[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]...[/QUOTE]
I wasn't debating then is the difference.

Yes, I did mix up. The point is still the same. All religions are a mix of other religions for the most part.

I feel strangely...pulled...to this thread.

Judaism started a long time ago. First came Abraham, the first Hebrew. Then Jacob wrestled God, and became Israel. His children became the first Israelites. When the nation of Judeah was formed, the first Jews were made.

Then Jesus declared himself the son of God, and, boom, Christianity is born.

Come around the late 500's CE, Gabriel comes down and says to Muhammed, "Whoa. Jews and Christians got it wrong. Here's how it really breaks down. Don't translate this into anything, because these are God's literal words, and, if you translate them, you'll be passing them through the filters of man - perfection through imperfection."

There's your crash-course in major Semitic world religions.

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]Yes, I did mix up. The point is still the same. All religions are a mix of other religions for the most part.[/QUOTE]

Nyet. Hinduism was introduced by Indo-Europeans, called Aryans, who invaded and conquered what is now India. They brought their caste system with them. This caste system does not make any appearance in either of three aforementioned Semitic religions, nor is it found in any of the Greek religion (which came from Indo-Europeans from the same area as the Aryans). Taoism and Confucianism, which developed separate from the three semitic religions, follow completely different philosophies.

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]Yes, I did mix up. The point is still the same. All religions are a mix of other religions for the most part.[/QUOTE]
No, they're not. Christianity is based off of Judaism, yes, but that's not the same as a "mix up" of religion. Islam is the same deal. Buddhism is a comPLETELY original take on religion. They may have ideals in common, but they're not "mix ups" of religion. Your point fails.

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]Now with just a BIT of editing!
Wow, amazing. Haplash alert! The wiccan religion also stems from various religions, but it contains it's own rituals and beliefs as well.[/QUOTE]

That statement is incorrect, as it, instead, considered different religious INTERPRETATIONS. This is apparent if you study ANY hebrew AT ALL. The several different pagan religions? These were also interpretations of nature and some texts. Wicca? Just picks and choses ideals from different paganist religions, are never consistant, and aren't based on ANY texts or ANY concrete ORIGINAL interpretations of anything.

As the website even states, it's ECLECTIC. This is stupid. You still haven't subsided on the fact that I knew what I was talking about, and that we simply disagreed on the validity of such a religion. Furthermore, you're the one calling ME immoral and ignorant.

...

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]...[/QUOTE]
Which is why I just named the three major religions of the world and how they're not "mix ups"?

Judaism teaches following the Law of God.
Christianity teaches that you are saved through the Grace of God.
Islam teaches that you are saved through submitting to God.
Hinduism teaches that only through worship and following of a god can you get rid of all bad karma and achieve moksha.
Buddhism teaches that only through enlightenment can you break free of the wheel of rebirth (nirvana).
Taoism teaches that everything has an inner nature, and that the ultimate goal is to be in touch with one's tao.
Confucianism teaches that the highest degree of purity is to be found in adhering to proper mannerisms.

These aren't the same religions.

Aren't the last two somewhat hesitantly called religions? I'm not for sure, but I thought so. Just an off-topic question.

Jeez, lay off SAJN you hyenas.

He hasn't done anything to deserve all the crap you're giving him.

We're debating. He's the one tearing at us. Since we started debating I've been completely civil, as has Wolfy.

Kirby, however, should be punished for his crimes. I say lynch the heathen.

BURN THE WITCH!

Taoism deals with an "inner nature" and that is adherence to that nature is how one reaches the Taoist eqiuvalent of ascension.

Confucianism recognizes the Chinese concept of Tien (Heaven), and many worship Confucius as an ancestor.

Yeah, I honestly think you dug yourself a Goddamn hole, and you're not willing to agree. The funniest part was when your own claimed support for your argument, in hopes to enlighten me, looks like the same source I used when making my ORIGINAL arguments. Then you just totally used our own argument against a christian religion in hopes to deter from the fact that YOU had no ****ing clue what you were talking about.

Care to explain why (without trying to validate Wicca by making it similar to a christian religion) I am so uninformed about wicca when I said exactly what YOUR support said, and why I'm still ignorant, wrong, and being a big meany-butt-jerk-head?

Wicca is not eclectic. Eclectic is when a bunch of different things come together to make one other thing. Wicca uses some of the same things from other religions, but it has it's own unique base and it isn't a 'rip' of other religions. It just incorporates ideas from other religions. There is a difference. The site never says Wicca is eclectic, it says OTHER religions are.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]We're debating. He's the one tearing at us. Since we started debating I've been completely civil, as has Wolfy.

Kirby, however, should be punished for his crimes. I say lynch the heathen.

BURN THE WITCH![/QUOTE]

Surely you kid. From my POV it's like watching a gang of thugs beat SAJN with a baseball bat. And you're not off the hook, either. You said some pretty mean things, for example, that SAJN is stupid.

Neo-Paganism, BY DESIGN, cannot be original. Just like a brand new religion could not be about Jesus, as there are NO living whitnesses of Jesus. You MUST use ideas from a former book or text. When you start taking several translations of a religious book and then make that into a religion, you're kidding. That's been my argument from the damn beginning.

The site says that there are MORE eclectic neo-paganism religions out there. That implies that Wicca is somewhat eclectic.

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]Wicca is not eclectic. Eclectic is when a bunch of different things come together to make one other thing. Wicca uses some of the same things from other religions, but it has it's own unique base and it isn't a 'rip' of other religions. It just incorporates ideas from other religions. There is a difference. The site never says Wicca is eclectic, it says OTHER religions are.[/QUOTE]
It says that "pieces of Wicca date back to pre-Christian times" and mentions paganistic religions...which means it's made up of said religions. Meaning it's a euphemism for an eclectic religion.


Do you really think I care what you think? We're having a debate here, and we're trying our damnedest to be civil in spite of attacks like "JESUS CHRIST YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SHUT UP ALREADY GOD YOU ****ING IDIOT." You can look at it how you want, but I'm honestly trying to keep a civil tongue while talking to this kid even though it gets harder and harder the less he wants to realize that what we've been saying is true.

don't say things like that, he might make a thread claiming victimization. Oh... wait...

If you want to dip into peoples' pasts I can drag up quite a few doozies on myself if you want. I used to be a clueless n00b, as did we all. Pointing that out is rather, well, pointless.

I was kidding. I was an idiot, too.

I like how you just tried to twist the words on that website around to make them fit your agenda. The site said 'Others are highly eclectic and modern in their focus' meaning Wiccan is NOT eclectic like the OTHER religions.

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]I like how you just tried to twist the words on that website around to make them fit your agenda. The site said 'Others are highly eclectic and modern in their focus' meaning Wiccan is NOT eclectic like the OTHER religions.[/QUOTE]
So not gonna post on my bringing up of the euphemism eh? It's okay, I've had the old "don't reply to posts that prove you wrong" pulled on me before.

Yeah, you're right. I knew I had a stronger argument, but I couldn't find it. Then Yoshi said what I had noticed before:

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]It says that "pieces of Wicca date back to pre-Christian times" and mentions paganistic religions...which means it's made up of said religions. Meaning it's a euphemism for an eclectic religion.[/QUOTE]

So yeah, I sort of twisted the words, Yoshi makes more sense than me. By design, being Neo-Paganism means it's made up of older religions. Eclectic.

I see yoshi noticed exactly what I did. In case you try to ignore it [funny, you called ME ignorant.] I'll quote him:

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]So not gonna post on my bringing up of the euphemism eh? It's okay, I've had the old "don't reply to posts that prove you wrong" pulled on me before.[/QUOTE]

PS, SAJN, and I say this in complete sincerity--right now, if you're doubting yourself, just admint (or admit, depending on how fresh you feel) you're wrong. Trust me, everyone present would actually gain a lot of respect, and you yourself would at least be more solidly seated in your beliefs.

This is fairly obvious, but just because a philosophy is eclectic does not mean it is any less valid.

You guys are going on as if proving that Wicca is eclectic means that it is somehow less valid for it.

Neo-Pagan simply means that parts of a religion are based on the same lines as some pagan religions were. It means that neo-pagan religions could have modern interpretations of pagan traditions, and not necessarily a direct continuation thereof.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]PS, SAJN, and I say this in complete sincerity--right now, if you're doubting yourself, just admint (or admit, depending on how fresh you feel) you're wrong. Trust me, everyone present would actually gain a lot of respect, and you yourself would at least be more solidly seated in your beliefs.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Even if you said "OK, maybe it's a relatively new religion without the same sort of basis as older religions, but I still think that it's a valid religion." I'd be able to at least agree to disagree. But you're trying to say that Wicca is to Paganism as Judism [I don't remember exactly which one you said, but yeah] is to Christianity. That's simply an outright lie.



I love how all of the posts above me make mine look outdated. Yes, I do think that being eclectic is an invalid form of religion. It is the purest form of ignorance available. One can define their own belief structure, but to draw several beliefs from multiple sources [Not morals, but beliefs and enterpretations of concurrent events] is to make a perfect happy world for yourself.

I love it when we get a religious thread and someone makes some gigantic sweeping idea and then justifies it with "It's my opinion, I don't know, just makes sense to me..." and I want to kick them in the teeth. This isn't scientific AT ALL. It is laughable, and rather fairy-tail-esque. Maybe christianity and the original paganisms weren't all that "scientific" they aren't select interpretations of a text. They're just translations of firsthand [or what we have to assume are first hand, as they're concurrent across impossibly integrated religions] encounters.

It wouldn't be if those that practiced it recognized said religions. Instead they just refer to the religions as "Paganistic"--which is everything except Judaic-based religions (Islam and Christianity mostly). It's just putting a new face on a lot of older, rather silly religions that got phased out because of the overtaking of logic slowly throughout the world. I mean...worshipping a mountain where gods reside? Honestly :p

You stumble upon a debate you know nothing about, and you post just to start a fight, then you have the gonads to tell me that I am wrong? On top of that if I admit that I am wrong then I will gain more respect...From who? You? I don't want your respect. If I get respect it's going to be from standing up for what I know is right and not saying I am wrong just because some punk wants me to look stupid.

So your whole beef with Wicca is that they don't specify the religions they got their beliefs from, instead lumping them all into Paganism?

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]You stumble upon a debate you know nothing about, and you post just to start a fight, then you have the gonads to tell me that I am wrong? On top of that if I admit that I am wrong then I will gain more respect...From who? You? I don't want your respect. If I get respect it's going to be from standing up for what I know is right and not saying I am wrong just because some punk wants me to look stupid.[/QUOTE]
Jesus christ, I try to say something civil and nice and you try and attack me for it? I'm not trying to make you look stupid. I'm trying to show you that you're wrong. There's a big difference--you learn more from being wrong than you do from being right. Trust me, I learned that at massassi--I've been wrong in debates before and learned a lot about the subject at hand because of it.

PS--if I know nothing about the religion why is it you STILL haven't answered why it mentions multiple gods and goddesses in the text you showed us, but you only provided the name for one god/goddess. Also, the only example of a tradition you showed us was pulled straight from the text--quoted. It makes me think you were either making this argument for the sake of arguing, or didn't know anything about it but wanted to defend it for god knows what reason.

And the fact that Wicca is "highly customizable to your lifestyle" as said in the article, meaning that you can pick and choose what ceremonies you want to partake in, what parts of it you want to believe, etc.

Wicca actually has THREE major denominations.

Ones with actual books, written to describe them. All of which still allow for the same eclectic do whatever you want belief system.

Gardenarian and Alexandrian(I think) are the ones I can remember.

The main difference being in Gardenarian Wicca you have to be allowed to join the religion by a local sponsered Coven. Where as in the other two, you pretty much don't and can make up whatever you want. None of these go into any depth about what the ceremony is like, or what you're supposed to do or say.

Ask someone which denomination they follow. Bet they don't know. Or they'll say "Color here" Wicca, or "Faerie Wicca." Faerie Wicca just being the title of a book. And any color variant of Wicca being totally made up.

What bothers me SO DAMN MUCH, is this eclectic bull****. That allows any stupid person to make up whatever they want, and call it a religion. When in reality, its just like Kirbs said, a box with whatever happy they've felt like putting in it.

Also, that it claims to be OLDER than Christianity, when it clearly isn't. Even the paganistic beliefs and elements they borrow from come from a time AFTER, WAY AFTER Christianity, and even Judaism.

Its a total crock.

Plus Rob and I look like we quoted YOUR source when we originally spoke, and you SILL claim we know nothing about Wicca. You're STILL arguing that? I'm done being civil with you. Grow up and learn that because someone disagrees with you, that doesn't make them "ignorant" and "uninformed."

"If anyone really knew what I knew, they'd think Wicca was a valid religion and they wouldn't bash it at all, as it's just as realistic as the religions that are more popular!"

Seriously, stop pretending you're some all knowing scholar of wicca, and realize that you just define validity of a religion differently than we do.

Oh, I understand now. You are just trying to convince me how wrong I really am. Thanks. Unfortunatley, I'm not wrong.



God AND Goddess = Multiple gods. I don't really get what your asking me. If you could quote the text maybe I could answer you a bit more than that.



The quoted tradition is the same stuff you'll find in any book. The wiccans I know even celebrate these holidays and traditions. (I once even saw Beltane and Yule on a calender >.<)

I find using the Wicca Wikipedia article (lol funny) to be helpful in establishing a fair view of the religion

The main problem I see with Wicca is that in order for it to have any validity, one must believe the claims of some random guy (albeit an exceptionally creepy looking one) that the religion has its roots in antiquity. Otherwise it's just the work of a bored, part time occultist.

Some of the stuff I quoted is directly from that. The only problem is Wikipedia sites aren't always reliable, because anyone can edit the posts. You kind of have to fish around for fact/fiction in there.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]And the fact that Wicca is "highly customizable to your lifestyle" as said in the article, meaning that you can pick and choose what ceremonies you want to partake in, what parts of it you want to believe, etc.[/QUOTE]

I don't know a lot about Wicca, so I'm talking about philosophy/religion in general when I say this:

I don't believe it is necessary for a religion to have a moral code. Hear me out, here. Isn't it possible for a religion to detail a loose set of beliefs about things that don't have any implications on your morality? For example, suppose a religion teaches that god is a three-headed gila monster and other similar theologies, but left your morality to your own discretion. I have no qualms with calling such a religion a religion. But that's me.

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]Some of the stuff I quoted is directly from that. The only problem is Wikipedia sites aren't always reliable, because anyone can edit the posts. You kind of have to fish around for fact/fiction in there.[/QUOTE]Not really. Check out the Dicussion page. Articles as controversial as that (i.e., any religion article) are always under scrutiny.

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]Oh, I understand now. You are just trying to convince me how wrong I really am. Thanks. Unfortunatley, I'm not wrong.[/quote]
Actually, that's really the REASON for debating. But the point of that post was to give you an avenue in case you felt trapped because you'd think we would call you stupid for backing down.


[Quote=Victor Van Dort]God AND Goddess = Multiple gods. I don't really get what your asking me. If you could quote the text maybe I could answer you a bit more than that.[/quote]
Seems I misinterpreted an entry where they were talking about the "gods and goddesses of all the religions of the world."


[quote=Victor Van Dort]The quoted tradition is the same stuff you'll find in any book. The wiccans I know even celebrate these holidays and traditions. (I once even saw Beltane and Yule on a calender >.<)[/QUOTE]
Both of which come from "paganistic" religions. Druidism, mainly, iirc. I know Beltane is what May Day was spawned from, made by the Celts, and Yule is widely known to be a paganistic celebration--once again Druidism I think.