Wiccan instructuions are Defective

[Kitty Chan]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, and would you go so far as to say it was inherent in our genes? I wouldn't. In fact I almost brought this up myself, except I didn't think the discussion could bear it. Also, here's something concerning what you said about people being wicked at heart ...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?

17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. ~ Matthew 19:16-17

Im not sure genes in the correct word, although I understand what you mean. I have not found but one person that can claim a lack of wickedness in their life. You found a scriptural reference for it too thanks. And to be clear yes we are all wicked or jerks or however one wants to put it.

btw Sorry to jump in but I just saw another side to that discussion.

 

[Iacchus]

Well I'd confidently suggest cannabilism is wrong in any good ethical guideline. Shame the bible doesn't agree with me ...

Leviticus 26:29

Nice punishment, couldn't he have stuck to just burning them or something?

I think you may have miscontrued what it's saying here. If nothing, it suggests this is the result of being out of league with God.

Hence if God were to say, "As a result of you jumping off the edge of a cliff I will now break every bone in your body," does it really sound all that different?

 

[dmarker]

No, dear, not from apologist writings. Support the view from the scriptures themselves.

scripturally you said it first in Matthew

Heres part of a commentary by Matthew Henry which can explain another point of view from mine already stated.

From those of their own kindred. The brother shall deliver up the brother to death, v. 21. A man shall be, upon this account, at variance with his own father; nay, and those of the weaker and tenderer sex too shall become persecutors and persecuted; the persecuting daughter will be against the believing mother, where natural affection and filial duty, one would think, should prevent or soon extinguish the quarrel; and then, no marvel if the daughter-in-law be against the mother-in-law; where, too often, the coldness of love seeks occasion of contention, v. 35.

In general, a man’s foes shall be they of his own household (v. 36). They who should be his friends will be incensed against him for embracing Christianity, and especially for adhering to it when it comes to be persecuted, and will join with his persecutors against him. Note, The strongest bonds of relative love and duty have often been broken through, by an enmity against Christ and his doctrine.

Sufferings from such are more grievous; nothing cuts more than this, It was thou, a man, mine equal (Ps. 55:12, 13); and the enmity of such is commonly most implacable; a brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city, Prov. 18:19.

 

[Benguin]

I think you may have miscontrued what it's saying here. If nothing, it suggests this is the result of being out of league with God.

Wrong, it says, "Don't do as I say, this is what I'll make happen to you".

It's pretty clear if you you read it in context.

 

[dmarker]

What do you mean by serious? If you portend seriousness, and yet have nothing to back it up with, why should I care?

The words of your own bible are nothing, hey, we agree again!

 

[Kitty Chan]

dmarker

I have a idea about that parents and children thing.

Iaccus you are missing something . . .

it is being assumed that parents and children are getting along .

many dont, kids kill parents and vice versa, brothers kill sisters, even rape them. sisters send their brothers to jail, siblings sometimes never talk to one another all their life, husbands kill wives (in the news alot) On and on and on.

Maybe in the "sin" of the family Jesus will "divide"

Divide in the way perhaps the brother will see the sins of his family and decide not to participate anymore and lead a "clean" life and the family will never understand his gooddy goody attitude.

You gave the scriptural reference in Matthew earlier

Then I wrote whats above here

Then for more info I put on Matthew Henery

maybe its too many matthews

 

[dmarker]

You gave the scriptural reference in Matthew earlier

Then I wrote whats above here

Then for more info I put on Matthew Henery

maybe its too many matthews

But where in the scriptures themselves does Jesus say that he would only divide families that don't agree?

And even that explaination doesn't make Jesus a nice guy. One would think that Jesus would want to bring families together.

 

[Iacchus]

The words of your own bible are nothing, hey, we agree again!

And, while there's no mistaking that many people may wish this to be true, doesn't change the fact that it is or it isn't. By the way, do you believe that reality exists in the absolute sense?

 

[Kitty Chan]

But where in the scriptures themselves does Jesus say that he would only divide families that don't agree?

And even that explaination doesn't make Jesus a nice guy. One would think that Jesus would want to bring families together.

You 2 were discussing why Jesus would divide a family, and it was starting to go nowhere as discussion, I presented another view that I thought Iacchuss was missing. Which was WHY did it says Jesus came as a sword to divide. This was the point that was being made and the answers have been stated.

This part from Matthew is explaining what will happen when they go out to preach and what they should be doing.

btw In other scripture Jesus would be describing what to do in a family setting honor your mother and father however, this part in Matthew is describing what their life will be like.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Mat 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;

Mat 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

Mat 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.

Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Mat 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death.

Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

 

[dmarker]

You 2 were discussing why Jesus would divide a family, and it was starting to go nowhere as discussion, I presented another view that I thought Iacchuss was missing. Which was WHY did it says Jesus came as a sword to divide. This was the point that was being made and the answers have been stated.

This part from Matthew is explaining what will happen when they go out to preach and what they should be doing.

btw In other scripture Jesus would be describing what to do in a family setting honor your mother and father however, this part in Matthew is describing what their life will be like.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Mat 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;

Mat 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

Mat 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.

Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Mat 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death.

Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

But Jesus was not talking about the apostles in the verses I cited. He was talking in general.

Why wouldn't Jesus want families to be together? And doesn't this contradict the verses about the shepherd and the lost lamb and the prodigal son?

 

[Iacchus]

You 2 were discussing why Jesus would divide a family, and it was starting to go nowhere as discussion, I presented another view that I thought Iacchuss was missing. Which was WHY did it says Jesus came as a sword to divide. This was the point that was being made and the answers have been stated.

Well I have to admit, at least one of us has a flair for accuracy around here.

 

[Benguin]

But Jesus was not talking about the apostles in the verses I cited. He was talking in general.

Why wouldn't Jesus want families to be together? And doesn't this contradict the verses about the shepherd and the lost lamb and the prodigal son?

I'm afraid the idea " Jesus want families to be together" doesn't really work. He wanted people following him families or not. Hence the sword. Apply logic, it helps.

 

[Iacchus]

Why wouldn't Jesus want families to be together? And doesn't this contradict the verses about the shepherd and the lost lamb and the prodigal son?

I think the problem here is that people tend to live vicariously through one another, and develop alliances in this respect, much like the "sinners and publicans" (instead of thieves and robbers) in the verses I quoted. So, once a person comes up with an original idea, and begins to think freely, as a person should, it's very apt to destroy that alliance which, of course is based upon dependency (rather than independence). Matter of fact whole societies are based upon this kind of dependency which, is what we call maintaining the status quo.

 

[Kitty Chan]

But Jesus was not talking about the apostles in the verses I cited. He was talking in general.

Why wouldn't Jesus want families to be together? And doesn't this contradict the verses about the shepherd and the lost lamb and the prodigal son?

I am responding to this post below, Iaachus is responding to the rest of what you 2 were talking about


Originally posted by dmarker

I never said anything about church, did I?

And here's what Jesus will do to families:

Matthew
10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

10:35
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

10:36
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Would a decent person set family member upon one another?

so this is why I posted this below as a direct response to your post above, these posts can get confusing sometimes

dmarker

I have a idea about that parents and children thing.

Iaccus you are missing something . . .

it is being assumed that parents and children are getting along .

many dont, kids kill parents and vice versa, brothers kill sisters, even rape them. sisters send their brothers to jail, siblings sometimes never talk to one another all their life, husbands kill wives (in the news alot) On and on and on.

Maybe in the "sin" of the family Jesus will "divide"

Divide in the way perhaps the brother will see the sins of his family and decide not to participate anymore and lead a "clean" life and the family will never understand his gooddy goody attitude.

Then I posted this below to show you as per your request where this was scripturely

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

This part from Matthew is explaining what will happen when they go out to preach and what they should be doing.

Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.

Mat 10:17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;

Mat 10:18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.

Mat 10:19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.

Mat 10:20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.

Mat 10:21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against [their] parents, and cause them to be put to death.

Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all [men] for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

Mat 10:23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hope this clears up the conversation

btw there was also a bit of a commentary of another opionion from that matthew henrt so you did not have to take my word for it.

 

[Kitty Chan]

I think the problem here is that people tend to live vicariously through one another, and develop alliances in this respect, much like the "sinners and publicans" (instead of thieves and robbers) in the verses I quoted. So, once a person comes up with an original idea, and begins to think freely, as a person should, it's very apt to destroy that alliance which, of course is based upon dependency (rather than independence). Matter of fact whole societies are based upon this kind of dependency which, is what we call maintaining the status quo.

did you read the matthew henry commentary bit I posted earlier? I think we are all getting to an understanding of this part of scripture

 

[Iacchus]

did you read the matthew henry commentary bit I posted earlier? I think we are all getting to an understanding of this part of scripture

Actually I know you brought it up ealier, but I wasn't sure what you were talking about? However, I did go back and recheck and yes, I see what you're referring to here. Well, I think if we could all agree it had something to do with cronyism, you might be right.

 

[toddjh]

This is a skeptics' forum, so let's be skeptical. Radrook claims that the Wiccan philosophy gives an unacceptable amount of personal leeway and encourages destructive behavior. Fair enough; let's examine that claim.

I'm not particularly interested in semantic arguments about the Wiccan rede and how it should be interpreted. In fact, I think that is totally irrelevant. It should be sufficient to examine Wiccans, as a group, and see if they really do engage in destructive behavior.

Radrook, since you made the claim, you start. You've made it clear that you think the theory behind the religion is bad, but that's not something that will convince anyone. So, why don't you see what you can find that everybody here will accept: verifiable facts. What evidence can you present that Wiccans actually behave in a negative way in real life?

Jeremy

 

[Z]

Just to interrupt, Jeremy - but before Rad makes wild claims about his 'witch' Aunt or some necro-goth like Konstantinos, please keep this strictly limited to Wiccans - and since you specifically mention Wiccan 'instructions', to those Wiccans following some course of instructions that you find fault with. Further, since you opted to point out the Rede, please limit this to those Wiccans who follow the Rede.

Sorry, Jeremy - you left too much leeway.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Well, the thing is we all have to survive and, unfortunately that involves killing in order to eat. So, really there's no way of getting around that. So, might I suggest murder has more to do with intent (I'm sure it's defined in the dictionary by the way), perhaps more so out of spite, towards your fellow creatures let's say?

So killing an animal is justified if you feel bad about it? Can I kill another human if I feel bad about it? (I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, just trying to clarify your position.)

And now let's put another spin on it. Can I kill someone in self defense? Is that against the commandment? Should I "Turn the other cheek" instead?

Can I kill someone in order to save someone else's life? Say I shoot a person who's threatening immediate physical harm on another? Is that against the commandment? Perhaps I should trust in god's plan instead?

Again, I don't see how "Thou shalt not kill" can't be interpreted as much as "And it harm none, do a ye will".

 

[dmarker]

did you read the matthew henry commentary bit I posted earlier? I think we are all getting to an understanding of this part of scripture

Sorry Kitty. I don't want Matthew Henry to explain it, nor any other Christian apologist. I want you to explain it, just using scriptures.

I do understand what Jesus was saying; and he said it clearly.

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

A sword is a weapon of war. A sword is used to kill other humans and has never been used for other purposes.


10:35
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

He has come to set family members on one another. I ask again, what kind of person would do such a thing? Don't give me Matthew Henry or another apologist, just answer the question.

10:36
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Jesus will make a man's family turn on him. Have these men done anything to deserve this? Don't give me anything about "thieves and robbers" or "the families don't get along".

10:37
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

This really reminds me of "cult" thinking where the leader expects the members of the cult to give up close relatives to follow him.