"As it harm none, do what you will"

[HarryKeogh]

How did this comparison to Catholicism and Wicca even get started? One is an organized religion with an elected leader who makes formal decrees and judgements and the other is an unorganized religion with no central leader.

seems like a sidestep to me.

 

[TragicMonkey]

But no names.



But no names.



But no names.



But no names.

You don't have any names, do you? Why do you think you have a case, then?

As I've already explained, I'm not going to get people in trouble to satisfy you, Claus.

As for my "case", I leave it up to people to decide whether they agree with me or not. I don't go into a tizzy when I don't "win" by bullying people into agreeing with me. It's not an ego thing. You seem to think this is debate in the sense of debate class in high school, where there are points accumulated and winners and trophies. It's not. Relax, Claus. It's okay if people disagree with you.

 

[Z]

No, and I'm a bit disappointed, that this master of Evidence, turns out to be nothing of the sort.

For that matter, Claus, which Pope? Which Catholic church is the right one? The one that accepted Vatican II (thanks), or the one that rejected Vatican II? And what does either church have to do with the other 30-some-odd-thousand versions of Christian dogma? Nothing.

The Ten Commandments aren't even the core of religion for Christian belief - yes, for some, but no, for others. Jesus said that his coming dissolved all previous covenants; his rules were to replace the 10 commandments. And, yes, you DO see churches that believe this.

You also see numerous Christians of every sect claiming that the Catholic church is not even Christian, but Pagan.

The final point is, there is no church, religion, or creed that is 100% set in stone, letter of the law perfect. Nature of the beast.

Now, back to the O.P. (since you have decided to switch to Catholic-bashing instead):

You ought to learn the origins of the Rede, and of the term 'rede', Claus. Mr. Evidence.

http://www.wiccanrede.dreamhost.com/definition.html

Before you start, I know it's a biased source. But the etymology is correct: a rede is a kind of advice, NOT A LAW.

So pull your panties out of the bunch they're in, and instead of listening to anecdotal stories from whatever Wiccans you know, actually research what the Rede is really about for yourself.

And to think that I actually had respect for you?

Oh, and to answer an earlier question: Father Jack Thomas, of the South Florida Diocese in 1983, received an official Papal misal excusing him from the requirement of remaining unmarried as a priest. Therefore, with Papal approval, the priest was allowed to interpret a Papal decree against the Pope's own interpretation.

Unfortunately, all I can provide for 'evidence' for this is hearsay as well, but you didn't ask for evidence at the time. You asked someone to name one Priest who fit your conditions. And now I did.

As far as 'meaning nothing', I think a rule that each person can apply in different ways is far more valuable than a rule set in stone that a person must either adhere to rigidly, or risk social or religious repercussions.

Claus is about two posts away from being added to the moron pool with Riddick and Hammegk. Really, Larsen - get a life.

 

[dann]

It is completely irrelevant how old it is. Today, it is a basic tenet of the Catholic Church. And it is not open to argument among Catholics.

You have admitted this, since you were unable to name just one Catholic priest or cardinal who - with the approval of the Pope - says "Oh, well, the Pope doesn't really mean that bit about homosexuals...." So, it's a mute point.

It is also irrelevant how often the Pope claims infallibility. The point is that he does. Again, a mute point.

Claus, don't start competing with the pope!
The discussion is absurd: I cannot name a single person on this board who - with your approval!!! - says, "Oh, well, Claus is just an idiot!" This, however, doesn't mean that there isn't anybody here who thinks that you are one!
I think that all of TragicMonkey's points make sense! And you yourself cannot doubt that virtually all homosexual Catholic priests or cardinals (or any kind of Catholic) have to come up with some kind of justification or rationalization when they are confronted with the official attitude of the church to their sexuality. One of the easiest ones would be to say, "Oh, well, the pope doesn't really ..."
Religious laws are not laws of nature. This means that they, almost per definition, disagree with reality. The pope may want to think otherwise, but I don't really think that he does. These guys have always been willing to bless soldiers and seek very pragmatic solutions to, for instance, the problem with child molesting priests.

 

[pgwenthold]

Clearly, Claus, we must agree to disagree. My point is that the Catholic religion is more than just the Church. You feel differently. Fine. I guess I've just known more "cafeteria Catholics" than the other kind.

Growing up catholic, we tended to view those who felt a need to take a hard line papal-like stance on every issue to be out of touch with reality, and pretty much idiotic jerks.

I've also noticed how non-Catholics can't comprehend it at all. I remember in my Religions of the World class in college, one of the group discussions was, "Is Catholicism going to die out?" There were all these stats about how many catholics didn't follow papal teachings in all these different aspects, and the non-catholics were all, oh, catholicism will be dead in twenty years. See? No one follows its teachings.

As one of few catholics actually there, I just laughed. Why should agreement with the pope matter about anything? I never knew any sane catholics who did that in the first place.

It's hard to explain, but one thing that might help is to turn a comparison on its head. Folks like Lutherans or Episcopalians like to talk about being "Catholic-Lite." Basically, Catholics without all the strings attached. I like to think of catholics as Lutherans who have to go to church every Sunday. Kind of a "Strong Lutheran."

In fact, you see very little difference between catholics and those Lutherans who go to church regularly. You think a little thing like what the Pope thinks is going to get in the way of a Lutheran? Just as Lutherans use their heads to determine right and wrong, so do most catholics.

 

[LW]

I don't mind being wrong on other subjects. I would, however, appreciate not just links, but also evidence that I am wrong in this case.

Let me put it this way. Do you know ANY Wiccan who actually believes that the "none" in the rede refers to all living beings?

It's their religion, they get to define its teachings and the interpretations of the teachings. Not you.

So, do you have any evidence that any Wiccan interprets the rede in the same way as you do?

[Edited to add: In my highly egoistical opinion your present argument is exactly as valid as the creationist claims that evolution demands that a cat would give a birth to a dog -- it is a misrepresentation of their beliefs like the creationists misrepresent the predictions of the theory of evolution.]

 

[Beleth]

Claus -

You might want to read the following two Wikipedia pages:

Wiccan Morality

Wiccan Rede

And just to clarify two things that look like they have been misinterpreted along the way:

- "An", as used in the Wiccan Rede, is an Old English word meaning "if", not "as".

- "Rede" means "saying" or "advice", not "law".

 

[crimresearch]

By George, I think LW's got it.

 

[CFLarsen]

How did this comparison to Catholicism and Wicca even get started? One is an organized religion with an elected leader who makes formal decrees and judgements and the other is an unorganized religion with no central leader.

seems like a sidestep to me.

That’s my whole point: That Wicca is not a religion at all, but a hodge-podge of superstitious beliefs, claimed to be a religion.

 

[CFLarsen]

As I've already explained, I'm not going to get people in trouble to satisfy you, Claus.

But no names.

As for my "case", I leave it up to people to decide whether they agree with me or not. I don't go into a tizzy when I don't "win" by bullying people into agreeing with me. It's not an ego thing. You seem to think this is debate in the sense of debate class in high school, where there are points accumulated and winners and trophies. It's not. Relax, Claus. It's okay if people disagree with you.

It all comes down to evidence of one’s claims. Of that, you have none.

Hand-waving, sure. But no evidence.

 

[TragicMonkey]

That’s my whole point: That Wicca is not a religion at all, but a hodge-podge of superstitious beliefs, claimed to be a religion.

What's your definition of religion, then?

Mine is, "a hodge-podge of superstitious beliefs".

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Claus -

You might want to read the following two Wikipedia pages:

Wiccan Morality

Wiccan Rede

And just to clarify two things that look like they have been misinterpreted along the way:

- "An", as used in the Wiccan Rede, is an Old English word meaning "if", not "as".

- "Rede" means "saying" or "advice", not "law".

Claus posted without researching his topic?




Who wants a piece of the action that says we are going to see some semantic tap dancing?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, and I'm a bit disappointed, that this master of Evidence, turns out to be nothing of the sort.

For that matter, Claus, which Pope? Which Catholic church is the right one? The one that accepted Vatican II (thanks), or the one that rejected Vatican II? And what does either church have to do with the other 30-some-odd-thousand versions of Christian dogma? Nothing.

For the Catholic Church, the present Pope. Always. That’s the whole idea.

The Ten Commandments aren't even the core of religion for Christian belief - yes, for some, but no, for others. Jesus said that his coming dissolved all previous covenants; his rules were to replace the 10 commandments. And, yes, you DO see churches that believe this.

Wrong. Jesus was there to complement the Old Testament. The OT is not invalidated by the appearance of Jesus.

You are equating a centralized belief with personal opinion. That’s where you go wrong.

You also see numerous Christians of every sect claiming that the Catholic church is not even Christian, but Pagan.

The final point is, there is no church, religion, or creed that is 100% set in stone, letter of the law perfect. Nature of the beast.

You are completely missing the point of religion. I’m not one bit surprised, because it is very much in your interest – being a Wiccan – to sow doubt about religions.

If you choose to view religions like Catholicism as whatever Catholics think it is, then you have completely misunderstood what Catholicism is. I have a strong feeling that it is not an accident.

Now, back to the O.P. (since you have decided to switch to Catholic-bashing instead):

I have done the exact opposite. You would know that, if you had made the effort of reading my posts.

You ought to learn the origins of the Rede, and of the term 'rede', Claus. Mr. Evidence.

http://www.wiccanrede.dreamhost.com/definition.html

Before you start, I know it's a biased source. But the etymology is correct: a rede is a kind of advice, NOT A LAW.

So pull your panties out of the bunch they're in, and instead of listening to anecdotal stories from whatever Wiccans you know, actually research what the Rede is really about for yourself.

I really think you don’t see the hole you just buried yourself in. By pointing to an official “rede” – call it what you like – you are also accepting it as a law.

And to think that I actually had respect for you?

I didn’t think for a moment that you would have any respect for someone who would question your beliefs. Thereby invalidating your own credo, but…hey…

Oh, and to answer an earlier question: Father Jack Thomas, of the South Florida Diocese in 1983, received an official Papal misal excusing him from the requirement of remaining unmarried as a priest. Therefore, with Papal approval, the priest was allowed to interpret a Papal decree against the Pope's own interpretation.

Unfortunately, all I can provide for 'evidence' for this is hearsay as well, but you didn't ask for evidence at the time. You asked someone to name one Priest who fit your conditions. And now I did.

No evidence, then.

As far as 'meaning nothing', I think a rule that each person can apply in different ways is far more valuable than a rule set in stone that a person must either adhere to rigidly, or risk social or religious repercussions.

Claus is about two posts away from being added to the moron pool with Riddick and Hammegk. Really, Larsen - get a life.

I did not expect you to take it lightly, when someone – anyone – would question your beliefs. It only underlines the hypocrisy of your credo.

It is your privilege to put me on ignore. It is my privilege to keep questioning your beliefs. It emphasizes who is the more open-minded here.

 

[TragicMonkey]

But no names.

Is there anybody else who thinks it would be reasonable for me to not only risk destroying a man's career, but also giving out information that could identify me, in order to satisfy Claus's desperate desire to attempt to score cheap points in an online discussion?

Get over yourself, Claus. Sure, I could be lying. Why would I? I could easily make up a name, too.

Fact is, nobody wants to play your little game of accumulating enough points to be named master skeptic.

It all comes down to evidence of one’s claims. Of that, you have none.

Hand-waving, sure. But no evidence.

Handcuff Boy, you are the last person to be demanding evidence of anything from anyone.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, don't start competing with the pope!
The discussion is absurd: I cannot name a single person on this board who - with your approval!!! - says, "Oh, well, Claus is just an idiot!" This, however, doesn't mean that there isn't anybody here who thinks that you are one!
I think that all of TragicMonkey's points make sense! And you yourself cannot doubt that virtually all homosexual Catholic priests or cardinals (or any kind of Catholic) have to come up with some kind of justification or rationalization when they are confronted with the official attitude of the church to their sexuality. One of the easiest ones would be to say, "Oh, well, the pope doesn't really ..."
Religious laws are not laws of nature. This means that they, almost per definition, disagree with reality. The pope may want to think otherwise, but I don't really think that he does. These guys have always been willing to bless soldiers and seek very pragmatic solutions to, for instance, the problem with child molesting priests.

But my point is that the individual opinion of priests and cardinals matters none. The Pope gets to decree what the Catholic faith is.

I am not competing with the Pope, I am not agreeing or disagreeing with him. I am merely stating what the official Catholic stance is.

We can each have our own opinion of how things should be. But that doesn’t change the fact that the Pope tells the Catholics what Catholicism is.

 

[Z]

That’s my whole point: That Wicca is not a religion at all, but a hodge-podge of superstitious beliefs, claimed to be a religion.

Clause - ALL religions are 'a hodge-podge of superstitions beliefs', claiming to be a religion.

Mythology is religion that no one believes in anymore. Religion is mythology that people do believe in.

Get a grip.

 

[CFLarsen]

What's your definition of religion, then?

Mine is, "a hodge-podge of superstitious beliefs".

Organized religion, if you like.

If you call Wicca an organized religion, I will laugh in your face. And ask for evidence, of course.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

I think LW has summed it up, and this bears repeating until we have an answer..

So, do you have any evidence that any Wiccan interprets the rede in the same way as you do?

Nothing less than names will suffice..


Claus?

 

[crimresearch]

Claus posted without researching his topic?

Hardly...1inClaus participated in this thread

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=48957

where it was clearly pointed out what the actual wording of the Wiccan rede was.

Why he chose to put up an altered version and insist that all Wiccans must follow his definition (it was also pointed out to him in the other thread how different versions of Wicca make different interpretations) is something only he can explain...although such alterations in the words of others are hardly a new tactic for him.

Who wants a piece of the action that says we are going to see some semantic tap dancing?

I wouldn't touch that bet with a 7 foot Dane...

 

[TragicMonkey]

Organized religion, if you like.

If you call Wicca an organized religion, I will laugh in your face. And ask for evidence, of course.

I don't see why "organized" religion has any inherent superiority over "unorganized" religion. Especially since "organized" religion isn't nearly as organized as it thinks it is: it's just a thin shell of tradition overlying a large chocolate body of superstition.

And things can be organized to various degrees, from an official hierarchy like the Roman Catholics to something that runs by conventions like the Southern Baptists. Is Southern Baptism not an organized religion? What about the various denominations of Protestanism that frequently break away from each other? I live in the South; it's not uncommon for a single church congregation to have a disagreement, and half the faithful leave to start up a new church. Are they an organized religion, or not? Or are they two separate organized religions then?

Maybe organization is also a relative term.