| Christian and Wiccan, at the same time? |
![]() Blog For Free! Archives Home 2008 April 2008 March 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2006 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2005 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January My Links Dovetailmyth BIOMIMICRY The Natural Step Alliance For Sustainability almsthvn blog DeathbyGlitter's Blog DanielMacDonald's Blog dr forbush blog enki blog h2Opower blog graceshaker blog Howie Luvzus Blog jerneedog jt blog kurtmaddox blog nullfactor blog pourquoi Pas? blog Ruined's Blog Rand's Blog rosietulips blog Shayno blog surrogate blog SweetSue UserFriendly TabooTenente's Blog wil wheaton blog Something Wicca This way Comes WEST*MART ethical local partnerships Blog * WORK LESS PARTY, comsume less, live more! Witchcraze *Not so fun facts* History of Salem Witch Trials US Army Chaplain's Handbook RE: Wicca tBlog My Profile Send tMail My tFriends My Images Sponsored Blog Blog Posts of Note: *Magic, Witches and the Bible *A brief History of Wicca *Wicca 101 part 1 *Wicca 101 part 2 *Spells and the Modern Witch *Do Witches Worship Satan? *Religious View *Interview with a Witch *A Witch's Story of Creation *One Definition of the Divine *I am a Witch * Original Sin, from a Witches point of View *Why a Witch Could care less about Harry Potter *Satan is not my Sidekick *The other people: Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the Bible I put this link here. Committee to Protect Bloggers
![]() I feel so special right now, look Ma! I won an award! |
posted by: jessica22 (reply) post date: 12.28.06 (9:01 pm) I think that was very well explained. i don't agree with your beliefs but I don't think anybody does have the same beliefs anyway. I think religion is very personal to each and ever person. Everyone has such a different perspective, therefore making it very diffucult to categorize people as "Jews" or "Christians" or in your case "Wiccan". Makes it very understandable to be 2 things at the same time, I bet you could even find yourself agreeing with Buhddits partices or something of the sort! =) posted by: musicalhair (reply) post date: 12.28.06 (10:29 pm) Here is an attempt at a sound bite version of an answer as to why you could be both wiccan and christian. The Chrisitanity that is at odds with Wicca may not be the legitimate heir to the original christianity, which has it roots more in Platonism than in Judeaism. The watered down "mystieries" of the modern christian churches are empty vessels; but when they were in gnostic hands they were overflowing with wisedom and gave full meaning to their faith. The message at it's core was shared by the Chritian Gnositics and the mystery cults that came out of the "Pagan" traditions. OK, that wasn't no soundbyte. I seriously like your blog a lot, keep up the good work. I'm learning a lot. posted by: fairmoon (reply) post date: 12.29.06 (12:19 pm) Reply to: jessica22 I agree that we all have different perspectives and its so tough to label someone, as you said either "christian" or "wiccan". You are very correct in your thought that I would connect with Buddhist beliefs, i studied Buddhism for about a year before exploring Wicca. Thanks for visiting and reading, i enjoy your comments. FM posted by: fairmoon (reply) post date: 12.29.06 (12:30 pm) Reply to: musicalhair very very well said, can i rip it off? especially the part about modern xtainity not being the heir of Christianity orginally, love it! and the watered down mysteries being empty vessels, wonderful! I love it, thanks so much for posting. I've recently found a local 'gnostic' group who meets once a month, i'm hopeing to go to one of the meetings in jan. I'm just starting to read more of the gnostic texts. I picked up John Spongs "born of a woman" yesterday and though he's not dealing in gnostic wisdom, i'm completely blown away by even just the first two chapters. He has essential said what you said in your soundbite regarding the legitimate heir to the original christianity. He goes further to say that if Jesus was born of a Divine Being and a human, he can either be fully human nor fully divine, but rather a 'half breed' of sorts (the 'half breed' was my word, not his). He says that if we chose to NOT take the bible literally and accept that Jesus's birth was in fact not a miracle of divine intervention, then Jesus becomes illegitimate, and doesn't that thought just blow away 2000 years of church doctorine? (apparentaly he goes into this thought in more detail later in the book, i'm looking forward to it!)your comment in the soundbite made me think of that. Thanks for reading! FM posted by: fairmoon (reply) post date: 12.29.06 (1:12 pm) Reply to: carmencc I’m on occasion loath to use that analogy, it gets over used a lot, but it works, so I suppose I’ll stick with it. And your analogy of the ocean is very apt as well. Thank you for sharing it. I can't even imagine how people perspective of the ocean has changed in that area of the world. You thoughts about it, make it easier to understand how someone can grow to hate God. Turn the ocean in to God and it would be very easy, if not just expected that grief would turn to hatred of God. I mentioned in my comment to musicalhair that I’m reading john Spongs "born of a woman" he the opening pages he discussing the contradictions found in the bible, citing the ones you mentioned in the comment and a dozen or so others. His reasoning for doing it is to begin the argument of not taking the bible as literal historical truth. I find it interesting that from two different places I’m reading about the same thing. I agree that religious books are all about perspective too. And your comment about seeing a reflection in the facet is very mind opening to me. Again I find myself think about what Spong wrote in his book about "midrash" which means the rabbis efforts to discover hidden meaning in scripture. It was very common in at the time the gospels were written to seek out the timelessness of stories and in a sense recreate them as reflections of what would fit for the times. He cites Elijah and his fiery power, and how one can take the stories of Jesus and see them as reflections of the older stories of Elijah. Example being Jesus ascension into heaven (acts 1: 1-11) and Elijah’s ascension in 2 kings 2:11. The difference being that Elijah needed a chariot and Jesus did it under his own power. Thus reflecting an already known story, but making Jesus the more powerful of the two, therefore 'better' because he carried the power within himself and Elijah needed help. At the same time Elijah gave his 'power' to elisha, one person, where as Jesus gave it to all this disciples, again proving his 'betterness' but also reflection stories many Jewish people would already know and understand. This makes a lot of sense to me. On a similar note to reflection one of my favourite quotes is from the movie Kundun, about the early life of the Dalai lama, I have no idea if he actually ever said this, but in the movie a border guard asks, as he's fleeing Tibet, who are you? He answers, "I am but a humble monk. See me as the moon on water, when you see me being a good person see it as a reflection of yourself." I think that religion and faith are and should be reflections of a person’s relationship with God. Just some say that we should live with the Cosmic Christ energy within us, we should too, reflect that outward as well. What's the point of living with the truth of Jesus in our hearts; if we don't share it, reflect it, so that someone else can reflect it back? (Rhetorical question, don't feel a need to personally answer) I liked your last statement of reason being the gift of God. It's so true. Over at wondercafe.ca someone quoted the apparent Jesus quote "of I am the way, the light, the truth," (paraphrased) as being the argument for Christianity being the ONLY way to God. I countered that argument with that of Jesus' next statement ‘"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; [that is] the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, [but] you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you." john 14: 16-17 The Spirit of Truth will BE IN YOU. Jesus gives the ability to know the truth to his people, to all people. The world may not be able to see the truth of it, but our souls know God's truth.' I believe that to mean Jesus, and God gave us the ability to understand and see for ourselves the truth, to reason, as you said, and see where the truth lies and where it does not. The person I quoted it too, hasn't responded yet. Thanks for your comments, they are very thought provoking and I am greatly enjoying this conversation. FM posted by: fairmoon (reply) post date: 12.29.06 (3:29 pm) Reply to: godsmack thank you! FM posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 12.29.06 (4:40 pm) a while back i read a bunch of gershom scholem--scholar of religion and jewish mysticism in particular. he was very interested in the rare phenomenon where a completely new religion forms itself from the core of another. he suggested that christianity, for example, would never have taken the shape it now has without the jewish diaspora. if the romans hadn't sacked israel and sent the jews packing, scholem says, then christianity would still be a form of jewish mysticism. but without the geographical center, christianity transcended the restrictions of the old law. sometimes i think that all the strange globalization taking place these days is having a profound affect on all of our systems of belief--whether wiccan, christian, jewish, buddhist, muslim, atheist, or republican. says an old dead hippie woman: "freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose," and when you've got your freedom, who knows what you'll find. taboo posted by: musicalhair (reply) post date: 12.29.06 (10:34 pm) Reply to: fairmoon Oh, take it all if you have use! You've given me another book I have to read. I've thought about the fully human/ fully divine thing a lot. I am most interested in the human, most inspired by the human, and look to that for examples to emulate. As for miracles, aren't we told that those that need signs to lead them to the "truth" don't get it nearly as those that don't need the signs? I don't feel like running to the bible for the quote. To me, we can strip away all the "signs" and still have something worth following. Those that need the hocus pocus and virin births, well I'm not sure what they want. If he were born of a virgin and turned out to be a jerk, would we follow him? Not me. I think you're lucky to have a local Gnostic group to check out. I hadn't even thought to look for one, but I will. I need an organization to get disillusioned with as it's been a while. :^) AS I always, I'm seriously digging your blog and your insights. i think we're on essentially the same path and following the same tune with regard to all this type of stuff. For that reason I like reading your stuff so as to get a better sense of the landscape along this journey. posted by: tabootenente (reply) post date: 12.30.06 (7:55 am) carmencc, of course all religions share the same roots, and it's very important to remember this, especially when it seems that living a religion today is about demonstrating intolerance for other religions. jung spent a career's worth of thinking to explore the common symbolic roots buried in every single human's unconscious; and freud and lacan explored how an infant's notion of "self" comes from a recognition of the Other--that the "self" is social construction determined by the entire world that exists prior to the infant. our roots are all the same. and if you know of gilgamesh and the old testament and also recognize that much of the spiritual foundation of western civ was filtered (not born) through the writings of a handful of greeks, which was, in turn, filtered and spread through the systematic growth of the roman empire, then you, unlike many, are awake to the fact that all of these stories of origin, of genesis, are spins, or grand narratives. they are the same stories retold in order to legitimize the ruling ideology of a society. maybe you've read daniel quinn? he's written a down-to-earth, if not very thorough or even-handed, exploration of how this happens; howard zinn has offered a secular exploration of how the grand narrative of u.s history could be (and perhaps should be) rewritten. i'm fascinated by that process. but at the same time, my earlier comment wasn't a comment on how different narratives explain the same origin-myths in different ways. i was talking about how a society's entire spiritual understanding changes, the way people communicate with whatever force they equate with "god". suppose, originally, people believed that the gods walked on earth with humans--that the world of gods was the same as that of human beings. at some point, people transcended this symbolic frame and then believed that gods lived in a separate world, but the separate world was attached to the human world at some geographic location--for example, gods became attached to rivers, or oceans. gods became ocean gods, or fire gods, or even gods attached to the underworld of death. greek mythology is the obvious, later-stage example where gods not only had human-world attachments but lived on mt olympus. but the jewish tradition was also has roots in the same tradition: the early hebrew god was a god of fire, or a god of mt. sinai (or both, to hear freud tell it). and the egyptian notion of the sun god, at later spiritual stages, resembled the hebrew god in the same way. at some point, people's notion of "god" left the human world. god either became a singular entity detached from our world, or became an all encompassing, omniscient spirit or force that enveloped everything we know. in either case, god's existence became unknowable to human beings, and our communication with god on a spiritual level became the central focus of religion. my point was not that all religions have the same symbolic roots, but that spirituality evolves by taking terrific mystical leaps. christianity was one such mystical leap--the notion of the divisible indivisible, or the knowable unknowable was a jewish mystical concept that predates jesus; but at the same time, jesus as a human embodiment of god, a fulfillment and transcendence of the human condition was a cosmic shift in spirituality. and the notion that our human condition of living could remain unchanged after the salvation, the gift of grace, was a notion that could not have existed on the level of society before the emergence of jesus. i have my own beliefs, as i suspect we all do. but it is just as important to recognize how our perspective on the universe evolves, as it is to recognize the common source of everyone's perspective. taboo posted by: musicalhair (reply) post date: 12.30.06 (11:12 am) Reply to: carmencc I agree with like everything you said. Not to be a nit picker, but I dont' know that the gaining of spiritual knowledge is an evolutionary process. I like the "gateless gate" of zen, and I want to resist the idea that spiritual truth is gaind through suffering-- not that I'm saying you've said that, I just don't really see any real obstacles to my own spiritual growth outside me: just in me. The Billy Graham's of the world don't help anyone towards spiritual growth IMHO, though I don't disdain the old man like I do Falwell or Pat Robertson. If he is just a slightly kinder face on that which divides us instead of uniting us, then yeah that is a problem. I've only read two things by Aristotle: The Ethics, and The Politics. I understood Politics, but Ethics I didn't really get fully. I was young and those were my first baby steps out of where ever I was towards what I hope is truth. I should probably re-read them someday. But, my understand of the ancient Greek philosophers is that we have to read them allegorically. That behind their writings and public teachings were "secret" teachings to those that either wanted to know or were ready to know more. This is in keeping with the idea that teachers don't teach unless their asked to teach something. The felt that not everyone would "get" the truths or deeper knowledge, and to just give out this knowledge to anyone was like casting pearls among swine, and the truths would never be understood or interpreted correctly by the "Hylics". I don't want to believe "Hylics" even exist, but if I entertain the possiblity even for a second, certain things make a little more sense. In any event, there are people not ready to learn be it calculus or God. I'd like to think anyone can get to a place where they can learn. Anyway, to finish this up about Aristotle and "God becomes Man" etc: I feel safe in saying that Aristotle must have been teaching an "outer mystery" with that which then gets peeled away and tossed as he taught an inner mystery. The "Hylic" can never even uderstand the outer mystery, he hears it and says "what nonsense". The person that doesn't want to worship a demiurge will accept this outer mystery and learn from it, seeing that there is an example one could follow-- we do good things in service to this shining example of a holy man, in his memory. The idea that this holy energy can be part of us is the next step, this is where the person learns to not associate with their lower selves, their material selves, but with their spiritual aspect which they learned about through the myth of the God-man. It might only be a blasphomy if one stops short of this step and the next step, insisiting that there was only One manifestation of God on Earth and none gets to God but by that one manifestation-- not that I want to define Blasphomy which I associate with spiritual immaturity more so than anything else. The next step in the way they taught their spiritual ideas is to see that all of the universe is one single creation of God, and part of God. I think the idea that one "becomes" God was never meant to be literal, but to be a sound-byte for the idea that we eshew our physical distractions for the greater will of God by recognizing that we are but one consciousness in a sea of consciousnesses. Do we turn "inward" to that starting point of all creation and see God, and see ourselves as part of that creation, or do we remain outward seeing things for us to posess, people for us to dominate and others for us to push back serving our lower selves? I think that is what they meant, but they're method of teaching and understanding is lost on us when we read their stuff. I love the Yankees. I grew up an Yankee fan, and I see "Yankee history" as very often showing the best way the game can be played. I think you can't love baseball and not love the yankees, even if you are a fan of another team: because the Yankees have so often been the gold standard of winning the game. If I fail to learn to love the shining examples of how to best play the game when it is done by other teams, and if I fail to recognize the abstraction of what "the best baseball" could be, then I fail to learn to love the game and an stuck like a hylic in the bleachers hating and "razzing" the other team and even "razzing" Bernie Williams if he stricks out or fails to dive for a fly ball. I learned to love good baseball by first learning to love the yankees. The "God-man" is meant to teach us something about God, when it is used to that end I don't think it is Blasphomy-- but I dont' think about blasphomy very much. If it is used to create a false Icon, then it fails to bring any realy spiritual truth to the person worshiping that Icon. I think people can use the language of spiritual icons similar to the names of places on a map without missing the point. I know "New York City" is a construct of man only understood by man, and that long island is not divided from queens anymore than one grain of sand is divided from the next. I can still use the map and the names on the map to get around. If you can teach people to get around without a map, then you've got something special. I see throught history that it seems like people can learn to get around spiritually with a spiritual map, so I think we can use it to learn and not to simply blasphomy. I don't want to hyjack FM's thread, but let me know what you think. happy new year to everyone! posted by: musicalhair (reply) post date: 12.31.06 (11:43 am) Reply to: carmencc Hey, thanks for the responses. I'll look into Aristotles Metaphysics-- which I realize you're not endorsing, but so that I am hipped to these ideas, good or bad or where he goes with the ideas--, I probably am more ready to understand him then I was when I read the other things. When I read Plato's Symposium (after the two Aristotle books), I was shooked and thought it was funny and gross at the same time. The people I shared the book with thought it was ridiculous too. I have a lot of questions, I may not even get around to asking you about some of the ideas you share above, but they get way off the track from this blog entry of FM's. Happy New Year everyone! posted by: fairmoon (reply) post date: 12.31.06 (1:27 pm) Reply to: musicalhair hey, i'm enjoying this conversation, feel free to go as far off the orginal topic as you'd like. I'm interested to hear what you both have to say. So don't hold back on my account :D HAPPY NEW YEAR to you both! posted by: chanter (reply) post date: 12.31.06 (2:35 pm) Happy New Year to you!(",) posted by: ruined (reply) post date: 01.01.07 (3:13 pm) I can totally understand what you are saying. I was raised in a Christian home. However, I have always been given the chance to make my own up my own mind. Like you, something was missing. I tried finding that something in church, but have been dismissed from those churches as an "unbeliever". How dare I question what they had to say? In my search, I've come to accept the Bible as the Holy Text, however incomplete it may be, as it was compiled by human hands. I've accepted Jesus as the key into a "personal" relationship with an incomprehensible God. However, there are a ton of unanswered questions. The way I deal with those questions is just to be as personal with God as I can, if that makes sense. When I pray, I admit that I don't know exactly how to approach him, so here I am for what I'm worth in the vast scope of things. I can't wait to meet The Entity that is God... in whatever form God manifasts Himself (Itself?). posted by: fairmoon (reply) post date: 01.11.07 (3:41 pm) Reply to: godsmack yes i had a wonderful yule, how about yourself? Scott Cunningham has been one of my favorite authors for many years. I adore him! and i really like starhawk too. Thanks for mentioning them they're awesome authors! FM posted by: kurtmaddox (reply) post date: 01.11.07 (7:49 pm) I'm not too interested in a person's brand of religion or non-religion these days as I'm interested in what that believe their religion requires of them. Any religion, regardless of its doctrine, that advocates achieving any theocratic end via force is a pernicious danger to the rest of us. Any religion that advocates the independent pursuit of "holyness", "happiness" or both while allowing for the freedom of their brothers and sisters to do the same, is a reasonable neighbor with whom I can easily break breaed at anytime. The challenge for those who would seek truth has never changed -- it is the challenge to understand that no one person or belief system has access to ultimate truth. Life is a mystery that even the most spiritual or the most brilliant person any of us will ever encounter knows any more about than a small child gazing out toward the stars in awe. Life is awesome, terrifying, wondrous and nerve-racking. We each have this consciousness of ourselves and yet we live each day in a sort of accepted panic that death could instantly take from us the very thing we are trying so desperately to figure out -- life. Our faiths help us relax because they give us an answer, a purpose, a calling and a system of belief that we can tell others about. Eventually, we find others who share our way of seeing things and this brings even greater confirmation and peace of mind. Still, I believe, that an honest person admits that in the deepest corners of our minds, the sheer inadmissable and unmanageable terror that we don't have the first clue about any of this remains. This is the source of all true humility -- the humility to admit that we don't know and that we aren't likely to find out so long as we are doing the human thing, whatever that ultimately turns out to have been. Namaste'! Kurt posted by: graceshaker (reply) post date: 01.12.07 (11:14 am) enjoyed this. Ü posted by: musicalhair (reply) post date: 01.20.07 (10:14 am) Reply to: carmencc Sorry for taking so long to post on this. As many know I was pretty sick and ended up with a lot of things to catch up on. Also, I've got some dancing in this thread because I fear offending you Carmen or doing something that you might feel offends God. My fear in this regard might be irrational, but just know I step carefully around you :^) . Some of you you're saying is not a big deal to me. For example when someone says "God is inconceivable to me" the could mean that God is infinite, which is by definition inconceivable. We can express it in math or in words but we can not fully get our head around infinity. It could also be like "I can not fully define the number Pi", because the sequence of decimal points goes on infinately and nonrepeating. It can also be an attempt to express the idea that God might enbody what to us looks like paradoxes, like the square root of -1 which is important in math and thus in science but breaks our definitions of square root. These might be seen as semantic games, but they point to real limitations on what it is we can "conceive". We can express that which is inconceivable to us, knowing that our definition falls short. Along those lines: I don't see an advatage, other than to patriarchy, in calling God "He" or "he" or "it". I dont' see "it" as refering only to inanimate objects, and while it is impolite to call a person "it", I think if we're going to be sticklers about pronouns then none of them are good labels for God who might be "label-less" to us in the same God may be undefinable by us. Still we need to exchange and express and even have ideas about God, or take vows of silence, so to that end I'd rather look past any pronoun or word someone uses since they all fall short anyway and get to the ideas being expressed. I see a similar thing in another post here by FM, where PastorDave accuses someone in a picture of praying to a rock. I know I'm not addressing the fullness of your ideas here, but I've got to run and i dont' know how to proceed in this discussion other than slow and deliberately. Part of that is that I don't really get a sense of your view on God. I know what it is not, and I think I know some areas were we agree, but much I don't see. For example, it seems to me that you see God and a single divine "entity" for lack of a better word, that universe is part of God, and that God has a personality in that God can be insulted personally by things like misused pronouns or the use of symbols that are meant to teach bigger ideas that the symbol can possibly mean. It also seems that you see us as outside of God, that God can not be "within" us or any person in any sense of the idea and that such an idea is in and of itself against God. If any of this sound knocking you or God, it is not meant to: it might just be limitations that all words have and limitations on my understanding. posted by: musicalhair (reply) post date: 01.20.07 (10:16 am) Reply to: kurtmaddox Nice post dude! I don't get the "terror" stuff, but I've read it a lot in spiritual context-- and I'm not asking for a definition either :^) , I'm just saying I don't get it-- but outside that I love your post. |
Demystifying Misconceptions This Blog chronicles the journey of one woman as she attempts to define her faith and place in the universe.
I'm a geeky sort of Fae most of the time
Blog Posts of Note: *Christian and Wiccan at The Same Time *A Walk with Jesus’ Mom *Finding God in Wicca *Universal Myth and Personal Myth- Definitions in Consensus Reality The Matrix: Systems Healing and Thinking, an Introduction *Magic, Witches and the Bible *A brief History of Wicca *Wicca 101 part 1 *Wicca 101 part 2 *Spells and the Modern Witch *Do Witches Worship Satan? *Religious View *Interview with a Witch *A Witch's Story of Creation *One Definition of the Divine *I am a Witch * Original Sin, from a Witches point of View *Why a Witch Could care less about Harry Potter *Satan is not my Sidekick *The other people: Or how I learned to stop worrying and love the Bible |