Do wiccan need to feed off each other ie,drink blood

damo.d

I was just wondering do wiccans need to feed off each other?


Also how simillar are wicca and satanism?

researching on the net and getting alot of conflicting information,if someone could clear it up for me.

Nevyn

I suggest you have a look at the stickied threads on this forum as they contain a lot of correct information.

Wiccans and Stanists are not the same thing by any stretch of the imagination,
and Wiccans do not feed of people in anyway shape or form.

turbot

No; Wicca is not about drinking blood, and it has nothing to do with Satanism.

Wicca is much more about establishing a harmonious relationship with natural forces, which are then interacted with and harnessed through different rituals, including a deep reverence and respect for the earth, natural environments and spirit.

Some people may turn to Witchcraft as a means of amassing power, though like people who study martial arts to beat other people up, it's not long before they learn that being egotistical is very different to being spiritual.

NB: Depending on how you interpret the Catholic church; the catholic church is more about about drinking blood and canabalism; In the Catholic mass, we are asked to pretend that the wine becomes the blood of christ, and we asked to pretend that a piece of unleavened bread is the "body" of christ. We are asked to accept that by being alive we are sinners, and the only way out of this predicament is to follow an archaic set of rules that assigns much of our intellectual freedom and spiritual power to an organisation that is not renowned for it's wholesomeness. These are simply magical rituals, deceptively used within Christianity.

Does anyone really think the Pope is infalliable?

Be careful about much of what you read. Many christians know nothing about Wicca, have not read any books let alone knowing witches personally, yet feel it their business to declare Wicca as being the same as Satanism, and witches as being in league with the devil. This is all propaganda.

By the way, because the Catholic church had so much influence in Western society, almost anyone with conflicting spiritual ideas were classed as witches or evil, when many of those people were just honest. It's estimated that between 1000AD up until present, somewhere between 20,000 to 2million witches were burned at the stake. In Ireland a few hundred years ago, it was an offence, punishable by death, not to accept Jesus as your saviour! (Source: Irish Witchcraft & Demonology by John D Seymour )

joseph dawton

Like most people what you know of Wicca is based on misconceptions in the media and in the Christian church. Wicca is an earth based religion, the figure of Pan/Cernonos/Herne etc has been demonised giving the impression that pagans worship the devil, which is entirely untrue.

This is an old but interesting book if you want to know more about the devil and where our ideas about it come from.

THE HISTORY OF THE DEVIL AND THE IDEA OF EVIL
FROM THE EARLIEST TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY by PAUL CARUS (1900ad)

If you are interested in Wicca, Wicca by Vivian Crowley or Inner Magic: A Guide to Witchcraft by Ann Marie Gallagher are good starting points.

http://www.electricpublications.com

NeilJ

turbot wrote:

somewhere between 20,000 to 2million witches were burned at the stake.

Probably a lot nearer to the 20,000 end than the 2 million end of the spectrum. Also the whole burnt at the stake thing isn't entirely true. Often "witches" were in fact hanged. Further to this in England witchcraft was never a capital offense. When a witch was executed the execution sentence was for the crimes of murder always associated with the practise of witchcraft. The murdered victims usually being babies and children which the accussed either was witnessed to have killed or confessed to (usually under torture) and yet curiously the children were more often than not, children who had never been declared missing. The fact that the English refused to make witchcraft a capital offense is something which Scottish witchhunters loved to complain about as in Scotland it was a capital offense and as far as I remember the witches were either burned or hanged.

Neil

Cactus Col

turbot wrote:

Does anyone really think the Pope is infalliable?

do you know what Papal Infallibility actually is?

Yoda

Honestly, a question like this? First try the Wikipedia.

joseph dawton

This is a completely new question but here goes...

The Pope is supposedly infallible when he makes an infallible statement eg on important matters of doctrine. Every day commments do not fall into this category. I guess this all hinges on whether or not you believe that the Pope is God's sole instrument and respresentative. Personally I believe the church is a twisted imitation of what Christ wanted, I think there is very little of the divine in catholicism and as such I see the Pope as no better than any other man or woman.

http://www.electricpublications.com

Cactus Col

sorry, I only asked that question to prove a point, and was hoping that Turbot would answer it, while I knew what Papal infallibility was, most people don't, Catholic or not, they assume it means that whatever the pope says goes, so if the pope says toilet paper costs 10 cents per sheet, then that's how much Catholics should believe it costs.

My point being that before Turbot attacks Christians or Catholics for being ignorant about Wicca, he / she should be careful about their own views. You don't need to believe in Jesus to be ignorant.

Talliesin

Point made.

Can we now keep any points about the Pope's infallibilty to the relevant forum.

turbot

Cactus Col wrote:

sorry, I only asked that question to prove a point, and was hoping that Turbot would answer it, while I knew what Papal infallibility was, most people don't, Catholic or not, they assume it means that whatever the pope says goes, so if the pope says toilet paper costs 10 cents per sheet, then that's how much Catholics should believe it costs.

My point being that before Turbot attacks Christians or Catholics for being ignorant about Wicca, he / she should be careful about their own views. You don't need to believe in Jesus to be ignorant.

Cactus Col,

Papal Infalability is the assigned position to make authorative statements about spirituality. The pope / elected CEO of the catholic church is thus qualified to have the final and governing word on matters of faith.


Firstly, by stating that many people, catholic or not, don't understand this correctly is a big deal, because if someone is catholic, they should at least be usefully aware of the structure of the organisation that monopolises their ideas on spirituality.

I don't claim to be all knowing about all religions. Catholicism is a religion I know quite a lot about, from a personal perspective and how it affected me, because I was raised catholic, went to a catholic school, took my first holy? communion and later confirmation, and most of my family and relatives are catholic. I'm not as stupid to assuime my experience is exactly mirrored through everyone else, although there are obvious commonalities...

Having spent years examining in depth the effects the catholic organisation has had on me, and my spirituality, my personal conclusion is that spirituality is a very personal thing.... governing an individuals relationship(s) with, and understanding(s) of the universe. To me, I've found much more personal freedom, and a deeper sense of spirituality, by liberating myself from the mental shackles I realise the catholic church attempted to impose.

What I do know is that in myself, I was raised with the understanding that witchcraft / magick / voudoun were inherently evil practices... but in practice, people I know who ascribe to these beliefs have behaved, for me, far more honourably and with far more congruent decency that the majority of catholics I'm aware of.

For the sake of avoiding behaving ignorantly, Cactus Col, please don't assume that I belong to any category of views that you can easily label. I suspect that I don't.

I will openly claim that I've gone to considerably more effort and had more diverse experiences than most in exploring faith and spirituality, though neither wicca or paganism accurately encapulates my beliefs... If you must attempt to organise me into some category in your mind, then put me into the category labelled "other". If you are unaware of your psychological processes governing how you group people into categories, then perhaps it is you who is ignorant?

Cactus Col

Apologies for the assumption of ignorance, I'll try not to fall into the same trap and assume your not.


"Does anyone really think the Pope is infalliable?" is not the same as asking if anyone really believes in Papal Infallibility. In fact it is asking a completly different question, maybe you know what papal infallibility is, but that question is asked in such a way as to take advantage of those who don't.

There was no mention of the Catholic church, until you replied, out of nowhere attacking it. Your first post reminded me of an ex-smoker, delighted to have found a new way of life, bitter that you devoted so much time to smoking, and always ready to remind everyone why smoking is bad.

I'm not a Wiccan, I'm not a Paganist, I'm sure I haven't had the many diverse experiences in faith and spirituality that you have, I only come on this forum to have a read and see what people think. I can't help it how posts strike me. So sorry for taking it up wrong, if I did.

Sorry if I've gone completly off topic.

jax frost

Listen man, I recommend that you buy a few books to clear up your confusion and explore what it is to be a "paganist [sic]" or Wiccan etc.

There is a lot out there and an increased awareness of goddess-worshiping religions as well as the worship of both a goddess and god, realising their combined importance.

Christianity entails worshipping a solely male deity which has become part of a three-century patriarchal imbalance in society. Where is the influence of the divine feminine in our patriarchal culture? It was forceably and ritually removed in the burning days (witch hunts), apparently sanctioned by the Christian god.

Your analagy of being a former smoker denotes that smoking or existing in a patriarchal, Christian belief system was a pleasurable one before choosing to leave it.

No, the Pope is not infallable. His supposed importance is built on one of the biggest deity distortions in history and I feel sorry for him. He has no more power than his followers give him. He is deluded.

akari no ryu

turbot wrote:

Some people may turn to Witchcraft as a means of amassing power, though like people who study martial arts to beat other people up, it's not long before they learn that being egotistical is very different to being spiritual.

Wicca =/= Witchraft
Wicca ∩ Witchcraft

turbot wrote:

NB: Depending on how you interpret the Catholic church; the catholic church is more about about drinking blood and canabalism; In the Catholic mass, we are asked to pretend that the wine becomes the blood of christ, and we asked to pretend that a piece of unleavened bread is the "body" of christ.

Please stop misrepresenting Catholicism.
In Catholicism one is expected to accept that the wine becomes the blood of Christ and expected to accept that the bread becomes the body of Christ.
The difference between transubstantiation and consubstantiation is a fairly basic one.

turbot wrote:

We are asked to accept that by being alive we are sinners, and the only way out of this predicament is to follow an archaic set of rules that assigns much of our intellectual freedom and spiritual power to an organisation that is not renowned for it's wholesomeness.

Again, I find your misrepresentation of Catholicism ignorant and highly offensive.
We, as humans, are not expected to be sinless. That's not possible. We are flawed broken little beings that are sinful in nature. We lie, we hurt people, we lose our tempers. God does not expect us to avoid these things, God expects us to try. The ONLY law in Christianity is the Law of Love as set down by Christ who fulfilled the old covenant. (Acts and Galatians)

turbot wrote:

These are simply magical rituals, deceptively used within Christianity.

Oh. FFS, Magic is the act of the magician, transubstantiation is the act of God. The priests don't change the bread, God does.

turbot wrote:

Does anyone really think the Pope is infalliable?

You don't understand what papal infalliability is, quite clearly.
No, the Pope is human. Papal infalliability authorises the pope to, after having fulfilled certain criteria, speak with the authority of God. This is a tradition based on "Paul you are my rock, on you I build my church... as you make it on earth so shall I make it in heaven."

turbot wrote:

Be careful about much of what you read. Many christians know nothing about Wicca, have not read any books let alone knowing witches personally, yet feel it their business to declare Wicca as being the same as Satanism, and witches as being in league with the devil. This is all propaganda.

And what you've posted is different how.

turbot wrote:

By the way, because the Catholic church had so much influence in Western society, almost anyone with conflicting spiritual ideas were classed as witches or evil, when many of those people were just honest. It's estimated that between 1000AD up until present, somewhere between 20,000 to 2million witches were burned at the stake.

Provide statistics supporting this.
I'm particularly interested because most witches were hung.

turbot wrote:

In Ireland a few hundred years ago, it was an offence, punishable by death, not to accept Jesus as your saviour!

That's nice. It was illegal to accept Jesus in Rome a few thousand years ago..


I'd just like to note something, for the record. I am a practicing pagan. I am a Celtic Recon. I am in no way, shape or form Catholic, or for that matter, Christian. It really bugs me when "pagans" lash out with this same done-to-death "more persecuted than thou" complex with fallacious arguments left right and centre.

joseph dawton

I have to say I agree with Akairi there.

So people have been persecuted, that's the story of the human race! What is the point in tit-for-tat arguements. surely what the world needs is an attitude of tolerance and an attempt to come to greater understanding and acceptance of other faiths. There is no right answer, only God - whatever that is? As imperfect beings we are incapable of constructing a perfect faith, all we can do is strive towards the divine and attempt to live better lives.

http://www.electricpublications.com

akari no ryu

I get so frustrated with people who claim to be "in harmony with nature", etc, lashing out at a strawman representation of Christianity.
If paganism is an attempt to reattune yourself with your cultural roots, then reattune yourself to your cultural roots, not the whitewashed namby pamby white light love everything and tolerate everyone (except the ebil xians) bull****.

Cactus Col

jax frost wrote:

Listen man, I recommend that you buy a few books to clear up your confusion and explore what it is to be a "paganist [sic]" or Wiccan etc.

paganist .... tee hee hee.

nah ... I'm not confused.

jax frost wrote:

Your analagy of being a former smoker denotes that smoking or existing in a patriarchal, Christian belief system was a pleasurable one before choosing to leave it.

I think my analogy was quite apt. And for a great may people, such an existence is pleasurable, by the way you write it seems like this is the worst existence imaginable

But, I think you misunderstood my point (maybe I didn't make it clear enough), which was, that Turbot had started attacking Christianity without any provocation at all (or at least Christian propaganda).

The OP asked a question, it was answered, then Turbot launched a little attack on Christianity. I felt there was no need for this.

akari no ryu wrote:

I'd just like to note something, for the record. I am a practicing pagan. I am a Celtic Recon. I am in no way, shape or form Catholic, or for that matter, Christian. It really bugs me when "pagans" lash out with this same done-to-death "more persecuted than thou" complex with fallacious arguments left right and centre.

maybe that's a better way of saying it.

akari no ryu

Cactus Col wrote:

maybe that's a better way of saying it.

The guts of two years practice dealing with fluffies on gaia. Bear in mind, I'm not implying that tubolt is a fluffie, he's just using the same arguments they do, displaying the same unfounded hatred of the strawman christianity and in general representing pagans in a poor light.

Nevyn

A lot of people go through a period of distancing themselves from christainity and can end up feeling hurt and betrayed.
But it is like discovering that your parents are human and makes mistakes it is like spiritual teen angst.
Thankfully most people move and and leave such resentments behind them.
Having a go at christianity and the catholic church in this country doesn't make you pagan.

accensi0n

damo.d wrote:

I was just wondering do wiccans need to feed off each other?


Also how simillar are wicca and satanism?

researching on the net and getting alot of conflicting information,if someone could clear it up for me.

I find that extremely hard to believe. On all of the sites i've read one of the first things made abundantly clear is that they are in no way related.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Turbot wrote:

NB: Depending on how you interpret the Catholic church; the catholic church is more about about drinking blood and canabalism; In the Catholic mass, we are asked to pretend that the wine becomes the blood of christ, and we asked to pretend that a piece of unleavened bread is the "body" of christ. We are asked to accept that by being alive we are sinners, and the only way out of this predicament is to follow an archaic set of rules that assigns much of our intellectual freedom and spiritual power to an organisation that is not renowned for it's wholesomeness. These are simply magical rituals, deceptively used within Christianity

Depending on how you interpret it? Yeah, if you interpret the mass in the most anti-christian biased way possible, while ironically simultaneously believing that the wine and bread are indeed the flesh and blood of christ; so that it might be described as "cannabalism".
Magical rituals? A wiccan criticizing people for using magical rituals, eh? Forgive me if I can't get get my head around that one.

Oh, and don't be careful about what you read. Read anything and everything that takes your interest; you'll gain wider learning that way. Turbot is obviously given to censorship.

Akari makes a good point. In ancient Rome it was early Christians who were persecuted for their beliefs.
One could just as easily accuse pagans like Turbot of spreading propaganda, as one could accuse the catholic church of doing so.
If you wanted to criticise a band you wouldn't attack that band's tribute bands in order to do so; you'd attack the original band itself. Yet critics of Christianity almost always seem to focus their attention on christian humans, who are, at the end of the day...only human. Judge christianity by christ alone, is what I'm trying to say.

Anyway, even an ignorant, propaganda-spreading christian like myself knows that wicca and satanism are worlds apart. As far as I can make out, satanism (The LaVey variety) seems far less given to belief in any kind of karma. (forgive me if that's a bad choice of words). Satanism seems to preach a more Machiavellian code. Would that be correct?

hairyheretic

scouser.tommy wrote:

Oh, and don't be careful about what you read. Read anything and everything that takes your interest; you'll gain wider learning that way. Turbot is obviously given to censorship.

With the net though you can write anything, fact or fiction, and present it to the world. I think the point is more to be thinking of that fact, and judge the information you get, rather than blindly accepting it.

scouser.tommy wrote:

Akari makes a good point. In ancient Rome it was early Christians who were persecuted for their beliefs.

Mankind has a history full of persecution, whether it be for religious beliefs, skin colour, or any of the other things that someone feels are divisive.

scouser.tommy wrote:

One could just as easily accuse pagans like Turbot of spreading propaganda, as one could accuse the catholic church of doing so.
If you wanted to criticise a band you wouldn't attack that band's tribute bands in order to do so; you'd attack the original band itself. Yet critics of Christianity almost always seem to focus their attention on christian humans, who are, at the end of the day...only human. Judge christianity by christ alone, is what I'm trying to say.

If christians claim to follow the teachings and example of Christ, yet carry out assorted nasty activities, how then should they be judged?

If I profess to follow any path, ideology or what have you, and act in a bad way, my profession to following / being whatever tars that subject through association.

It may not be fair, but it is very human.

pbsuxok1znja4r

hairyheretic wrote:

With the net though you can write anything, fact or fiction, and present it to the world. I think the point is more to be thinking of that fact, and judge the information you get, rather than blindly accepting it.

Agreed. I'm not sure that was ever in question...

hairyheretic wrote:

Mankind has a history full of persecution, whether it be for religious beliefs, skin colour, or any of the other things that someone feels are divisive.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. Pagans may well have been persecuted, but so has damn near everyone else at one time or another.

hairyheretic wrote:

If christians claim to follow the teachings and example of Christ, yet carry out assorted nasty activities, how then should they be judged?

If I profess to follow any path, ideology or what have you, and act in a bad way, my profession to following / being whatever tars that subject through association.

Christianity has never presumed to pretend that it's followers are perfect; it states the very opposite. Nor does it even presume to pretend that christian humans are even any less "nasty" (however you want to begin to define that, if you're not even christian) than any humans who aren't christian.
Humans will never achieve perfection in their natural life; christians and all humans will always have nastiness in them to one degree or another. If anything, in this day and age, a kind of inverted-self-righteousness has developed amongst non-christians, whereby they all think they have the moral high ground because of how 'evil' the church really is.
No-one becomes superhuman just by following christianity; they become more human still. Any argument against religion on the basis that "some christians, especially those in the past, have done nasty things at times" is utterly pointless.
So, in short, they should be judged as humans. Not as devils.

hairyheretic wrote:

it may not be fair, but it is very human

As are the people trying be christians. Not always fair perhaps, but they probably wouldn't be quite human if they were.

hairyheretic

scouser.tommy wrote:

Christianity has never presumed to pretend that it's followers are perfect; it states the very opposite. Nor does it even presume to pretend that christian humans are even any less "nasty" (however you want to begin to define that, if you're not even christian) than any humans who aren't christian.

There does seem to be an element within christianity that does feel itself better than non-christians (and indeed other christians of different denominations) though. The whole "We're right, you're wrong and youre going to suffer for eternity no matter how good a person you are" crowd.

That element way well exist within other beliefs, but I don't know those well enough to say that for definate.

scouser.tommy wrote:

If anything, in this day and age, a kind of inverted-self-righteousness has developed amongst non-christians, whereby they all think they have the moral high ground because of how 'evil' the church really is.

Given the recent (within the past few decades) scandals within the church, and the evidence that it not only knew about, but tried to cover up, those same scandals, is it any surprise?

Again i think thats more indicative of human nature than anything else.

scouser.tommy wrote:

Any argument against religion on the basis that "some christians, especially those in the past, have done nasty things at times" is utterly pointless.

How far back does accountability stretch? Obviously trying to hold you personally responsible for actions by the church in the 14th century would be a tad silly, but do you feel current church officials should bear up to actions of their recent predecessors?

scouser.tommy wrote:

So, in short, they should be judged as humans. Not as devils.

But of course. My own belief is that people should be judged on two things .. their words, and their deeds.

pbsuxok1znja4r

hairyheretic wrote:

There does seem to be an element within christianity that does feel itself better than non-christians (and indeed other christians of different denominations) though. The whole "We're right, you're wrong and youre going to suffer for eternity no matter how good a person you are" crowd.

Well, I've yet to hear anyone put it that way and I hope no-one would put it that way, but I'm sure there are those religious people who may hold sentiments of that sort...It's unfair to scaremonger like that; but at the same time, people can feel it's their duty and that it may be for what they see as the person's own good. But that's a phrase no-one likes to hear, isn't it? "It's for your own good". When people get to a certain age, usually late teens, they decide they've now got it figured out; they're an adult, and know exactly what's good for them; and can't abide anyone telling them what to do in what comes across as such an authorative manner. Most young people don't have authority figures in their lives that are actually worthy of the authority they hold. Anyway, I'm digressing here. What I'm saying is that while the evangelical types are foolish to preach to non-religious and such in such a matter-of-fact manner; there is usually at the same time a slight element of irrationality about the preached-at person's aversion to being lectured in such a manner. They're both kind of wrong.

hairyheretic wrote:

Given the recent (within the past few decades) scandals within the church, and the evidence that it not only knew about, but tried to cover up, those same scandals, is it any surprise?

The church may have, in attempting to cover up the scandal, tryed to pretend to be something it's not. Tried to pretend it was something better than it is, but it did so with good intention, IMO. Many good things and actions begin with pretense. How many times have you pretended to enjoy a the company of someone you didn't know very well nor like very well, and suprisingly quickly found yourself enjoying their company? Improvement of all sorts begins with pretensions to being better. The church needed to represent itself as being not made up of corrupt people, in order for it's influence to be as effective as possible. I realise that borders on "means justify the end" behaviour, so, I can't condone it. But I understand it. It's not so devious not deceptive as it may seem. (Or as others may choose to see it and deride it).

hairyheretic wrote:

Again i think thats more indicative of human nature than anything else.

Very much so; with regard to human nature, I'll say this much. There are few things humans seem to hate more than hypocrisy, and few things they love more than hating and criticising it.
Through it's "you're wrong, we're right, you're going to hell" contingent, the church has unwittingly betrayed itself as being immensely proud and/or arrogant. There are few things that provoke disgust and hatred as much as seeing pride in others. The more proud the observer himself is, the more he despises to see selfish pride in others. Again, I think this exposes a certain irrationality in the public's tendency to condemn the church.
Now I myself am no spokesman for the catholic church (though I all too frequently find myself inclined to want to defend it from the angry mobs), so I will say the church was definitely wrong. The head honchos made a horrible mistake in trying to cover up the scandal, IMO. If ever there was a time that representative members of the church needed to come forth, cast off the holier-than-thou image, it was then. The less "good" or holy the church outwardly admits itself to be, I think the more people will be willing to accept it and give it the benefit of the doubt. But, like I said, the emergence of all the scandal represented a gross hypocrisy on their part, and nothing provokes criticism like hypocrisy. Not with the kind of sadistic fervour that many detractors are possessed by.

hairyheretic wrote:

How far back does accountability stretch? Obviously trying to hold you personally responsible for actions by the church in the 14th century would be a tad silly, but do you feel current church officials should bear up to actions of their recent predecessors?

I believe accountability should only extend as far as one shows ones loyalty/allegiance to lie. In other words, accountability lies only with the immediate perpetrators, but also extending to a degree to the open supporters of the immediate perpetrators. One of the most common examples of people's opinions on accountability is anti-british feeling amongst the Irish. I personally think anyone who would hold our "800 years of oppression" against any living english citizen today, is an idiot. No currently living english person that I know ever harmed me or anyone I know. So why should I hold it against them? Even if they do display the attitude or leanings of those who in the past, 'oppressed' my country. Now if you apply that opinion to the church, then there is no reason for any living person today to drag out the old "the church burned so-called heretics!" condemnation.
The 'paedophile' label is, however, still relevant and applicable to a small contingent within the church. That I won't deny.

hairyheretic wrote:

But of course. My own belief is that people should be judged on two things .. their words, and their deeds.

Interesting belief there. Words lie far more often than deeds do. I was reading up about the code of Bushido amongst japanese samurai warrior in feudal Japan. One of the things that caught my attention was that the bushido code was entirely unspoken. It was passed down, always evolving, from warrior to warrior, quite mutually, through acts and deeds; more more rarely by word-of-mouth. Thus possessing all the more, "the powerful sanction of veritable deed". It seems, when people do not talk the talk, they are required all the more inclined to walk the walk, as evidence of their chivalry. So, in short, I guess talk is cheap.

hairyheretic

scouser.tommy wrote:

Well, I've yet to hear anyone put it that way and I hope no-one would put it that way, but I'm sure there are those religious people who may hold sentiments of that sort...

If you're not familiar with then, google Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. I realise they're a pretty extreme example, but they are, by their own definition, christians.

scouser.tommy wrote:

When people get to a certain age, usually late teens, they decide they've now got it figured out; they're an adult, and know exactly what's good for them; and can't abide anyone telling them what to do in what comes across as such an authorative manner. Most young people don't have authority figures in their lives that are actually worthy of the authority they hold.

Who decides the worth of an authority figure though? Every person is going to have their own criteria for what makes someone worthy of respect.

scouser.tommy wrote:

Anyway, I'm digressing here. What I'm saying is that while the evangelical types are foolish to preach to non-religious and such in such a matter-of-fact manner; there is usually at the same time a slight element of irrationality about the preached-at person's aversion to being lectured in such a manner. They're both kind of wrong.

I don't think anyone enjoys being preached at. Having someone praching at you from what they believe to be a position of superiority is only going to make the person they're talking at even less likely to be interested.

scouser.tommy wrote:

The church may have, in attempting to cover up the scandal, tryed to pretend to be something it's not. Tried to pretend it was something better than it is, but it did so with good intention, IMO.

On that I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you. The church tried to cover up the abuses of its own in order to protect itself, its name, its authority. Thats not a good intention.

scouser.tommy wrote:

The church needed to represent itself as being not made up of corrupt people, in order for it's influence to be as effective as possible. I realise that borders on "means justify the end" behaviour, so, I can't condone it. But I understand it. It's not so devious not deceptive as it may seem. (Or as others may choose to see it and deride it).

Then it needs to prove it.

scouser.tommy wrote:

Through it's "you're wrong, we're right, you're going to hell" contingent, the church has unwittingly betrayed itself as being immensely proud and/or arrogant. There are few things that provoke disgust and hatred as much as seeing pride in others. The more proud the observer himself is, the more he despises to see selfish pride in others. Again, I think this exposes a certain irrationality in the public's tendency to condemn the church.

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Someones pride doesn't really seem all that relevent to me.

scouser.tommy wrote:

Now I myself am no spokesman for the catholic church (though I all too frequently find myself inclined to want to defend it from the angry mobs), so I will say the church was definitely wrong. The head honchos made a horrible mistake in trying to cover up the scandal, IMO. If ever there was a time that representative members of the church needed to come forth, cast off the holier-than-thou image, it was then. The less "good" or holy the church outwardly admits itself to be, I think the more people will be willing to accept it and give it the benefit of the doubt. But, like I said, the emergence of all the scandal represented a gross hypocrisy on their part, and nothing provokes criticism like hypocrisy. Not with the kind of sadistic fervour that many detractors are possessed by.

If the church had admitted its faults and tried to make ammends, the reaction probably wouldn't have been as bad. They didn't though. They systematically covered up the wrongdoings, and tried to make out they did nothing wrong.

When it all blew up, their hypocrisy came right back onto them.

scouser.tommy wrote:

I believe accountability should only extend as far as one shows ones loyalty/allegiance to lie. In other words, accountability lies only with the immediate perpetrators, but also extending to a degree to the open supporters of the immediate perpetrators.

Sounds reasonable.

scouser.tommy wrote:

Interesting belief there. Words lie far more often than deeds do. I was reading up about the code of Bushido amongst japanese samurai warrior in feudal Japan. One of the things that caught my attention was that the bushido code was entirely unspoken. It was passed down, always evolving, from warrior to warrior, quite mutually, through acts and deeds; more more rarely by word-of-mouth. Thus possessing all the more, "the powerful sanction of veritable deed". It seems, when people do not talk the talk, they are required all the more inclined to walk the walk, as evidence of their chivalry. So, in short, I guess talk is cheap.

I'd not come across that before. I have a copy of Hagakure, a book on Bushido written in the 1700s. Perhaps in the centuries previous to that it was more through deeds than words.

Talk can be cheap, but at the same time, your word can be your bond. If it is known that you do not break your word, and you get a reputation for that, then your words will be given much more weight than those of someone who is known to lie.

pbsuxok1znja4r

hairyheretic wrote:

I'm not sure I'd agree with that. Someones pride doesn't really seem all that relevent to me.

Well, I think pride is essential to everyone's hatred of hypocrisy. Think of this; if someone made the most humble and self-deprecating claims about themselves; portayed themselves as a poor, weak thing. If they were to later turn out to be exactly the opposite; I can guarantee you that no-one would accuse them of hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is only "hypocrisy" when the perpetrator intially lauds himself as something great; in a vulgar exhibition of pride and/or arrogance. To put it simply: humans love to take others down a peg, so that they themselves may feel a peg higher with respect to that person peg-level. A kind of "Ha! You're no better than me after all, are you?" sentiment. So, like I said, pride is the very essence of humans' hatred of displays of hypocrisy.
Of course that isn't the only reason people have for criticising the church. I wouldn't for a second try to deny that many people are genuine victims and have genuine grievances attributed to the church, Re: Paedophile priests and whatnot.

coffee_cake

scouser.tommy wrote:

Well, I think pride is essential to everyone's hatred of hypocrisy. Think of this; if someone made the most humble and self-deprecating claims about themselves; portayed themselves as a poor, weak thing. If they were to later turn out to be exactly the opposite; I can guarantee you that no-one would accuse them of hypocrisy.

Em, I would. It's still a deception, and fairly hypocritical, unless it was clear they just decided to gain some pride.

pbsuxok1znja4r

bluewolf wrote:

Em, I would. It's still a deception, and fairly hypocritical, unless it was clear they just decided to gain some pride.

Okay, come to think of it, I didn't use the best example there. At all, actually...what the hell was even thinking
If pride or arrogance enters into someones hypocrisy at all, it is far more likely to be criticized.
I'm not so sure of what I was saying now, heh, but, bottom line; people love to hate hypocrisy.

Li'l Irish

If you wanted to criticise a band you wouldn't attack that band's tribute bands in order to do so; you'd attack the original band itself. Yet critics of Christianity almost always seem to focus their attention on christian humans, who are, at the end of the day...only human. Judge christianity by christ alone, is what I'm trying to say.

Yeah, but what if the tribute band sucked? Judging Christianity by Christ alone is extremely simple; Jesus was brilliant. He had wonderful ideas and rocked the world, past and present, to the core. I think you'd have to go a long way before you found someone who's problem with Christianity was Christ.

I think more people are put off/frightened/disgusted/whatever by the various and sundry sects of Christianity and the odd and sometimes nonsensical rules that have been imposed in the two thousand years.

Everybody from Neo-nazis, white supremascists, snake handlers, and those oh-so-wicked paedophiles have all claimed to follow the Christian way, even though they couldn't spot Jesus's original message with a pair of binoculars.

I try to judge Christians on an individual basis; I've had really great friends who were Christians. But religion is a hot-button topic and some people would just as soon hit you upside the head with the Bible as look at you.

I think one reason why Pagans often have such venom for the 'ebil christians' is because they're the majority and that's where most conflicts come from. When your boss tells you to take off your pentacle at work or ELSE while he/she's wearing a cross you could bar a barn door with, it causes a bit of resentment. I don't think I've ever heard a Pagan say 'Those &%$^ Jews are oppressing me!' I don't think the situation's ever come up. Of course there's going to be more sparks on the front line.

pbsuxok1znja4r

Li'l Irish wrote:

I think one reason why Pagans often have such venom for the 'ebil christians' is because they're the majority and that's where most conflicts come from. When your boss tells you to take off your pentacle at work or ELSE while he/she's wearing a cross you could bar a barn door with, it causes a bit of resentment. I don't think I've ever heard a Pagan say 'Those &%$^ Jews are oppressing me!' I don't think the situation's ever come up. Of course there's going to be more sparks on the front line.

At this stage, as a young person in this society you're more likely to take stick from pagans for being a Christian. In my experience, that's how it is. I'm certainly not saying pagans are in the majority, but in my day-to-day dealings at college, on the internet in particular, and with young people in general, I'm as like to come across pagans as anyone else, and more likely to take stick from pagans than anyone else.