Wiccan instructuions are Defective

[Kitty Chan]

Where did I say the muslim woman was overseas? And did I say pushed? I asked who converted her.

And her family is likely to feel that she cast them aside first. Have you tried to look at things from another point of view?

.Here is what you said

Originally posted by dmarker
About the woman with the muslim husband, why did the missionaries put her in that position? Did they try to appeal to the husband and couldn't reach him so they gave a watered down version of the new testament to the wife in hopes that she would "sell" him on the benefits of Christianity? If that's what happened, this is unjust and immoral

You infered she was overseas by saying the "missionaries" put her in that position. The popular meaning of "missionaries" would be one who travels to another land.

So, why didnt you just say the christians who converted her, that would have been more plain.

I said pushed and did not use the word convert like you did, whats it matter to the whole of the conversation, nothing.

.btw As for the watered down version to the wife to get to the husband its establised that did not happen.

So, Maybe her familily (IF THEY KNEW) would feel she cast them aside by her not believing in what they want her to believe in. But shes not casting them aside merly stating her own belief but in reality its the family who will cast her aside, by not being accepting of her personal decisions.

I said this example of her in the first place, because you seem to infer that its impossible for familes to fight. They always get along.

And an interesting thing you are saying to me about this muslim woman is she must stay with islam and cannot convert to christainity because to do so would upset her family and they will feel cast aside. This is what I get from your message. . .

That families should continue to think alike to avoid division, is that it?? and anyone that converts a person away from what that persons family believes is unjust and unmoral. Am I hearing you correctly???

 

[epepke]

The "do as you may" part is an oxymoron.
Do no harm but do as you may is a nonsensical statement since doing as one may inevitably leads to causing harm. It is an incentive to pandemonium. An encouragement for certain unscrupulous nominal "wiccans" to become a law unto themselves.

Do you mean "tautology"?

Now, of course, Wicca may be quite silly, and this (snicker) rede may be broken, but it isn't as simple as that.

The concept of will in Wicca is more than what you feel like doing. It's the thing that people who wake up in the morning with a bad taste in their mouth aren't doing. I'm not a Wiccan apologist, but if, say, someone has a tremendous talent playing the piano and loves playing the piano, then playing the piano is part of that person's will. If someone does something out of frustration or desperation, then that is not part of the will.

 

[dmarker]

.Here is what you said

Originally posted by dmarker
About the woman with the muslim husband, why did the missionaries put her in that position? Did they try to appeal to the husband and couldn't reach him so they gave a watered down version of the new testament to the wife in hopes that she would "sell" him on the benefits of Christianity? If that's what happened, this is unjust and immoral

You infered she was overseas by saying the "missionaries" put her in that position. The popular meaning of "missionaries" would be one who travels to another land.

So, why didnt you just say the christians who converted her, that would have been more plain.

I said pushed and did not use the word convert like you did, whats it matter to the whole of the conversation, nothing.

.btw As for the watered down version to the wife to get to the husband its establised that did not happen.

So, Maybe her familily (IF THEY KNEW) would feel she cast them aside by her not believing in what they want her to believe in. But shes not casting them aside merly stating her own belief but in reality its the family who will cast her aside, by not being accepting of her personal decisions.

I said this example of her in the first place, because you seem to infer that its impossible for familes to fight. They always get along.

And an interesting thing you are saying to me about this muslim woman is she must stay with islam and cannot convert to christainity because to do so would upset her family and they will feel cast aside. This is what I get from your message. . .

That families should continue to think alike to avoid division, is that it?? and anyone that converts a person away from what that persons family believes is unjust and unmoral. Am I hearing you correctly???

Mormon missionaries are right here in Ohio.

How did you establish that they didn't approach the wife because the husband said no or that they just went to her first because they were pretty sure that the husband would say no.

I never said that it was impossible for families to fight. I never inferred it either. But why encourage them to fight? Don't you believe that coming to a family and deliberately dividing them is wrong? What kind of monster does that to people?

And if your husband decided to embrace paganism? How would that make you feel? Would you feel that he abandoned you because so much of you is wrapped up with being Christian? That is part of your identity, isn't it?

What I said was that the family may feel that she cast them aside first. I never said what she must do or not do. You're refusing to look at this from both perpectives. Her family is automatically bad because they might feel this way and respond by casting her out.
Don't you think that muslims have feelings? Or does her husband and her family not count because they are "unsaved"? How is the husband supposed to feel?

Families don't have to think alike. However, converting someone away knowing that they might lose their family as a result is immoral and unjust.