I don't know where to put this but I felt this would be the best place to put it since it could stimulate discussion although it would seem like endless ranting. Maybe that's me.

Anyways I have been having a hard time liking the terms tolerance, acceptance and open-minded more so. People always well for all three things and yet appear to be close minded in the aspect of a different thought pattern or even a fetish. Or more so in the aspect of a religion.

As an example for the past couple of years I have been studying the origins of Wicca as well as what the aspects of it are truly about. What I have found is that Wicca was never about nature but more so about fertility and that it is an orthopraxy contrary to popular belief that was caused by the likes of Scott Cunningham (who according to those who were the closest to him he ended up regretting writing about Solitary Wicca due to the massive divide that was created after they were published. Whether this is true or not is uncertain as he passed away in 1990.) and Silver Ravenwolf (who contrary to popular belief was never even initiated. That's right she was never even a Wiccan. All she wants is money tbh ._.)

Now being the nice and helpful person I try to pass this information along which is being received in a negative manner. The responses I have gotten is...revolting. Especially within the Pagan community where people preach about acceptance, tolerance and being open-minded. How is reacting in a manner that is not accepting, tolerant and open-minded being tolerant, accepting and open-minded. Further more since when is taking something that never belonged to you in the first place even equates to being tolerant accepting and open-minded? Isn't stealing supposed to be...I dunno wrong? To me taking something that is not your own whether it's art, music, rituals, books, titles, practices and even the Gods themselves isn't being tolerant, accepting nor open-minded of that culture or religion that has very specific rules on who to allow in their culture or religion. In fact it's very intolerant, unaccepting and close minded towards that culture and religion.

So what do you guys think?

Is it right for some to take a title that doesn't belong to them? Whether they have earned it by going through the neccessary channels expected of that religion or not?
Is it really tolerant to take ideas and practices from a closed religion?
Are all religions open or is that how we perceive them: Why or why not?
Are all deities loving or is it because that was our perception of the Abrahamic God YHVH (the Judeo-Chriso-Islamic God. YHVH is the tetragammon for Yod Hoy Vod Hay meaning The past present and future of all things.) and that we try to apply it to everyone else? Why or why not?
Shouldn't people be more accepting of cultural boundaries and even religious boundaries? Why or Why not?

Finally, to clarify: This is not an argument about British Traditional Wicca (which is only called that in the US. Everywhere else in the the world, British Traditonal Wicca is actually called Wicca. There is only distinction in North America thanks to Llewellyn Publishing) vs Solitary Wicca. This is a debate on what being open minded means and when should someone draw the line between being open minded and down right close-minded.

Is it right for some to take a title that doesn't belong to them? Whether they have earned it by going through the neccessary channels expected of that religion or not?
Is it really tolerant to take ideas and practices from a closed religion?
Are all religions open or is that how we perceive them: Why or why not?
Are all deities loving or is it because that was our perception of the Abrahamic God YHVH (the Judeo-Chriso-Islamic God. YHVH is the tetragammon for Yod Hoy Vod Hay meaning The past present and future of all things.) and that we try to apply it to everyone else? Why or why not?
Shouldn't people be more accepting of cultural boundaries and even religious boundaries? Why or Why not?

First of all - I know what you mean with the Wicca is an initiation thing and how it's been taken as "lawlz, screw that, I can do what I want." Very much confused me when I kept seeing "solitaries" pop up during my initial dive into learning and knowing that's not the way it's "supposed to be." Whatever.

Whether or not it is right to take a title that "doesn't belong" isn't really something that can be argued very well because it's very subjective. People define titles differently. With the example of traditional wicca vs solitary wicca, I would label solitary wicca a neopagan practitioner with wiccan influences or a fertility focused neopagan practitioner - not a wiccan. Many who have claimed the title wicca would disagree with me - sometimes to the point it's funny. To go with another example - people can claim the title king, queen, duke, etc. of something but that doesn't mean it was given to them through what you or I would consider proper, legitimate, or recognizable channels. Doesn't mean they're not a king, queen, duke, etc. - just that we don't apply that label to them because it doesn't fit our definition.
So really it's just an argument of definition.
And with religion... that just means they have a different branch or sect because religion is so personal.
Like with Christianity. Many Christians will claim their brand of Christianity is the only "real" or "right" or "true" Christianity, but others will say as long as you follow Christ's teachings they you're a Christian. Different definitions that help create different sects. All that is important is that there is a common element - Christ.

There are closed religions and there are open ones. Continuing with the Christian/Catholic example: To be a follower of one sect you may have to be baptized and go through religious rights. You aren't considered a part of that sect without it. For others it's just you have to follow the teachings of Christ. So some are open, some are closed.
If we go along with that thinking - solitary wicca or non-lineaged wicca (because you can be initiated into a coven without lineage, obviously) is like those Christians that don't require whatever initiation was required when the religion came about. The question is, does that make them any less Christian or any less wiccan? At this point I just threw up my hands and said "as long as their is a common element - the main element - then what does it matter?" and then I moved on.

I've read of many religions where a follower will say their god/s or goddess/es are loving but are clearly not. I've read where they say they aren't loving and that's why they're worshiped - to hopefully gain protection. Where there are many deities I've found it's common for the god/s and goddess/es to multidimensional. More human like. They aren't perfect, they just have a lot of power. I do think many theists prefer to worship a loving deity or deities simply because they want their religion to be a good thing. Positive. And they can't fathom it with a non-loving deity or they don't want to focus on that deity if it exists to them. I'm not a theist so it's a bit lost on me honestly. I'm taking a shot in the dark. Feel more than free to correct me.

I think we should be accepting of cultures and religions if they don't go against human rights to be free to themselves (I'm against anything that tells you slavery is right, that x people don't deserve rights, etc) - 'cause I don't want to be constrained to what you think is right and I'm sure you don't want to be constrained by what I think is right. I do like it when people of various religions wear it on their sleeves, so to speak - just like I like it when people wear their interests on their sleeves. Whichever ones I disagree with or don't like become avoidable this way. There is no reason to be rude. There is no reason to attack. Unless they are rude or attack. Simple. If only I could wear an inverted pentagram without being discriminated against, eh? It's not going to happen any time soon. Things are ingrained into us by hateful parents and ignorance much too much. So I'll just keep wearing a cross and blend in with society.

Answering one specific question here.

No. Not all gods are loving, and if one would like evidence of this one must only look at the epic of Gilgamesh. The flood myth therein says that the gods tried to wipe out humanity because we were too noisy. We were less than an afterthought to them.

The Greek (and Roman) gods treat humans as toys, or baubles. If you didn't do a sacrifice correctly they might kill everyone in your village.

The Norse gods for the most part do actually give a crap about mankind, Thor in particular being our protector.

Many Hindu gods would destroy humanity if they could, or more specifically watch us rip each other apart turning the world to a sea of blood.

Westerners like to view all gods as loving beings who watch over, but in many cultures they were totalitarian overlords who had to be appeased.

This gets even worse depending on your definition of gods. For instance in a djin or demon would probably be seen as an evil god in many cultures.

Well there is being open minded but with strong views, that is to accept that this thing exists and understand it but to disagree/dislike it. And there is saying you are open-minded but really not having an opinion on the issue.

I have much respect for the former than the latter.

Regardless of religion, culture, ethnicity, race or country, or any other sort of belief in any other area, people will shut off certain things, and that is what is meant to be human. Not all the foundations of those feelings might be correct but it's there.

I think a number of religions are open and tolerant (not all but the major ones) but people aren't and that's where the issues pop in.

I think its just irritating on a semantic level because the term 'Wicca' has pretty much gone to confetti. What Wicca originally represented has slowly become more convoluted as more and more people have used the term to describe their own beliefs (which could be poles apart from the original definition). Even so from a practical perspective there is no way to censor or copyright beliefs and practices, and to be fair how many of the 'original' faiths based their ideas/mythology from even older faiths. Glass already mentioned the epic of Gilgamesh which contains a deluge myth that shares some striking similarities with the flood story in Genesis. I don't think this 'pinching ideas' from other religions ect is new, nor do I believe it is right or wrong. I guess to put it bluntly, it just is. I find myself completely indifferent to the observation. If an individual can only achieve that closeness to God by cobbling together a mish mash of religious beliefs and practices, then whatever, I'm not going to come between them.

The oldest religion I've managed to find predates most forms of mythology. It was a worship of one major deity whose name basically means "the Father." There are other less powerful deities, who have one sort of domain or another, like war, food, fertility, etc. It shows its influence in Judaism, and thus Christianity, Islam, and other religions of that area and time. It also shows its influence in Norse, and Celtic paganism, and even a bit in the Greek and Roman. One can draw parallels to certain Asian religions as well. I think this is why so many religions show similarities. Older, more simple religions evolved into what we have today which is more specific, and influenced by the cultures of their respective areas.

That's what kinda happened to Wicca, and even to Christianity. People think of themselves as similar to these, but have different views and beliefs from the main groups, which leads to different denominations and groups within the whole.

Originally Posted by Glass

The oldest religion I've managed to find predates most forms of mythology. It was a worship of one major deity whose name basically means "the Father." There are other less powerful deities, who have one sort of domain or another, like war, food, fertility, etc. It shows its influence in Judaism, and thus Christianity, Islam, and other religions of that area and time. It also shows its influence in Norse, and Celtic paganism, and even a bit in the Greek and Roman. One can draw parallels to certain Asian religions as well. I think this is why so many religions show similarities. Older, more simple religions evolved into what we have today which is more specific, and influenced by the cultures of their respective areas.

That's what kinda happened to Wicca, and even to Christianity. People think of themselves as similar to these, but have different views and beliefs from the main groups, which leads to different denominations and groups within the whole.

Except the main problem with these people claiming to be Wiccan is that they don't have the core of the religion which is the orthopraxic nature established by Gardner in 1954. Without the core of a religion you have something completely different. So if a so called Wiccan claims that it's necessary to be solitary and no need for initiation what they have isn't Wicca but more so a brand of eclectic neo-paganism.

I don't understand why it is hard for them to create an original religion based on these principles. I mean Aleister Crowley did that with Thelema. Gerald Gardner did that with Wicca. Why can't they do that? (Which is a question I have asked constantly and never seem to get a straight answer to.)

That being true is it not also the case that the morons with the signs saying "God hates X" are not in fact Christian? Being that the core of Christianity is "love God, and love thy neighbor," and "Judge not, lest ye be judged."

Yet it is constantly argued at me that they are Christian because they say they are.

By that logic I can be a banana tree, if I say so.

Glad to see this happens in other Religions as well. Er. . . not so much glad, as less annoyed.

I thought the core of Christianity was to be Christ-like and follow the teachings of the bible?
Which the "God Hates X" people are doing, just in their own way with their own interpretation, are they not? (Pisses me off too by the way. I'd poke 'em with a stick if I could.)

Exactly how are they being Christ-like while being ignorant hate mongers? Jesus seemed to be the opposite of that. I mean the bible says specifically, not to hate. What Does the Bible Say About Hate?

Hatred and judgement are against Christ's teaching, so doing those things would be more the opposite of Christian.

I do not mean to sound like I'm growling. I just really don't like being lumped into their hate group. :/

I'm not arguing that they're being Christ-like or following the bible - at least not the way it should be.
And I'm certainly not saying all Christians are like them. I have some very wonderful Christian friends who detest them as much as I do - they give "Christian" a bad name.
But that doesn't mean they're not Christian. They're extremists who have warped the bible to mean what they want it to mean - but that's what each sect does, don't they? Slightly different interpretations, slightly different ways of going about things. Theirs is... nasty... but they're still following the bible and Christ the way they see him based on their own interpretation. As far as I understand it they see what they're doing as a loving gesture in the name of a loving god - who will condemn you if you don't follow their interpretation. They're telling us what the bible say (in their eyes) and that we need to change so we can be "saved." What every sect does. They're just... extreme in a bad way.
I think every religion has them honestly. o-O

Originally Posted by Glass

Exactly how are they being Christ-like while being ignorant hate mongers? Jesus seemed to be the opposite of that. I mean the bible says specifically, not to hate. What Does the Bible Say About Hate?

Hatred and judgement are against Christ's teaching, so doing those things would be more the opposite of Christian.

I do not mean to sound like I'm growling. I just really don't like being lumped into their hate group. :/

However Christ did show hatred and judgment towards both the Pharisees and tax collectors.

RavynneSidhe: Christ said specifically that he hated what they were doing, and he said that they didn't know God. He pointed out the flaws in their teaching. He did not hate them.

And exactly how did he show hatred or judgement toward tax collectors, by eating with them, and teaching them in their homes? I think you are thinking of the money changers and gamblers who had set up shop in the temple. And again, he didn't hate them. He was pissed that they were doing what they were doing, in a temple. Being that gambling is technically a sin, and these people were under, and claiming to be following Gods law, while breaking it in his house.

Do you have a particular dislike for Christians and/or Christianity? I know there are certain groups out there, who tend to cause that.

Originally Posted by Glass

RavynneSidhe: Christ said specifically that he hated what they were doing, and he said that they didn't know God. He pointed out the flaws in their teaching. He did not hate them.

And exactly how did he show hatred or judgement toward tax collectors, by eating with them, and teaching them in their homes? I think you are thinking of the money changers and gamblers who had set up shop in the temple. And again, he didn't hate them. He was pissed that they were doing what they were doing, in a temple. Being that gambling is technically a sin, and these people were under, and claiming to be following Gods law, while breaking it in his house.

Do you have a particular dislike for Christians and/or Christianity? I know there are certain groups out there, who tend to cause that.

He didn't eat with the tax collectors inside the temple nor did he teach them. He flung a table over and grabbed a whip and started swinging it around him as he approached them. He also called the Pharisees, vipers. Those three acts are not nonjudgemental nor are they loving.

Not only that but everyone has their own interpretation of Christ. Some see him as loving other see him as judgmental. Their interpretation is not invalidated by your own or other peoples's interpreation of them.

I find it funny how you flat out accuse me of hating Christians. Based on what? Whether or not I like or hate Christians is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I believe someone asked you to stop using ad homeniem attacks in a previous thread and actually read what people are posting. I ask that you do the same as well as refrain from using No True Scotsman fallacies.

Originally Posted by RavynneSidhe

He didn't eat with the tax collectors inside the temple nor did he teach them. He flung a table over and grabbed a whip and started swinging it around him as he approached them. He also called the Pharisees, vipers. Those three acts are not nonjudgemental nor are they loving.

Not only that but everyone has their own interpretation of Christ. Some see him as loving other see him as judgmental. Their interpretation is not invalidated by your own or other peoples's interpreation of them.

I find it funny how you flat out accuse me of hating Christians. Based on what? Whether or not I like or hate Christians is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

I believe someone asked you to stop using ad homeniem attacks in a previous thread and actually read what people are posting. I ask that you do the same as well as refrain from using No True Scotsman fallacies.

The Pharisees represented everything that was wrong (from a biblical perspective), with Judaism at that time. The Pharisees placed an emphasis on ritual cleanliness opposed to spiritual cleanliness. They would quite happily stone folks to death for breaking random laws like picking corn on Sabbath ect. Jesus was constantly at loggerheads with them. I don't know if the bible's representation of them is historical or metaphorical (which nicely coincides with the New Testaments running theme of 'out with the old and in with the new'), but they are portrayed as not very nice people. Did Jesus hate them? Again I don't know really, most of his anger seemed to stem from pure frustration. The Pharisee could never perceive Jesus' work for what it was. They would always interpret it as an offense to God rather then a sign of Jesus' divinity... and then they would try and stone Jesus :( Which is bound to upset anyone, and Jesus kinda of knew that they would have him killed- double :(

However it should be noted that Jesus expressed that we are not allowed to be judgmental- he never applied that law to himself. In some instances he even hints that he himself will be the judge. Us on the other hand are not allowed to judge because we judge by 'human standards'.

As for the tax collectors, well one his apostles, Matthew, was a tax collector, and Jesus stayed with Zacchaeus who was a chief tax collector. Again, I don't know if this is historical based or an extension of the inclusive Kingdom of Heaven metaphor that runs through the gospels.

Jesus' ministry emphasized love, understanding, and tolerance. This seems to be blown out the water when groups of Christians like the Westboro start picketing soldier's funerals in the name of Jesus, or in more wide spread cases where the Bible is used to justify hatred and discrimination. It's not right- but people do it- and this can be applied to any ideology. A person can claim to subscribe to an ideology without knowing what those beliefs are.

RavynneSidhe: I wasn't attacking you. At all. I asked if you disliked Christians, because you seemed to to me, based upon the fact that you keep calling them judgmental, and saying that Christ was hateful.

I neither meant to attack, nor thought that it sounded like one. If it did, then I Apologize. Okay? I am sorry.

Since we don't seem to get along, I'm gonna leave you alone okay? I'll go unsubscribe from this thread.

Originally Posted by Glass

RavynneSidhe: I wasn't attacking you. At all. I asked if you disliked Christians, because you seemed to to me, based upon the fact that you keep calling them judgmental, and saying that Christ was hateful.

I neither meant to attack, nor thought that it sounded like one. If it did, then I Apologize. Okay? I am sorry.

Since we don't seem to get along, I'm gonna leave you alone okay? I'll go unsubscribe from this thread.

Again I never stated that you attacked me. However I wasn't calling Christians judgmental but saying that everyone interprets Christ differently. Meaning that while you may view Christ as loving and not judgmental, the person next to you will think that his love is a hateful and judgmental one.

Again, try reading the deeper meaning of the post before making assumptions. It makes you look like an ass as well as me :|

I think everyone should just forget the idea of religion, all of it is a bunch of poop and causes unnecessary arguing about dumb stuff that's not even there.

As far as your problems explaining these things to people, it doesn't matter what they say or think because if you know you're really right, then that's the most important part. :0 Since everyone interprets everything in their own way, and most people don't like it when others disagree with them, even if it's not in an "attackey" way.

Originally Posted by rawcookiedough

Which the "God Hates X" people are doing, just in their own way with their own interpretation, are they not? (Pisses me off too by the way. I'd poke 'em with a stick if I could.)

Well, I'd slap them upside the head if I could.

But then again, everyone is different. We all have different interpretations, and ways of thinking. One person may see one thing as something spectacular while another hates it. Others may not even give a damn. We're not able to agree with everybody.

I'm not involved in religion or Wicca or any of that stuff, because I feel like it is too complicated. Sure, it is nice to be able to fall back on something you believe in during hard times, but there will always be hate from the people who disagree with you. I feel that it is better to stay neutral. Sorry if I've offended anybody in my short rant. :sweat: