, and the rest of the worlds/realms, as well as the planets & universe... I believe that God used the tools of chemistry, biology, evolution, cosmology, physics, etc as engeneering tools for creation. It makes perfect sense to me, though I've had people tell me that I'm simply rationalizing my beliefs - which i totally am not.

I mean, Chemistry, Biology, Physics, etc - they are so absolutely complete & accurate & amazing. In my mind I have no doubt that it is work of a higher being. And just because - we as humans - can be let in on these awesome tools through science - Doesnt mean its a proof that God doesnt exist.

I find that Science & God can go together hand in hand. It doesnt have to be one or the other.

I absolutely agree Morr! The order of these fields is just too... perfect to be random chance! Human understanding of the sciences is far from perfect, but to me, science is proof of God.

aluokaloo
July 11th, 2004, 04:53 PM
well why can't there be a christian with? I used to believe there couldn't be (not too long ago), but I've also been doing my reading. Witchcraft does not have to automatically involve asking one Deity or another, and I've been realizing this more and more, that witchcraft does not automatically pertain to one particular faith. It can be those who practice any faith or none at all. There are probably plenty of aetheist witches out there, there are people who practice withcraft and they come from all different parts of the world, and all kinds of different beliefs, so why not a christian witch? After all whenever I ask a question about certain tools, herbs, etc. I usually get the response the power isn't in whatever, its in you. So wouldn't it be that christians have that power as well, because its in them? I mean if you've got the power to make changes in your life through this or that, and you really work hard and believe, then whether you are calling to God or Hecate the power is still inside. Don't know if that made sense it made sense to me don't know if it makes sense to anybody else. :fpoke:

Holly Ariadna
July 11th, 2004, 05:24 PM
Now let's just see if you can say it 10 times fast!

I screwed up the third time at the word "nature". ;) I'll get back to ya!

Pol
July 11th, 2004, 06:50 PM
As yet, I simply have no reason to believe what science tells us to be true.

Morr
July 12th, 2004, 12:49 AM
As yet, I simply have no reason to believe what science tells us to be true.

so what's all those dinasor bones doing there? what about the fossils? what about biology? chemistry? the laws of physics? evolution?
how do you think an airplane flies? space? medications that save lives?

Pol
July 12th, 2004, 01:00 AM
I was speaking of evolution and such, not mechanics and medicines.

I just feel like a lot of answers are created and not really found.
My life has denied science too many times.

Morr
July 12th, 2004, 01:05 AM
I was speaking of evolution and such, not mechanics and medicines.

I just feel like a lot of answers are created and not really found.
My life has denied science too many times.


how can your live deny science?

and how can you accept only parts of science (that are obviously exact & accurate), yet not accept another... Maybe evolution is the way Creation worked? God molded the species.

Plus, I know that one of my Rabbi's excuses to "explain" evolution and the genisis story is that - in the creation story god creates the species in the way evolution evolved... from the smallest organism swimming in the water, to man.

Pol
July 12th, 2004, 01:18 AM
Science hasn't proven anything to me in the way of Creation. It's all ideas and theories, none of them very convincing to me.
I've seen things that science currently denies almost vehemently. I'm a very religious, spiritual person, with much disregard for what scientists think they know.

That's just my opinion.

Morr
July 12th, 2004, 01:33 AM
Science hasn't proven anything to me in the way of Creation. It's all ideas and theories, none of them very convincing to me.
I've seen things that science currently denies almost vehemently. I'm a very religious, spiritual person, with much disregard for what scientists think they know.

That's just my opinion.

im a very spiritual person too..
however, and please dont take this as offense -

the bible that holds the creation story - is a book.
whats the difference between this book's theories & stories, and science books' theories and stories?

Kadynas
July 12th, 2004, 05:50 AM
Call yourself whatever you want! :D It's /your/ belief system! If you're making up your own term for your path, who has the right to be ticked off? It's not like you're claiming to be Christian, or claiming to be a Wiccan: Christo-Wiccan, just to use an example, implies a blend of the two, which is just what they're doing. :thumbsup:

It's the ones that just decide to call themselves by a particular religion, yet don't adhere to the important tenents of that religion who can get annoying: there's nothing wrong with calling yourself Eclectic if that's what you truly are.

Pol
July 12th, 2004, 03:42 PM
I'm not just speaking of the Bible, I'm speaking of any miraculous creation story.
I'd as soon believe we came from the blood of the cosmic cow. :D

gurlygurl2004
February 1st, 2006, 08:53 PM
I could sit here and explain why and how these two can mix well. But I've already done that, just let me tell you, I love my path, and it doesn't bother me at all anymore that I may be more of a Christian than a witch or pagan.