In the religion of wicca and the understanding of universal law, who made these 'laws' doctrine and upon what science are they considered truth??
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
so it is your belief that only Wiccan's can provide science for any point of theology?
Crowley has no authority in Wicca, and is not even universally respected, making your citation of his opinions completely fallacious.
You kinda were. Crowley is about as relevant in the Wiccan DIR as some random nun.I wasn't recomending Crowley had any authority in Wicca.....
Uh huh. And if opinions vary, that means they're not universal.And this discussion isn't about whether or not you feel he was or was not universally respected, although opinions vary and depending on who you ask.
Wicca is not 'occultism.' Used specifically, that word describes a different movement, and used vaguely includes several non-Wiccan groups.If you ask ten occultist one question, you'll get ten different answers.
Yeah... what, precisely is "the religion of universal law?" Your opinion?And since it is commonly accepted that the religion of universal law reign supreme in the lives of some of our magickal.practitioners, I was hoping to stick to the original question....
Dude. When someone refuses to answer a trick question, calls you on the fact that the premise is invalid, and refuses to answer... repetition really doesn't help your case.What universal laws prove the rede or the law of three??
"Validation" makes me think of science experiments and standards that would be improper to use for many theological questions. Your example of the Rede earlier, Barrackubus, is a stance on ethics. You don't "validate" ethics; you either hold to them or you don't. They're social constructs that are agreed upon by those who hold to them. Such social constructs endure likely because they are useful to those who hold to them. You keep to certain traditions because they work and because they are useful. That utility is usually backed by direct, personal experience. You could call that a "validation" but that is too technical of a term for my liking.
Given the vast majority of Neopagans (Wiccan or otherwise) are first-generation, blind faith is rare. They came to the path because it spoke to them and they agree with its precepts. As for the historical origin of certain "rules" within the system, that's a different discussion entirely. Wikipedia does a pretty decent job of answering those kinds of questions.
I don't. See? Not that hard at all.And as far as Crowley being universally respected, I would be hard pressed to find those that don't value some of what he said. His knowledge and teaching has had an impact upon those of us that seek the other path. Clearly, I don't understand why someone would make this arguement, specifically when he is number 47 on last centuries top one hundred most influential people..