Contemporary Paganism and Magicka

[Microcosm]

This is a pretty intriguing topic, in my opinion.

I've been pretty interested in magicka and paganism recently, but my parents take the Christian stance and won't let me try any spells or anything. I don't know if I believe in it or not, but it's a pretty interesting concept that has some sense to it, I suppose. There have also been many intriguing modern developments in paganism and magick that have really opened up the reach of its teachings to more people, which is pretty cool.

Yes, I do realize that there are many different forms of paganism. I'm mainly talking about the more Wiccan side of paganism, though.

Discuss what you think about Paganism and Magick below and also, perhaps, provide me with some suggestions.

Please keep it conversational.

ALSO, PLEASE NOTE:
We aren't trying to "prove" or "disprove" Wicca or Magick or Paganism in this thread. You may discuss the concepts of spell-casting or the legitimacy of pagan claims(such as its connection to nature and science and such). Please, do not just say "Oh, it's all B.S. and I don't believe a word of it." That doesn't contribute at all.

[Horatio Nelson]

Omg, I'm actually posting in ROTW. :P

Call me crazy, but, I definitely think it's all real, and equally dangerous.

I get the draw of paganism and magick. There is a sense of power, that otherwise one wouldn't feel. I don't agree with it at all, but, it isn't my place to tell someone what they should and shouldn't do.

[Uniquemind]

I don't think the debates definition specifically about magic is fair or widely understood.

Magic = assumes non-logical origins and therefore the debate is unfair.


For this reason I define magic as = the manipulation of energy/matter through force of will and discipline, in which modern western science cannot quantify.

[Stronk Serb]

There are a lot of paganism revival groups in Europe, especially in Scandinavia and Slavic countries. They actually seek to revive the old ancestral pagan religions or most aspects of them. Being a Slav, I am fascinated about the pre-Christian traditions of my people.

[Microcosm]

I don't think the debates definition specifically about magic is fair or widely understood.

Magic = assumes non-logical origins and therefore the debate is unfair.


For this reason I define magic as = the manipulation of energy/matter through force of will and discipline, in which modern western science cannot quantify.

I don't believe I ever defined magic as this in the Original Post. I actually entirely agree with you. I wouldn't say there is some supernatural connection, but rather it is more like a scientific and logical connection that(with enough scientific advancement) perhaps we may discover one day.

[Uniquemind]

Oh no I believe this exists.

But what's more interesting is why various faiths either rail against it, or end up incorporating aspects of mysticism into the tenants of their faiths.


I can't really add much discussion to this, and I doubt others will be able to either.

It's a very knowledge-specific topic.

--

With regards to Catholicism and Christianity it's interesting to hear their rationale behind why they link magic use with other things they deem occult, as linked with their faith's enemy.

Many pastors and fathers resort to the answer of: it is because it is, and/or I don't know.

Which is basically a copout answer.

--

I do need to point out though that scientists and other people who prefer logic and the scientific method to give definition to their life absolutely hate the notion that magic-superstition and science are all one in the same.


The reason being is that there were a lot of myths and superstitions people followed in the past that by modern understanding were deadly and toxic to do.

For instance there was some "potion" attempting to be an elixir of life for immortality, but what we now know to be chemically deadly compounds for a human to consume.

[Microcosm]

Oh no I believe this exists.


If magic does exist, then it is absolutely something that can be experimented on in a scientific way. The interesting thing about Wicca is that it is totally natural(according to Wiccans of course). The theory is that it isn't really supernatural, but rather it's the belief that our will or willpower actually has an effect on the world around us. It explains why we pray and it explains why when we really believe or think something will happen, it happens. It explains why people think some things are "miracles" when perhaps they are actually just your will naturally acting on the environment around you. I'm not saying I believe it, but I'm saying that, theoretically, it would explain these things that people claim to be "miracles" if we could prove its actuality.

So, I think the best action we can take in a scientific sense would be to keep studying the subject and testing it to see if it might actually be for real.

[Uniquemind]

If magic does exist, then it is absolutely something that can be experimented on in a scientific way. The interesting thing about Wicca is that it is totally natural(according to Wiccans of course). The theory is that it isn't really supernatural, but rather it's the belief that our will or willpower actually has an effect on the world around us. It explains why we pray and it explains why when we really believe or think something will happen, it happens. It explains why people think some things are "miracles" when perhaps they are actually just your will naturally acting on the environment around you. I'm not saying I believe it, but I'm saying that, theoretically, it would explain these things that people claim to be "miracles" if we could prove its actuality.

So, I think the best action we can take in a scientific sense would be to keep studying the subject and testing it to see if it might actually be for real.


I disagree because for something to be scientific the results have to be repeatable without a high level of failure. In addition those tests are made with a mental state of objectivity, with the experiment having an autonomous result in of itself removed of human will.

The variable that changes in magic and is not always equal is WILL. It varies from person to person.


Also there has been no great belief or will than a child dressed up in a Superman costume believing they can fly, without a doubt, only when they try with certainty they fall and died. This has happened tragically and it's why I say magic cannot be scientifically understood based on the limitations of our current scientific method. Because of that they need to be understood as distinctly separate.

Modern science already addresses the power of the mind and the placebo effect or nocebo effect. But it caps that power to an extent.



I think Wicca also suggests that the abilities and certain talents can only be performed by some people. So the scientific question after the assumption that magic exists, is what about those few allow them to do what others cannot?

Is it genetic? What does the genetic makeup of humans have to do with the supernatural world? Is genetics the reason why major relations have sexual topics as such a major taboo, and is such an issue over why control over men and women sexual behavior is such a big deal?

Certainly if this is true the book of Noah in the Bible, and other historical references about keeping "bloodlines pure" comes to light in a new context. Then you hit a can of worms regarding was Hitler onto something regarding a "Master Race". Because that was one of the operating principles the Nazi's were so enthusiastic about, bloodlines, race and superiority, and alien UFO technology.

[Microcosm]

I disagree because for something to be scientific the results have to be repeatable without a high level of failure.

The variable that changes in magic and is not always equal is WILL. It varies from person to person.


Also there has been no great belief or will than a child dressed up in a Superman costume believing they can fly, without a doubt, only when they try with certainty they fall and died. This has happened tragically and it's why I say magic cannot be scientifically understood based on the limitations of our current scientific method.

Modern science already addresses the power of the mind and the placebo effect or nocebo effect. But it caps that power to an extent.

Let me start by saying there is no definite rule to Wicca. There is no "Bible" to this faith, no prophets and whatnot. Therefore, what it really consists of is a natural philosophy that can vary from person to person. Now, personally, I would say that, if Wiccan magic is true, then it is entirely within the boundaries of nature and natural law; therefore, anything that we attempt to cause using magick which is outside of the natural order will not occur no matter how much willpower you have. For instance, your superman example. If I wanted to fly, and I performed a magick ritual which would supposedly allow me to fly, I would definitely not fly because it is not within the laws of nature to allow such a thing to happen. However, if I wanted to hex someone or if I truly wanted them to be harmed, then perhaps that could effect the environment around me in ways such as: a) letting them know somehow that I want to harm them or b) they might actually get harmed in a natural way. Things like this are well within the practical theory of magick which, if Wicca is true, is probably the most reasonable. However, if this is the truth of magick and Wicca, then it should be quite difficult to test it, but still possible. This theory also assumes a sort of random side to nature and magick reactions. Our minds, for instance, do not think the same way every time. So, testing something like our minds to think and form opinions the same way every time would be a failed experiment. Correspondingly, perhaps the natural actions of magick are the same way. In this way, hypothetically of course, they would act in ways that are unpredictable yet logically fitting for that situation.

[Uniquemind]

Let me start by saying there is no definite rule to Wicca. There is no "Bible" to this faith, no prophets and whatnot. Therefore, what it really consists of is a natural philosophy that can vary from person to person. Now, personally, I would say that, if Wiccan magic is true, then it is entirely within the boundaries of nature and natural law; therefore, anything that we attempt to cause using magick which is outside of the natural order will not occur no matter how much willpower you have. For instance, your superman example. If I wanted to fly, and I performed a magick ritual which would supposedly allow me to fly, I would definitely not fly because it is not within the laws of nature to allow such a thing to happen. However, if I wanted to hex someone or if I truly wanted them to be harmed, then perhaps that could effect the environment around me in ways such as: a) letting them know somehow that I want to harm them or b) they might actually get harmed in a natural way. Things like this are well within the practical theory of magick which, if Wicca is true, is probably the most reasonable. However, if this is the truth of magick and Wicca, then it should be quite difficult to test it, but still possible. This theory also assumes a sort of random side to nature and magick reactions. Our minds, for instance, do not think the same way every time. So, testing something like our minds to think and form opinions the same way every time would be a failed experiment. Correspondingly, perhaps the natural actions of magick are the same way. In this way, hypothetically of course, they would act in ways that are unpredictable yet logically fitting for that situation.


I can agree with that. Regardless my point still stands about magic failing the parameters of the "scientific method", because of that randomness.

[Microcosm]

I can agree with that. Regardless my point still stands about magic failing the parameters of the "scientific method", because of that randomness.

I suppose you are right. You will not ever get definite evidence or proof of such a thing. However, it would/should at least seem possible to get evidence that points to magick by experimentation. If you hex someone, and horrendous things happen to them, then you can't just say it was your hex that did it; however, it would be possible and quite surprising to see something bad happen to them right after you placed the hex.

That's the only kind of evidence you would get, and it is no more efficient than saying God performed miracles because I prayed for it.

So, I suppose you are completely correct in saying that this does fail the strict parameters of the scientific method.

[Uniquemind]

I suppose you are right. You will not ever get definite evidence or proof of such a thing. However, it would/should at least seem possible to get evidence that points to magick by experimentation. If you hex someone, and horrendous things happen to them, then you can't just say it was your hex that did it; however, it would be possible and quite surprising to see something bad happen to them right after you placed the hex.

That's the only kind of evidence you would get, and it is no more efficient than saying God performed miracles because I prayed for it.

So, I suppose you are completely correct in saying that this does fail the strict parameters of the scientific method.


If magic is in the realm of God, you then have to consider the possibility the the power source that makes magic possible at all is the same force that has conscience to it that God might be battling against.


It opens the door to consider what God is and what Satan is exactly. Sure there are some biases that are being made, but no more if you're assuming the laws or definitions of what Wicca considers natural or not natural.

The line of natural is completely blurred anyway, once you start talking about magic anything is possible because the parameters of logic are completely blurred.


The mysticism of magic and the mysticism of religion, are of the same tier of credibility which is why they are often at odds with each other because nobody can trace their origins.

[Syzygy]

----

[Lovelife090994]

What are you asking?

[Microcosm]

What are you asking?

I was hoping you'd respond to this c:

For you, something like a story of how you got into Wicca(since you are already a Wiccan yourself). You could discuss what kinds of spells you use and how you use them etc. Just a general discussion of Wicca and Paganism. That's what this thread is.

[Uniquemind]

No, I can't exactly explain why I can confirm I KNOW magic is real. But it's real, and even the main Judeo-Christian religion, doesn't discount the existence of the occult and magic, but rather it should not be played with or dabbled in.

[Lovelife090994]

I was hoping you'd respond to this c:

For you, something like a story of how you got into Wicca(since you are already a Wiccan yourself). You could discuss what kinds of spells you use and how you use them etc. Just a general discussion of Wicca and Paganism. That's what this thread is.

Well, for me I always believed in magick. Even as a kid I knew the difference and while I was a strict Christian myself and rarely did magick work (since I had no clue what I was doing) I just ignored it for years. I never agreed with the Abrahamic views of witchcraft as evil and I hated how bigoted I was. After discussing Wicca with friends over the past year and a half I finally researched, and opened up to things and became new or rather what I always was; a Witch.

For me being a Witch gives me better access to the realm of magick and to energies and divinatory gifts I always ignored for fear of an angry God.

Why do I use magick? I'm drawn to it, always have been, and it is actually good to practice dealing with energy. I do spells and invocations to balance out energies in and around me and my home. Love spells to make someone love you are a no no in Wicca but you can cast a spell to help you feel loved. I have a handful of White magick spells. I say White because they deal with minor affairs, love, blessings of items, charms, potions, incantations, and divination rituals and anecdotes all kept in my grimoire.

Hand me down practices can be enlightening... hand me down spells can be unfortunate. I write my own spells and never use anything dark or harmful.

"An it harm none do as ye will" Last line of the Rede most Wiccans and people follow in some form. Basically as long as you do not harm anyone including yourself, go for it. I also use magick in meditation and to protect myself from my mother's religious antics and whenever I am in a church listening to vitriol.

Does that about answer it for you?

[Microcosm]

Does that about answer it for you?

Pretty much. You are a very interesting person and I've never known a Wiccan before. It's pretty neat. How do you write spells? And have you noticed when a spell or practice effects the world around you?

[Lovelife090994]

Pretty much. You are a very interesting person and I've never known a Wiccan before. It's pretty neat. How do you write spells? And have you noticed when a spell or practice effects the world around you?

I kinda just write, it flows out naturally. I'm a poet too so that helps as well. I feel the effects usually shortly after, but the spells never last too long. (Then again I never cast them to be long-term... I should try it and let you know.)

[Arkansasguy]

This is a pretty intriguing topic, in my opinion.

I've been pretty interested in magicka and paganism recently, but my parents take the Christian stance and won't let me try any spells or anything. I don't know if I believe in it or not, but it's a pretty interesting concept that has some sense to it, I suppose. There have also been many intriguing modern developments in paganism and magick that have really opened up the reach of its teachings to more people, which is pretty cool.

Yes, I do realize that there are many different forms of paganism. I'm mainly talking about the more Wiccan side of paganism, though.

Discuss what you think about Paganism and Magick below and also, perhaps, provide me with some suggestions.

Please keep it conversational.

ALSO, PLEASE NOTE:
We aren't trying to "prove" or "disprove" Wicca or Magick or Paganism in this thread. You may discuss the concepts of spell-casting or the legitimacy of pagan claims(such as its connection to nature and science and such). Please, do not just say "Oh, it's all B.S. and I don't believe a word of it." That doesn't contribute at all.

It has been proven by philosophers that there is only one God. Therefore the pagan deities are false gods. Additionally, the traditional pagan myths at least have in their favor that they supported civilizations for millennia, Wicca has never served as the religion of any nation.

As far as magic, it is extremely dangerous, as one invites evil spirits in.

[Microcosm]

It has been proven by philosophers that there is only one God. Therefore the pagan deities are false gods. Additionally, the traditional pagan myths at least have in their favor that they supported civilizations for millennia, Wicca has never served as the religion of any nation.

As far as magic, it is extremely dangerous, as one invites evil spirits in.

It has been proven by philosophers that there is only one God. Therefore the pagan deities are false gods.

I can see how you would perhaps prove a need for a god through philosophy, which I am currently learning about, but I'd love to see you prove that there is only one God. Isn't it possible that there is more than one? Also, I've previously stated that some pagans don't even believe in the gods. They simply use them to represent certain forces in nature and such which help them perform rituals and such. That last part is some pretty faulty logic as well.

Wicca has never served as the religion of any nation.

Whether a religious philosophy has served as the core religion of any nation holds no weight as to that religion's truth, which it would appear that's what you are trying to prove. Therefore, this statement is irrelevant entirely.

[Arkansasguy]

I can see how you would perhaps prove a need for a god through philosophy, which I am currently learning about, but I'd love to see you prove that there is only one God. Isn't it possible that there is more than one? Also, I've previously stated that some pagans don't even believe in the gods. They simply use them to represent certain forces in nature and such which help them perform rituals and such. That last part is some pretty faulty logic as well.

There can only be one all-powerful being. If there were multiple, then what would happen if their wills were to conflict? If the answer is that some division of power would decide this, then who made that division?

[Microcosm]

There can only be one all-powerful being. If there were multiple, then what would happen if their wills were to conflict? If the answer is that some division of power would decide this, then who made that division?

The pagans of which we speak do not suggest that every one of their gods are all powerful. That argument is then invalid when applied to paganism of this sort. Also, I'll restate that their is no official one way to believe in paganism. It is really up to the believer to decide how they believe. My first claim in this response was simply speaking of most pagans of this sort(Wiccans and more contemporary pagans).

[Arkansasguy]

The pagans of which we speak do not suggest that every one of their gods are all powerful. That argument is then invalid when applied to paganism of this sort. Also, I'll restate that their is no official one way to believe in paganism. It is really up to the believer to decide how they believe. My first claim in this response was simply speaking of most pagans of this sort(Wiccans and more contemporary pagans).

If these beings are not omnipotent, then in what sense are they gods?

[Uniquemind]

The problem with the concept of "Gods" being plural or multiple forces fighting each other in some sentient way, is that it tends to humanize them.


It can be argued that the abrahamic religions really leave the concept of what is "God" listed in the unknowable category that you won't find out til the appointed time (end times).


Whereas in many other ancient beliefs (Greek, Roman, etc...) "God" are more superhuman than "God".

[Microcosm]

The problem with the concept of "Gods" being plural or multiple forces fighting each other in some sentient way, is that it tends to humanize them.


It can be argued that the abrahamic religions really leave the concept of what is "God" listed in the unknowable category that you won't find out til the appointed time (end times).


Whereas in many other ancient beliefs (Greek, Roman, etc...) "God" are more superhuman than "God".

How is that a "problem?"

[Karkat]

I feel kinda the same as you do.

I also am a bit hesitant, just because (and any good wiccan/pagan/what have you will strongly warn you of this) it can supposedly be very dangerous if done wrong and s h e i t that's not something I just wanna fuck with.

But it intrigues me a lot! I'm trying to learn about it.

[Stronk Serb]

It has been proven by philosophers that there is only one God. Therefore the pagan deities are false gods. Additionally, the traditional pagan myths at least have in their favor that they supported civilizations for millennia, Wicca has never served as the religion of any nation.

As far as magic, it is extremely dangerous, as one invites evil spirits in.

The Old Gods ruled Earth for thousands of years. Your desert god had to spread by force which is pathetic. Christianity was acceptet by Emperor Constantine just so he could exercise more power.

[Karkat]

It has been proven by philosophers that there is only one God. Therefore the pagan deities are false gods. Additionally, the traditional pagan myths at least have in their favor that they supported civilizations for millennia, Wicca has never served as the religion of any nation.

As far as magic, it is extremely dangerous, as one invites evil spirits in.

"philosophers"

I literally can't stop laughing rn

Good joke, haven't read something that funny in a long time

[Arkansasguy]

The Old Gods ruled Earth for thousands of years. Your desert god had to spread by force which is pathetic. Christianity was acceptet by Emperor Constantine just so he could exercise more power.

1. My God is the God of everything.

2. Christianity wasn't spread by force. That's a lie.

"philosophers"

I literally can't stop laughing rn

Good joke, haven't read something that funny in a long time

It wasn't a joke.

[Stronk Serb]

1. My God is the God of everything.

2. Christianity wasn't spread by force. That's a lie.

1. Dažbog is the arch-enemy of your god and he's stronger.

2. Well, tell that to my dead pagan ancestors who got slaughtered by the Byzantine and Venetian dogs for being pagan. Or the Baltic countries, Finnish...

[Karkat]

1. My God is the God of everything.

2. Christianity wasn't spread by force. That's a lie.

It wasn't a joke.

LOL you're a funny guy

[Arkansasguy]

1. Dažbog is the arch-enemy of your god and he's stronger.

2. Well, tell that to my dead pagan ancestors who got slaughtered by the Byzantine and Venetian dogs for being pagan. Or the Baltic countries, Finnish...

What on Earth are you talking about? Those countries were converted by missionaries.

[Stronk Serb]

What on Earth are you talking about? Those countries were converted by missionaries.

Uh, nope. Some were but there were Slavs for example who refused to convert. They were hunted by the Byzantines. The Paganians were such example. Hell, their name describes their religious beliefs.

[Arkansasguy]

Uh, nope. Some were but there were Slavs for example who refused to convert. They were hunted by the Byzantines. The Paganians were such example. Hell, their name describes their religious beliefs.

Uh huh.

[Microcosm]

Uh huh.

By responding with a simple "Uh huh" you are, for the sake of argument, admitting to the fact that he is correct on this. I'd just like to point that out.

[Arkansasguy]

By responding with a simple "Uh huh" you are, for the sake of argument, admitting to the fact that he is correct on this. I'd just like to point that out.

It's perfectly clear what that means. He's free of course, to provide any evidence he has of his wild claims.

[Stronk Serb]

It's perfectly clear what that means. He's free of course, to provide any evidence he has of his wild claims.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narentines

Look in the history part.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_conversion

Look in the Christianity part

[Lovelife090994]

It has been proven by philosophers that there is only one God. Therefore the pagan deities are false gods. Additionally, the traditional pagan myths at least have in their favor that they supported civilizations for millennia, Wicca has never served as the religion of any nation.

As far as magic, it is extremely dangerous, as one invites evil spirits in.

You cannot prove or disprove Gods, and your God is your God but to me is unknown so by that logic I can say Christianity is debunked when that too is false. It matters not if a religion has been the head of a country for it to have validity. In fact, theocracies tend to fail so religion in government is dangerous, and lastly magick... Magick does not equal evil and is used as a lifestyle and practice. Magick is something EVERY religion and philosophy either has or mentions. Christianity has many cases of witchcraft and bibliomancy within itself.

A god does not need to be supreme or hateful (In fact that is non worthy of praise) to be considered a god. And magick is ONLY "bad" when the caster uses it with ill-intent and to harm. But harming breaks the Wiccan Rede and the Golden Rule of "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you."

[Living For Love]

This is a pretty intriguing topic, in my opinion.

I've been pretty interested in magicka and paganism recently, but my parents take the Christian stance and won't let me try any spells or anything. I don't know if I believe in it or not, but it's a pretty interesting concept that has some sense to it, I suppose. There have also been many intriguing modern developments in paganism and magick that have really opened up the reach of its teachings to more people, which is pretty cool.

Yes, I do realize that there are many different forms of paganism. I'm mainly talking about the more Wiccan side of paganism, though.

Discuss what you think about Paganism and Magick below and also, perhaps, provide me with some suggestions.

Please keep it conversational.

ALSO, PLEASE NOTE:
We aren't trying to "prove" or "disprove" Wicca or Magick or Paganism in this thread. You may discuss the concepts of spell-casting or the legitimacy of pagan claims(such as its connection to nature and science and such). Please, do not just say "Oh, it's all B.S. and I don't believe a word of it." That doesn't contribute at all.
Why is it so hard for you to believe in (the Christian) God or the Bible but at the same time willing to "believe" in Magicka (whatever this is), spells and Paganism?

[Lovelife090994]

Why is it so hard for you to believe in (the Christian) God or the Bible but at the same time willing to "believe" in Magicka (whatever this is), spells and Paganism?

Oh no you did not just type that!? Leave the person alone! They have a right to believe in or follow whatever they please. Your religion isn't the only one out there, and I could flip this on you. "Why are you willing to believe in a violent God who hates everyone not like him and has a book of hate as his Bible? Why do you deny the existence of thousands of deities far older than yours, and why do you deny magick and care of the Earth as your Mother Goddess while you breathe her air?"

NEVER say "Why is it so hard for you to believe in the Christian God but at the same time willing to 'believe' in magick, spells and Paganism?" Why the hell not?

And why did you put "believe" in quotes? Are you saying his faith is lesser than yours? Are you qualified to make such an audacious claim?

[Microcosm]

Why is it so hard for you to believe in (the Christian) God or the Bible but at the same time willing to "believe" in Magicka (whatever this is), spells and Paganism?

I don't "believe" in spells or Paganism. Anything is possible in this world. What I "believe" doesn't matter. The truth is what matters, and the truth we will never know. So, it makes sense then to indulge every possibility of truth even if it's just for the sake of indulgence itself. The purpose is hidden, but that doesn't mean we can't look.

I've looked at the Christian God. I've looked at the Islamic God. I've turned to the Buddha and philosophy and realism. The truth remains hidden. I don't force myself to constrict my beliefs to any one religion because anything is possible; agnosticism, perhaps.

[Zenos]

I don't think the debates definition specifically about magic is fair or widely understood.

Magic = assumes non-logical origins and therefore the debate is unfair.


For this reason I define magic as = the manipulation of energy/matter through force of will and discipline, in which modern western science cannot quantify.

For this reason I define magic as = the manipulation of energy/matter through force of will and discipline, in which modern western science cannot quantify.


That sounds like Aleister Crowley

There can only be one all-powerful being. If there were multiple, then what would happen if their wills were to conflict? If the answer is that some division of power would decide this, then who made that division?

Totally not! Just because Odin is the most powerful of the Norse Gods does not put his will in conflict with that of Jehovah.

You have to take into account each race has it's on deities!

[Living For Love]

I don't "believe" in spells or Paganism. Anything is possible in this world. What I "believe" doesn't matter. The truth is what matters, and the truth we will never know. So, it makes sense then to indulge every possibility of truth even if it's just for the sake of indulgence itself. The purpose is hidden, but that doesn't mean we can't look.

I've looked at the Christian God. I've looked at the Islamic God. I've turned to the Buddha and philosophy and realism. The truth remains hidden. I don't force myself to constrict my beliefs to any one religion because anything is possible; agnosticism, perhaps.
So you're saying that you're basically trapped in some kind of philosophical spiral, looking for the right religion, the truth, which you'll never find, like you said, and I agree with it, because it will never be proved. I can say I've been in that path, even though I stopped at Christianity, and even though it's not considered to be "the truth" to everyone, it is the truth for me, and it completely satisfies me. All I can say is good luck on your journey.

Don't think, nevertheless, that I have no interest in other religions or beliefs just because I've found mine, I actually find Greek mythology, for instance, extremely fascinating. Can't say the same about magick, though, because I know almost nothing about it.

Oh no you did not just type that!? Leave the person alone! They have a right to believe in or follow whatever they please.
Never said he hadn't.

Your religion isn't the only one out there
I know.

Why are you willing to believe in a violent God who hates everyone not like him and has a book of hate as his Bible?
I honestly don't know which god you're referring to, I absolutely have no idea.

Why do you deny the existence of thousands of deities far older than yours, and why do you deny magick and care of the Earth as your Mother Goddess while you breathe her air?
I could ask you for evidence to prove all that, but I'm just going to say that I haven't denied it, nor shown any care about it.

NEVER say "Why is it so hard for you to believe in the Christian God but at the same time willing to 'believe' in magick, spells and Paganism?" Why the hell not?
I asked him this question because we discussed some aspects of Christianity on another thread about an essay on Atheism he wrote, stating that religions are toxic and that we should follow reason and not subjugate ourselves to deities that supposedly don't exist, so I was just curious to see what made him change his mind, and he perfectly answered me. Nothing else.

And why did you put "believe" in quotes? Are you saying his faith is lesser than yours? Are you qualified to make such an audacious claim?
I haven't made such claim. I put "believe" in quotes because I was aware it wasn't the rightest word to use, I just couldn't find any other else.

[Microcosm]

I asked him this question because we discussed some aspects of Christianity on another thread about an essay on Atheism he wrote, stating that religions are toxic and that we should follow reason and not subjugate ourselves to deities that supposedly don't exist, so I was just curious to see what made him change his mind, and he perfectly answered me. Nothing else.

When I wrote that, it was late at night and I honestly didn't believe what I wrote after I'd already posted it, but I did post it. It was illogical and stupid and I realize that now. It was pretty offensive and honestly didn't belong on a public forum. So I do apologize for that.

But yeah I can see how that would be confusing since I was acting like a such a hardcore Christian-hater back when I wrote that.

[Living For Love]

When I wrote that, it was late at night and I honestly didn't believe what I wrote after I'd already posted it, but I did post it. It was illogical and stupid and I realize that now. It was pretty offensive and honestly didn't belong on a public forum. So I do apologize for that.

But yeah I can see how that would be confusing since I was acting like a such a hardcore Christian-hater back when I wrote that.
No need to apologise, it's fine, it wasn't particularly offensive for me, you were just expressing your opinion. :)

[Uniquemind]

For this reason I define magic as = the manipulation of energy/matter through force of will and discipline, in which modern western science cannot quantify.


That sounds like Aleister Crowley



Totally not! Just because Odin is the most powerful of the Norse Gods does not put his will in conflict with that of Jehovah.

You have to take into account each race has it's on deities!


It does, and no doubt there is some influence.

But there are a lot of things I disagree with Crowley as well.

--

What's disturbing though is that in almost all cases, people like Crowley, claimed to have been visited by an entity, which then inspires them to make some kind of code or doctrine of beliefs.



The reason magic has a bad reputation and by de facto triggering religious debates and conversations is because there is no veiled separation between the two topics.

[Babs]

I find Wicca/Paganism pretty fascinating. I don't really believe in it, since I don't believe in any higher power or anything like that, but I enjoy reading about it.

[Lovelife090994]

I find Wicca/Paganism pretty fascinating. I don't really believe in it, since I don't believe in any higher power or anything like that, but I enjoy reading about it.

Oxymoronic fact: there are Atheist witches and Atheist Wiccans.

[Stronk Serb]

Oxymoronic fact: there are Atheist witches and Atheist Wiccans.

There are atheist pagans too. They don't believe in the gods themselves, but view it as their ancestral folklore.

[Lovelife090994]

There are atheist pagans too. They don't believe in the gods themselves, but view it as their ancestral folklore.

Correct. Pagan and Paganism are both umbrella terms yet also both broad terms and not always pertaining to "polytheist" or "religious". Many Icelanders probably could be considered Atheist Pagans since their culture is tied into Paganism and because Iceland has a high percentage of Pagans.

[Uniquemind]

Oh no you did not just type that!? Leave the person alone! They have a right to believe in or follow whatever they please. Your religion isn't the only one out there, and I could flip this on you. "Why are you willing to believe in a violent God who hates everyone not like him and has a book of hate as his Bible? Why do you deny the existence of thousands of deities far older than yours, and why do you deny magick and care of the Earth as your Mother Goddess while you breathe her air?"

NEVER say "Why is it so hard for you to believe in the Christian God but at the same time willing to 'believe' in magick, spells and Paganism?" Why the hell not?

And why did you put "believe" in quotes? Are you saying his faith is lesser than yours? Are you qualified to make such an audacious claim?


You do know that the "Christian and Judaism God" doesn't support the concept of ravaging the Earth for economic gain don't you?


The "book of hate" isn't so much a book of hate, rather it is a book of forgiveness and also a book telling us people are going to reap what they sow, regardless if they are ignorant to what the are sowing will yield bad consequences, because God warned you.


Corporations and the individuals therein have a lot to answer for since they pursue Greed with less if any forethought to the environment or public safety.

Thus they commit the sins of lying, deception, murder, and greed all in one stroke.

God doesn't recognize "limited liability corporations" like Earth's law does.

If you call God a harsh judge, I call him fair but stern.

[Lovelife090994]

You do know that the "Christian and Judaism God" doesn't support the concept of ravaging the Earth for economic gain don't you?


The "book of hate" isn't so much a book of hate, rather it is a book of forgiveness and also a book telling us people are going to reap what they sow, regardless if they are ignorant to what the are sowing will yield bad consequences, because God warned you.


Corporations and the individuals therein have a lot to answer for since they pursue Greed with less if any forethought to the environment or public safety.

Thus they commit the sins of lying, deception, murder, and greed all in one stroke.

God doesn't recognize "limited liability corporations" like Earth's law does.

If you call God a harsh judge, I call him fair but stern.

Genocide and supposedly condemning those who do not believe in you to hell is hardly stern or harsh but utterly insane and psychopathic! Now thank you for not being belligerent but the Bible is full of hatred and contempt to minorities, women, Pagans, moderate Christians, thinking, and has examples of God's wrath. What kind of loving God allows death in his name, children to starve, genocide, to marry your rapist, and the need to walk solely on your faith? Not a god worth worshipping since he seems to hate his own creation! God may give people solace but he is only good to those brainwashed to him and to those who are his subservient slave.

[Microcosm]

You do know that the "Christian and Judaism God" doesn't support the concept of ravaging the Earth for economic gain don't you?


The "book of hate" isn't so much a book of hate, rather it is a book of forgiveness and also a book telling us people are going to reap what they sow, regardless if they are ignorant to what the are sowing will yield bad consequences, because God warned you.


Corporations and the individuals therein have a lot to answer for since they pursue Greed with less if any forethought to the environment or public safety.

Thus they commit the sins of lying, deception, murder, and greed all in one stroke.

God doesn't recognize "limited liability corporations" like Earth's law does.

If you call God a harsh judge, I call him fair but stern.

Genocide and supposedly condemning those who do not believe in you to hell is hardly stern or harsh but utterly insane and psychopathic! Now thank you for not being belligerent but the Bible is full of hatred and contempt to minorities, women, Pagans, moderate Christians, thinking, and has examples of God's wrath. What kind of loving God allows death in his name, children to starve, genocide, to marry your rapist, and the need to walk solely on your faith? Not a god worth worshipping since he seems to hate his own creation! God may give people solace but he is only good to those brainwashed to him and to those who are his subservient slave.

I am inclined to agree with this. Unfortunately, the God of the Bible is not as perfectly fair as modern day Christians like to preach that he is. I think Chris has explained that pretty well here. However, to enforce these claims which he has made, I will provide Bible verses to back them up.

On the genocide of women and children

1 Samuel 15:2-3 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

While this verse is clearly explainable by the covenant that God made to Abraham, it is still entirely unrighteous. While God is supposed to be perfectly awesome and nice, he made a covenant with Abraham that he would slay anyone who were enemies to the Israelites. Thus, we seemingly arrive at a paradox.

On marrying your rapist:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

This appears to promote rape, wouldn't you agree? Rather than seriously punishing the man for raping this woman, the woman must marry the man even if it is against her will.

More justification for the claim that God is unrighteous:

Christians of the modern day would all tell you that, before the coming of Christ, no human being ever met God's standards. This means that none of them could've gone to Heaven, and must have gone to Hell or at least to Purgatory as the Catholics believe. Sending the millions if not billions of people who came before Christ to Hell does not seem righteous to me. Especially when they actually had no chance of salvation in the first place.

Addressing the common rebuttal of these arguments:

Lastly, I will address this refutal to the things I have said here that Christians love to point out. They will say "All of these things you have mentioned are in the Old Testament. We do not follow the Old Testament. Therefore, your argument is invalid." Not so. My argument here, rather than addressing the rules by which the Jews had to follow(but not modern day Christians, as you say) as corrupt, the argument lies in the nature of God to issue such a commandment in the first place. If God is perfect, then he has always been perfect. If the same God that issued these commands is the same God which supposedly presides over the modern world(which Christians must believe he is), then the modern God must still think of these things(being forced to marry your rapist, stoning homosexuals, putting to death anyone who is against Israel) as righteous. Also, this would imply that the God of the modern world is still a tribal and biased God towards Israel to this day(this is because a perfect God has no reason to change).

[Uniquemind]

I am inclined to agree with this. Unfortunately, the God of the Bible is not as perfectly fair as modern day Christians like to preach that he is. I think Chris has explained that pretty well here. However, to enforce these claims which he has made, I will provide Bible verses to back them up.

On the genocide of women and children

1 Samuel 15:2-3 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

While this verse is clearly explainable by the covenant that God made to Abraham, it is still entirely unrighteous. While God is supposed to be perfectly awesome and nice, he made a covenant with Abraham that he would slay anyone who were enemies to the Israelites. Thus, we seemingly arrive at a paradox.

On marrying your rapist:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

This appears to promote rape, wouldn't you agree? Rather than seriously punishing the man for raping this woman, the woman must marry the man even if it is against her will.

More justification for the claim that God is unrighteous:

Christians of the modern day would all tell you that, before the coming of Christ, no human being ever met God's standards. This means that none of them could've gone to Heaven, and must have gone to Hell or at least to Purgatory as the Catholics believe. Sending the millions if not billions of people who came before Christ to Hell does not seem righteous to me. Especially when they actually had no chance of salvation in the first place.

Addressing the common rebuttal of these arguments:

Lastly, I will address this refutal to the things I have said here that Christians love to point out. They will say "All of these things you have mentioned are in the Old Testament. We do not follow the Old Testament. Therefore, your argument is invalid." Not so. My argument here, rather than addressing the rules by which the Jews had to follow(but not modern day Christians, as you say) as corrupt, the argument lies in the nature of God to issue such a commandment in the first place. If God is perfect, then he has always been perfect. If the same God that issued these commands is the same God which supposedly presides over the modern world(which Christians must believe he is), then the modern God must still think of these things(being forced to marry your rapist, stoning homosexuals, putting to death anyone who is against Israel) as righteous. Also, this would imply that the God of the modern world is still a tribal and biased God towards Israel to this day(this is because a perfect God has no reason to change).

Yes on your rebuttal.

But also the passages you cited also come from many years of translation into modern English which causes many important details to be lost.


No passage in the bible can be taken out of context either, nor out of what was deemed appropriate moral standards for it's own time.


There is also a bias that exists here to feel for the destroyed villages and to argue perfection of God isn't compatible with violence or destruction of creation.

What is deemed horrible to us is us projecting ourselves into a scenario where we envision us angering such a God to the point where we will receive such treatment as well.


Those who argue NT doesn't have the same scary strict stuff as OT, are ignoring Revelation. You are right they are invalid.



But let me also say that the modern bible of today is wrong in some of it's details and a lot of the war stories are a response to a society that believed in an eye for an eye or where part of an encoded message to humanity through God wanting to re-name his prophets certain new names after a covnenant was made or name a nation like Israel.


The golden rule of love of treating others how we'd want to be treated invalidates the previous interpretations of the meaning the scriptures cited above as well.


---

Let's also not forget that other religions and even certain magical practices weren't any more or less ethical than a lot of the passages cited above with modern standards in mind.

Women and children being chattel property, and slavery where common everywhere.

---

Let me also argue that a God that allows free will to an extent by default will allow rebellion of his creations against him, which from the bible itself we can infer Lucifer and Satan engaged, and the creation of man is caught in the middle, and in some cases rebel in of itself.

We also see from our perspective that other religions are derived from more observable phenomena and then myths and legends arise out of that.

The argument is that other faiths were detected and "made" first, but originally God existed first it is just primitive societies did not acknowledge or detect God. What they could detect were sensual things and whispers of influence from the spiritual/magical side of creation but that no real effort went into investigating spiritual entities were of a good power or bad power.


Hence why Magic is deemed dangerous in Christianity and even in Judaism too! I am unsure what Islam says about it, but I can guess it probably looks down on magical practices too.


---


Also it is important to point out that WE or the individual chooses to hurt or help someone. And societies make macro decisions that hurt or help a nation. Any semblance of injustice afflicted upon the innocent is a reflection of humanity's imperfection and not God.

Almost all of man's problems lies in it's potential to do good or evil, and it rarely chooses to do the good at a consistent, wise, and thoughtful level.

This cannot be blamed on God, unless you surrender all power to God, and disagree with the concept of Free Will. That man shouldn't be free to make decisions and that we instead should be more robotic yet safe from mistakes while mechanically being rules or an extension of God himself.

[Microcosm]

Yes on your rebuttal.

But also the passages you cited also come from many years of translation into modern English which causes many important details to be lost.

Wouldn't God protect his word? If it has been changed, then how do we even know that Jesus raised from the dead? What if the whole thing is fake? You claiming this would make any faith in God completely unjustified because you are now basing your faith strictly on books which could have(and most likely were) largely changed over time.

No passage in the bible can be taken out of context either, nor out of what was deemed appropriate moral standards for it's own time.

The problem with this, as I have previously stated, is that God and his views do not change over time. Therefore, we are to believe that everything God said in the old testament still holds true as moral fact today because it came from the unchangeable fact that is God's opinion.

Proof that God's opinion is supposed to be entirely trustworthy and unchanging over time right from the Scriptures:
Malachi 3:6 "For I the Lord do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed."

So, by that logic, we should continue to stone the gays for their absolutely horrid deeds which are worthy of death and eternal hellfire. That is the will of God, and God's will is unchanging, perfect. Right?

There is also a bias that exists here to feel for the destroyed villages and to argue perfection of God isn't compatible with violence or destruction of creation.

But God commanded them to be violent. God gave them the ability to sin in such a way and even commanded them to do so. Therefore, it is entirely compatible.

What is deemed horrible to us is us projecting ourselves into a scenario where we envision us angering such a God to the point where we will receive such treatment as well.

If the Christian Bible is true as you say, then this whole Universe is doomed to the rule of an evil, childish, and ragingly impulsive God.

Those who argue NT doesn't have the same scary strict stuff as OT, are ignoring Revelation. You are right they are invalid.

They ignore many things. In fact, they ignore most of the Scriptures.

But let me also say that the modern bible of today is wrong in some of it's details and a lot of the war stories are a response to a society that believed in an eye for an eye or where part of an encoded message to humanity through God wanting to re-name his prophets certain new names after a covnenant was made or name a nation like Israel.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. "

If the entire Holy Bible is the word of God, then what you just said must be wrong. Timothy wrote that all scripture was "God-breathed," and God can never be wrong, right?

The golden rule of love of treating others how we'd want to be treated invalidates the previous interpretations of the meaning the scriptures cited above as well.

Your last statement here is entirely illogical. In no way does the "golden rule" you speak of "invalidate" my arguments. If the Scriptures are the word of God, am I not supposed to study them with an unbiased and entirely forthright attitude? After all, it is supposedly breathed out directly by the living God, right? It should be taken seriously and not simply written off as nothing more than the expression of a "golden rule." This last statement you make appears to be nothing more than a cop-out. The conclusion follows not from the premise.

[Uniquemind]

The bible cannot be just treated like an ordinary book.

It is as much philosophical and personalized and must be read and understood both broadly and narrowly passage by passage at the same time as well as beyond.

The correct understanding of the bible will yield no contradictions. If you feel you have a contradiction, you hit an improper interpretation and need to start again.

Now what I mean by Beyond, is this. "His Word" meaning God's correct interpretation of Christianity/Judaism/Islam, exists somewhere out in the world and has not passed away yet it is rare. It will take intense searching to understand & find that but it has and will not pass away until the Second coming and where all of creation will be undone.

Revelation is the best written attempt at explaining the collapse of all creation; earth, stars, space-time, and pretty much anything and everything as we know it. The only thing that remains is what has always remained which is the Kingdom of Heaven where God resides with his elect and those who are saved.


Reading the bible is a good starting point, but it is a book and it is a written law, and to go by it literally will make you like the Pharisees which Jesus rebuked were not interpreting the OT law correctly. Nothing in the OT is wrong or incorrect today, it's just not all of the same sacrifices and rituals are required now as they were then. This concept is something that is not understood well, especially by those who do not believe in spiritual things.

The Golden rule of loving others as you love thy self is usually the foundation of where people give up and angrily call the faith hypocritical.

It seems illogical the first couple of times, and you also realize God has triaged a lot of things or standards he'd have liked to impose back in the OT, but for humankind's infantile understanding of Him and lack of science, were impossible to communicate to those of the ancients who were without Faith already, within a world that is dominated by Satan.

[Microcosm]

The bible cannot be just treated like an ordinary book.

It is as much philosophical and personalized and must be read and understood both broadly and narrowly passage by passage at the same time as well as beyond.

The correct understanding of the bible will yield no contradictions. If you feel you have a contradiction, you hit an improper interpretation and need to start again.

Now what I mean by Beyond, is this. "His Word" meaning God's correct interpretation of Christianity/Judaism/Islam, exists somewhere out in the world and has not passed away yet it is rare. It will take intense searching to understand & find that but it has and will not pass away until the Second coming and where all of creation will be undone.

Revelation is the best written attempt at explaining the collapse of all creation; earth, stars, space-time, and pretty much anything and everything as we know it. The only thing that remains is what has always remained which is the Kingdom of Heaven where God resides with his elect and those who are saved.


Reading the bible is a good starting point, but it is a book and it is a written law, and to go by it literally will make you like the Pharisees which Jesus rebuked were not interpreting the OT law correctly. Nothing in the OT is wrong or incorrect today, it's just not all of the same sacrifices and rituals are required now as they were then. This concept is something that is not understood well, especially by those who do not believe in spiritual things.

The Golden rule of loving others as you love thy self is usually the foundation of where people give up and angrily call the faith hypocritical.

It seems illogical the first couple of times, and you also realize God has triaged a lot of things or standards he'd have liked to impose back in the OT, but for humankind's infantile understanding of Him and lack of science, were impossible to communicate to those of the ancients who were without Faith already, within a world that is dominated by Satan.

I am agnostic. I think the hardcore atheist Richard Dawkins worshipers no nothing of real philosophic and religious truth. However, I do not accept the Christian Bible simply because of its incredibility over time, its seemingly harsh and unfair God, its secretive principles which also lead to unfairness, and its determination that faith is the only real truth. Faith is one way of truth; however, when that faith makes no sense, it is likely that I will disbelieve in it.

There are some faiths which do make sense. One of these is paganism(particularly atheist paganism as mentioned above). It makes some real form of sense that the Christian Bible simply does not.

Also, on that last comment that the world is dominated by Satan: God must have created Satan. So, there's that. Basically, God created Satan because he wanted evil to be in the world. It was part of his "big plan" that Christians love to praise. I'll also add that rape, incest, and the condemnation to hellfire of any slightly sinful or skeptical person is also part of his "big plan." I simply don't see how these things are "false interpretations" as you say they are. They are core aspects of Christianity and even parts of Islam.

[Living For Love]

Genocide and supposedly condemning those who do not believe in you to hell is hardly stern or harsh but utterly insane and psychopathic!
How can someone who doesn't believe in hell be afraid of going to hell?

What kind of loving God allows death in his name, children to starve, genocide, to marry your rapist, and the need to walk solely on your faith?
God is love, definitely, but he's also justice and punishment for those who've defied him. I've explained this better in my responses to Dan's comment, just check it below.

Not a god worth worshipping since he seems to hate his own creation!
Yeah, sure, he hates his creation so much that he agreed to give his only Son to die in order to save Humanity. As an ex-Christian, you should have always known this.

God may give people solace but he is only good to those brainwashed to him and to those who are his subservient slave.
God doesn't force anyone to be his "follower" or "slave", if he intended to do so, he would have created robots, not humans.

On the genocide of women and children

1 Samuel 15:2-3 “This is what the LORD Almighty says: "I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

While this verse is clearly explainable by the covenant that God made to Abraham, it is still entirely unrighteous. While God is supposed to be perfectly awesome and nice, he made a covenant with Abraham that he would slay anyone who were enemies to the Israelites. Thus, we seemingly arrive at a paradox.
I understand how this whole thing of killing innocents and children might be difficult to be accepted by atheists, I must confess it's still a bit hard for me to agree with such a thing, considering I've been a Christian since I can remember.

All I can say is that I recognise I am incapable of understanding the wisdom of an immensely powerful God, but at the same time I trust him and I know he cannot fail or make mistakes, something that is per se inherent to the definition of God.

On the other hand, God knows the future, and he knows what will happen if people don't carry out their orders or, in this case, if the Israelites didn't eradicate the Amalekites. It is stated in the first book of Samuel that God's wish to completely destroy the Amalekites wasn't fulfilled, as a couple of decades later, they kidnapped Israeli families. If you read the book of Esther, you'll find that Haman, a descendent of the Amalekites, tried to exterminate the Jewish people. This allows us to conclude that Israel's disobedience almost resulted in its own destruction. God didn't order the destruction of all those people to be cruel, he knew what would happen if they weren't killed, he was just preventing even greater evil from occurring.

Now you may ask: "Why would God order the death of innocent children?" It's safe to assume, considering the society of that time, that they would grow up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents, and thus, condemned to hell. By ending their lives as children, God enabled them to have access to Heaven by his grace and mercy, since Jesus stated (in other words) that the kingdom of Heavens belongs to them.

Even though this does not completely answer your question, our main focus should be on trusting the God that created us, the God that knows our future, and the God that knows what's best for us even when we don't understand it (just like a parent teaching or punishing a child, I'd say).

On marrying your rapist:

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

This appears to promote rape, wouldn't you agree? Rather than seriously punishing the man for raping this woman, the woman must marry the man even if it is against her will.

Exodus 22:16-17 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."

The woman does not have to marry the rapist, she only has to accept his father's wish. How many fathers would be willing to give their daughter to a rapist? Also, because of the rape, the woman would afterwards be considered unmarriageable. In most cases, those women would have to sell themselves into prostitution in order to survive. This is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different.

Christians of the modern day would all tell you that, before the coming of Christ, no human being ever met God's standards.
This is not true.

This means that none of them could've gone to Heaven, and must have gone to Hell or at least to Purgatory as the Catholics believe. Sending the millions if not billions of people who came before Christ to Hell does not seem righteous to me. Especially when they actually had no chance of salvation in the first place.
There was salvation before Christ, people had to made sacrifices in the Temple in order to cleanse their sins.

Lastly, I will address this refutal to the things I have said here that Christians love to point out. They will say "All of these things you have mentioned are in the Old Testament. We do not follow the Old Testament. Therefore, your argument is invalid." Not so. My argument here, rather than addressing the rules by which the Jews had to follow(but not modern day Christians, as you say) as corrupt, the argument lies in the nature of God to issue such a commandment in the first place. If God is perfect, then he has always been perfect. If the same God that issued these commands is the same God which supposedly presides over the modern world(which Christians must believe he is), then the modern God must still think of these things(being forced to marry your rapist, stoning homosexuals, putting to death anyone who is against Israel) as righteous. Also, this would imply that the God of the modern world is still a tribal and biased God towards Israel to this day(this is because a perfect God has no reason to change).
I don't understand what you're trying to tell us here. What is the "nature of God" for you, and how could Christians try to "discover" what it really is? God issued those commandments, that's true, and despite not being valid any more, you cannot conclude that "God still thinks that way", this is, you cannot consider God as if he had a limited mind. What I'm trying to say is that you seem to consider God to be someone like: "This is right, and this is wrong." It doesn't work that way. God issue those commandments, people had to follow them, but not because they were right or wrong, only because God told them so. God hasn't told us Christians, though, to kill homosexuals or marry rapists.

[Microcosm]

I understand how this whole thing of killing innocents and children might be difficult to be accepted by atheists, I must confess it's still a bit hard for me to agree with such a thing, considering I've been a Christian since I can remember.

All I can say is that I recognise I am incapable of understanding the wisdom of an immensely powerful God, but at the same time I trust him and I know he cannot fail or make mistakes, something that is per se inherent to the definition of God.

On the other hand, God knows the future, and he knows what will happen if people don't carry out their orders or, in this case, if the Israelites didn't eradicate the Amalekites. It is stated in the first book of Samuel that God's wish to completely destroy the Amalekites wasn't fulfilled, as a couple of decades later, they kidnapped Israeli families. If you read the book of Esther, you'll find that Haman, a descendent of the Amalekites, tried to exterminate the Jewish people. This allows us to conclude that Israel's disobedience almost resulted in its own destruction. God didn't order the destruction of all those people to be cruel, he knew what would happen if they weren't killed, he was just preventing even greater evil from occurring.

Now you may ask: "Why would God order the death of innocent children?" It's safe to assume, considering the society of that time, that they would grow up as adherents to the evil religions and practices of their parents, and thus, condemned to hell. By ending their lives as children, God enabled them to have access to Heaven by his grace and mercy, since Jesus stated (in other words) that the kingdom of Heavens belongs to them.

Even though this does not completely answer your question, our main focus should be on trusting the God that created us, the God that knows our future, and the God that knows what's best for us even when we don't understand it (just like a parent teaching or punishing a child, I'd say).
We don't know what God created us. Therefore, how can we trust him? Your whole argument is based, then, on trust, which is incredibly difficult to hold when it comes to religion because we don't know which religion is correct or if any of them are even correct.


Exodus 22:16-17 "If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride price for virgins."

The woman does not have to marry the rapist, she only has to accept his father's wish. How many fathers would be willing to give their daughter to a rapist? Also, because of the rape, the woman would afterwards be considered unmarriageable. In most cases, those women would have to sell themselves into prostitution in order to survive. This is why the passage leaves marriage to the discretion of the father, because every situation is different.

Even if it is against the woman's will, the father can still choose to hand her over to the man. The point here is that God considers women to be subject to the desires of men; like they're slaves. That would make God sexist. This sexism is prominent throughout the Bible and even sometimes in the New Testament. This only projects the inconsistency which is not supposed to be present in a perfect God.

This is not true.

This surprised me. Pretty much every Christian I've asked has told me that we all do not meet the standards of God; rather, we are saved from our subjection to these standards through Jesus. This is proven moreover by the following verse:
Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,"
Also
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.…"
Also
Mathew 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

That last one would also show that we are not saved only by faith, but by works as well. There is plenty more proof for that claim in James.
The "all fall short of the glory of God" verse was my main point. Read it in context and my point will shine even more clearly.

There was salvation before Christ, people had to made sacrifices in the Temple in order to cleanse their sins.

Perhaps, but this was only guaranteed to the Israelites. God never said anyone except the Israelites could go to Heaven. This is unfair and goes to show that God is ultimately tribal and primitive.

I don't understand what you're trying to tell us here. What is the "nature of God" for you, and how could Christians try to "discover" what it really is? God issued those commandments, that's true, and despite not being valid any more, you cannot conclude that "God still thinks that way", this is, you cannot consider God as if he had a limited mind. What I'm trying to say is that you seem to consider God to be someone like: "This is right, and this is wrong." It doesn't work that way. God issue those commandments, people had to follow them, but not because they were right or wrong, only because God told them so. God hasn't told us Christians, though, to kill homosexuals or marry rapists.

The nature of God is Unchanging. The Bible clearly says this. Therefore, it should be clear that God's views haven't changed and that homosexuals still deserve death. Now, whether we choose to follow that is now up to us because we are supposedly relieved of having to follow such things by the mercy of Christ; however, it still goes a long way in showing the nature of God which I spoke of. It means that God, who is supposedly perfect, cannot find any better way to prevent men from having sex with each other than having them put to death and threatened with Hell. Couldn't he just not program homosexuality into us in the first place? There is genetic proof or at least astounding evidence that people are born gay. If you believe that the birth of a human being is a miracle and a gift created uniquely by God, then that means that God created that person to be gay and actually must have planned on them going to Hell before they were even born. That is outright unfair and stupid of a perfect God to do.

Also, on your question of how the truth about the nature of God can be discovered: I think it is quite logically sound to suggest that the only way to discover the nature of God is to look within his word. Christians often ignore or write off the important parts of his Scripture concerning the nature of God as simply "flawed" or "changed over time" because the true nature of their God is not loving and that is difficult for them to accept.

[Uniquemind]

I am agnostic. I think the hardcore atheist Richard Dawkins worshipers no nothing of real philosophic and religious truth. However, I do not accept the Christian Bible simply because of its incredibility over time, its seemingly harsh and unfair God, its secretive principles which also lead to unfairness, and its determination that faith is the only real truth. Faith is one way of truth; however, when that faith makes no sense, it is likely that I will disbelieve in it.

There are some faiths which do make sense. One of these is paganism(particularly atheist paganism as mentioned above). It makes some real form of sense that the Christian Bible simply does not.

Also, on that last comment that the world is dominated by Satan: God must have created Satan. So, there's that. Basically, God created Satan because he wanted evil to be in the world. It was part of his "big plan" that Christians love to praise. I'll also add that rape, incest, and the condemnation to hellfire of any slightly sinful or skeptical person is also part of his "big plan." I simply don't see how these things are "false interpretations" as you say they are. They are core aspects of Christianity and even parts of Islam.

God created Lucifer. Lucifer and Satan are not one in the same.

There is a degree of separation which needs acknowledgement.

The problem I have with naturalistic religions is that it is rooted in the material world which we know is all about atoms, subatomic particles, and impermanence.


Christianity and other faith based religions go beyond that.

[Microcosm]

God created Lucifer. Lucifer and Satan are not one in the same.

There is a degree of separation which needs acknowledgement.

The problem I have with naturalistic religions is that it is rooted in the material world which we know is all about atoms, subatomic particles, and impermanence.


Christianity and other faith based religions go beyond that.

They are not only about the material world as you say. They are about some degree of spiritual truth. Of course, paganism is very general and broad in its ideas. There is no one set of ideas that must be followed by any of the Wiccans and most pagan religions based on magick I believe. We don't "know" that the material world is nothing more than just impermanence and a random mixture of atoms. Religion challenges that as does paganism which is religion. Faith-based religions go beyond that based on mere subjective ideas that hold no real weight and are unfalsifiable. That isn't to say that they aren't true, but rather they should be argued for or against by their own doctrine. In the case of Christianity, this doctrine is present in the form of the Bible. Judging by the Bible, Christianity does not seem very credible. In fact, Islam is actually more credible if you know about the Qur'an. It is a more practical Holy Book with much less contradictions and it is always read and recited in its original language, which greatly reduces the chance of the text being changed over time.

If you believe in the line of logic which "proves" Christianity to you, then it should follow that you should have faith in Islam. After all, they are both the same God. They are both the Abrahamic God.

[Uniquemind]

Also for the record

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her.


Is describing an instance of consensual pre-marital sex, not a rape.

There is another passage in the bible that describes a woman's non-consent via the verbiage of "cry out", and that is both in a sense of crying out for help with the mouth, but also crying out in their heart and in their mind if they are paralyzed with fear.


OT has other verses describing God view rape equal to murder, because it kills the soul.

Certainly modern psychology proves this, with rape changing people forever. Their former self cannot exist and has philosophically died, and as a survivor they are reborn but changed.

It also says women in this situation have no right to be ashamed or shamed.

[Uniquemind]

They are not only about the material world as you say. They are about some degree of spiritual truth. Of course, paganism is very general and broad in its ideas. There is no one set of ideas that must be followed by any of the Wiccans and most pagan religions based on magick I believe. We don't "know" that the material world is nothing more than just impermanence and a random mixture of atoms. Religion challenges that as does paganism which is religion. Faith-based religions go beyond that based on mere subjective ideas that hold no real weight and are unfalsifiable. That isn't to say that they aren't true, but rather they should be argued for or against by their own doctrine. In the case of Christianity, this doctrine is present in the form of the Bible. Judging by the Bible, Christianity does not seem very credible. In fact, Islam is actually more credible if you know about the Qur'an. It is a more practical Holy Book with much less contradictions and it is always read and recited in its original language, which greatly reduces the chance of the text being changed over time.

If you believe in the line of logic which "proves" Christianity to you, then it should follow that you should have faith in Islam. After all, they are both the same God. They are both the Abrahamic God.

They are but in this debate I will not say which of the 3 Abrahamic faiths I belief.


But Christianity is the only faith which says that "by faith alone" are people saved. The other ones involve some sort of scaling system regarding good works vs bad.

This is my subjective opinion, but it's precisely because the religion is faith based that appeals to me. Other religions attempt to base a lot of their merit on natural phenomena and spirituality, and thus magic.

Christianity doesn't argue that their is indeed a strong link between the spiritual and natural physical world within scientific reasoning, it just argues paganism and other faiths derive their core energy from a sentient force who was created originally by the Abrahamic God, who is now an adversary of mankind and God.

The energy the universe and all creation is made up of now, did come from God, and is maintained by God, but within that is a dark force that manipulates and perverts the initial intention and investment God was trying to create. Magic is one of those forces and the concept of being saved is kind of literal, before the universe collapses and something else is created by new rules by which mankind can be a part of with God.

^christianity in a nutshell.

[Microcosm]

They are but in this debate I will not say which of the 3 Abrahamic faiths I belief.
Belief does not matter. Truth is what matters. Truth has the power to justify belief.

But Christianity is the only faith which says that "by faith alone" are people saved. The other ones involve some sort of scaling system regarding good works vs bad.

Not true. The NT says that homosexuals will not go to heaven. It specifies it. The verse in which it says that has been mentioned in one of the above posts of mine. It also says that we are not only saved by faith, but by works as well. Read the book of James. Jesus himself said that only those who keep the commandments will be saved. So you are not saved by only faith as you say.

This is my subjective opinion, but it's precisely because the religion is faith based that appeals to me. Other religions attempt to base a lot of their merit on natural phenomena and spirituality, and thus magic.

Christianity promotes the existence of magic as well. I believe it is in the book of exodus in which pagan Egyptians turn an entire river of water into blood. They did not call upon God to do that. So, by the bible's standards, we should be able to perform magic even if we do not believe, which we obviously can't.

Christianity doesn't argue that their is indeed a strong link between the spiritual and natural physical world within scientific reasoning, it just argues paganism and other faiths derive their core energy from a sentient force who was created originally by the Abrahamic God, who is now an adversary of mankind and God.

If he was an adversary of mankind, then he wouldn't send 90% of the world to Hell. 75% of the world are people of other religions than Christianity, and I take another fifteen percent because most of them don't perform the works necessary to enter heaven, I'd say. I mainly pulled that number from nowhere, but God sends at least 75% of the world to Hell.

The energy the universe and all creation is made up of now, did come from God, and is maintained by God, but within that is a dark force that manipulates and perverts the initial intention and investment God was trying to create. Magic is one of those forces and the concept of being saved is kind of literal, before the universe collapses and something else is created by new rules by which mankind can be a part of with God.

Yet, God created everything. Basically, you're saying he created the thing that would destroy the world and made no attempt to stop it even when he is powerful enough to do so.

[Uniquemind]

Belief does not matter. Truth is what matters. Truth has the power to justify belief.



Not true. The NT says that homosexuals will not go to heaven. It specifies it. The verse in which it says that has been mentioned in one of the above posts of mine. It also says that we are not only saved by faith, but by works as well. Read the book of James. Jesus himself said that only those who keep the commandments will be saved. So you are not saved by only faith as you say.



Christianity promotes the existence of magic as well. I believe it is in the book of exodus in which pagan Egyptians turn an entire river of water into blood. They did not call upon God to do that. So, by the bible's standards, we should be able to perform magic even if we do not believe, which we obviously can't.



If he was an adversary of mankind, then he wouldn't send 90% of the world to Hell. 75% of the world are people of other religions than Christianity, and I take another fifteen percent because most of them don't perform the works necessary to enter heaven, I'd say. I mainly pulled that number from nowhere, but God sends at least 75% of the world to Hell.



Yet, God created everything. Basically, you're saying he created the thing that would destroy the world and made no attempt to stop it even when he is powerful enough to do so.


He made an attempt and for himself did stop the threat. He created an OPTION for mankind to protect themselves from Satan and the rebelling ones, but it's an opt-in system that requires faith.

Good works will follow, if one has faith and understands the faith, but the burden will be light.


Homosexuals will not end up in the kingdom of heaven, neither will adulterers, extortioners, liars etc.


The overall message is that everyone screws up in some way.

It is mankind puritanical societies that seem to emphasize shame or sin on homosexual sins rather than equal emphasis across the board regarding all the sins that break the commandments.

Like I said God expects us to chase perfection KNOWING we will fail that benchmark and keep going. That's the mindset of the faith which I think rings admirably.


Belief is a type of will. That's why I think it works.

But here's the thing about truth.

In the context of religion, whether Christianity or not, a lot of these faiths have a type of belief or prayer into a concept of some kind of force as if it sentient.

That's belief.

Science says that the natural forces are not sentient.

But in Wicca, they pray and believe in the Goddess.

---

Anyway here's a copy paste from a website that explains the apparent contradiction between James and Paul better than I.


What Kind of Faith?

In different contexts, the words belief or faith can mean a number of various things.

Someone may say, "I believe we will have rain tomorrow." This kind of belief is simply expressing an opinion or fact.

This type of belief, even when applied to religious truths, is not the kind of faith that saves. The devilsbelieve that there is one God (a true Biblical fact) but this is not saving faith (James 2:19).

It is only agreeing with a fact such as someone who believes two plus two equals four.

As James Adamson points out the word faith (pisteuo) "...is used sometimes to mean mere intellectual belief in God's existence, a faith which even the devils share. (The Epistle of James, The New International Commentary on the New Testament p. 125.

It is this type of faith that James is attacking.

He rightly points out that one can distinguish between this type of "dead" faith and saving faith.

Saving faith will produce a changed life. A person who is saved is trusting Christ alone for their salvation, not their works (ie Romans).

However, once saved by grace alone, a true Christian will want to practice good works such as feeding the poor (ie James). Not to earn salvation -- which they already have -- but because they are saved. (see Ephesians 2:8-10).

John Calvin reduce this principle to a sentence: "Faith alone justifies, but the faith which justifies is not alone" (The Principles of Theology, p. 61).

James is warning of a belief in facts -- a type of faith that never results in a changed life.

Saving faith comes when someone stops trusting their own goodness or work (Phil. 2:8) and puts all their trust in Christ for salvation. And this type of faith will naturally exhibit good works.



Source: http://www.watchman.org/articles/other-religious-topics/james-vs-paul-salvation-by-grace-or-works/


---

No we can perform magic today, but you don't see it because it's like a dead language.

It also goes by different names now as it's practice had branched out in different marketed terminology. (Yoga, Tantric sex, etc.)

But regardless anything that uses will that manipulates energy in a way science cannot quantify is a type of magic.


But there are fake practitioners of all these practices as well who are more monetary cults than true practitioners who know what they're doing to the farthest mankind has explored such concepts.


Regardless you need to believe in something to tap into such things. But in a Christian context, the fault in doing so comes from tapping into energy and manipulating it according to your will VS the will of God, when you weren't responsible for creating creation in the first place.

Magic, comes from the rebelling angels who understand the esoteric but are at war with God.

One has power, what one does not have is the authority to use it willy nilly.

[Lovelife090994]

This thread has WAY too many Christian brainwashed cronies to get anywhere by debating.

[Microcosm]

One has power, what one does not have is the authority to use it willy nilly.

You pretty much just avoided all of the points I made. That being said, I've made my points and you have so much faith that you are willing to simply write off any logical contradiction that I show you, so this pointless. We're not going to convince each other and it's kind of getting off topic of the thread. So, I'll just stop now.

[Uniquemind]

You pretty much just avoided all of the points I made. That being said, I've made my points and you have so much faith that you are willing to simply write off any logical contradiction that I show you, so this pointless. We're not going to convince each other and it's kind of getting off topic of the thread. So, I'll just stop now.

No offense I didn't avoid points.

But I'm not exactly trying to convince you to believe either.

Rather from your posts I noticed scapegoat understand or stereotypical understandings of misquotes of scripture without fair citation of context in an attempt to characterize God.

A lot of your points are fair, he's a strict entity but as equally harsh with his wrath he can be equally forgiving unless you don't believe in him. That is a hard concept to get because it seems like a paradox.

---

My only aim was to explain the Abrahamic position about WHY Wicca and magic in any of it's forms clashes with the Abrahamic faiths and specifically Catholic/Christian faith.

I have found that lots of Christian households do not raise their children in the faith in a fair representation of why they take positions on issues in the way they do.

They rely on shame and obedience, and avoidance of hard discussions of the less than Rosey discussion topics that the bible can bring up. In addition many Christian families have been anti-education (because they believe in the concept of gaining some knowledge as enabling certain sins i.e. Sexual education) and just promotes the stereotype that if you are religious you are dumb in regards to science and not a critical thinker.

All of those claims have been levied or strongly implied within the thread.

So I have every right to be respectfully defensive of mischaracterizations or misunderstandings about the faith.

And point out that forces of nature result in tragedy every year yet outrage isn't nearly expressed in the same way against the characterization of the Abrahamic God.

For some reason because the stories of those 3 faiths characterize him as if he were a sentient person he gets blamed or thought of as if he was a person or superhero that failed. It is made clear God is a sentient spirit (Holy Spirit), that resided in a man (Jesus), and that part of him always resided in the Kingdom of Heaven and never incarnated as a man (The Father).




My argument is you cannot use your paradigm of "perfect" and then use it as a rating scale for the ethos, logos, or pathos of God. He's both a concept of all that IS and simultaneously WAS, and exists where from our point of view paradoxes, make sense on whatever plane of existence is of a higher order. (String theory and quantum theory?)

---

If you've ever encountered occult forces: ghost, aliens, and psycho/telekinesis, it will shake up a logical scientific mind and force you to believe in things not provable.



If paganism and magic can be proved scientifically, which has already been established that it is distinct from the scientific method, then I will rest my case.



So far it seems the ethos of any religion is at a standstill, and that the logos of any faith is largely faith based because of untestable criteria in a scientific setting.


I fail to understand why anybody is upset or frustrated in this thread.

It's that kind of a topic and nobody is directly attacking each other or forcing anybody to convert.