More wrestling with human mental filters...follow your ❤ heart...if you feel you are being helpful and kind through the use of magic as your catalyst to healing...carry on, 
Best Wishes.
Best Wishes.
Can I be a Christian White Witch?
- Thread starter Ghoulia Yelps
- Start date
- Aug 21, 2015
- 9,446
- 89,065
- 2,590
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 5w4
A few of my friends are both Christian and pagan.
I feel like that's a bit disingenuous on a couple of levels, literalists exist in many religions and making interpretations of presented data is more or less how we navigate life, not just religion. On top of that, just because people make interpretations, doesn't mean their interpretations are illogical, people have to make logical interpretations to make effective decisions in life.
You feel it's disingenuous do you? I don't think your criteria are very rational. I don't think that much of what I say is disingenuous at all, but then I'm much more familiar with things I say than you are.
I make effective decisions all the time on the basis of criteria that are illogical. (Sorry if you can't accept that.)
It's ok to believe that the Bible is a literal record of the Truth. I think that many people choose to believe that. As a scholar of texts in general, that seems to me to be highly irrational. But then again, I see absolutely no inherent problem with people choosing to believe irrational things. They are free to believe what they want.
Logic is a word that has come to be synonymous with reasoning, but its origin is that of referring to the field of studying human reasoning. Given that study (logos; -ology) is a social activity of human reasoning, the field itself is recursive, ie. it is reasoning about reasoning. It has come to replace 'reasonableness'. Nowadays, a person is more likely to be referred to as logical than reasonable. There is still a distinction in that the field of study is not singular, but social. An individual can reason, but cannot solely encompass the field of logic. The word "illogical" has no meaning as an opposition to the field of study as a whole, but has become a synonym for being "unreasonable." or that aspect studied within logic that is fallacious.
So it is understandable how you two may be using the word from different contexts. The field of study can and does encompass the study of fallacious reasoning and "illogical" arguments. In this roundabout manner, logic can thusly include the illogical and be referred to as illogical itself.
If that isn't terribly clear, another way to think about the distinction is that a person can reason, but cannot unreason. A person can be either reasonable or unreasonable though. The former is the individual's action, while the latter is a description from an outside observer. Likewise, logic is a field of study while there isn't really a thing referred to as illogic, but people can be either logical or illogical. The words unreason and illogic do exist, but as back formations of their adjectival forms.
In logic, there is a distinction between "validity" and "soundness." A valid argument is one that simply follows from the premises (the assumptions). Whereas a sound argument is one in which the premises have to also be true:
An argument is sound if and only if
1. The argument is valid, and 2. All of its premises are true.
For instance,
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The argument is valid (because the conclusion is true based on the premises, that is, that the conclusion follows the premises) and since the premises are in fact true, the argument is sound.
The following argument is valid but not sound:
All organisms with wings can fly.
Penguins have wings.
Therefore, penguins can fly.
Since the first premise is actually false, the argument, though valid, is not sound.
When it comes to religious arguments, validity can be an aspect in that it should not contain any internal contradictions. The soundness of the arguments tend to be unverifiable though because those arguments attempt to contextualize all of life or known reality, so the contextualization (premises and assumptions) tends to be outside our boundaries.
So it is understandable how you two may be using the word from different contexts. The field of study can and does encompass the study of fallacious reasoning and "illogical" arguments. In this roundabout manner, logic can thusly include the illogical and be referred to as illogical itself.
If that isn't terribly clear, another way to think about the distinction is that a person can reason, but cannot unreason. A person can be either reasonable or unreasonable though. The former is the individual's action, while the latter is a description from an outside observer. Likewise, logic is a field of study while there isn't really a thing referred to as illogic, but people can be either logical or illogical. The words unreason and illogic do exist, but as back formations of their adjectival forms.
In logic, there is a distinction between "validity" and "soundness." A valid argument is one that simply follows from the premises (the assumptions). Whereas a sound argument is one in which the premises have to also be true:
An argument is sound if and only if
1. The argument is valid, and 2. All of its premises are true.
For instance,
All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
The argument is valid (because the conclusion is true based on the premises, that is, that the conclusion follows the premises) and since the premises are in fact true, the argument is sound.
The following argument is valid but not sound:
All organisms with wings can fly.
Penguins have wings.
Therefore, penguins can fly.
Since the first premise is actually false, the argument, though valid, is not sound.
When it comes to religious arguments, validity can be an aspect in that it should not contain any internal contradictions. The soundness of the arguments tend to be unverifiable though because those arguments attempt to contextualize all of life or known reality, so the contextualization (premises and assumptions) tends to be outside our boundaries.
Last edited:
Is Christianity compatible with paganism? Sycretic religions with Christianity like Haitian Vodou, which is thought to be a combination of Christianity and elements of African religion. "Revealed" religious systems, like Christianity tend to be more exclusive and their adherents often take dim view of this sort of thing, seeing it as corruption. Personally I say go for it and do whatever it takes to find your path.
I suppose if one were Catholic, it would be a bit easier to reconcile, given that traditionally, they pray to various Saints and Mother Mary and Jesus. And often times, Catholics who choose to incorporate Wicca choose Jesus and Mother Mary/Mary Magdalene as their Lord and Lady.
Read this https://www.amazon.com/dp/006223496X/?tag=infjs-20 It will give you an entire different perspective on everything you've been taught.
You might also want to google Christian Mysticism.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/006223496X/?tag=infjs-20 It will give you an entire different perspective on everything you've been taught.You might also want to google Christian Mysticism.
Can you affirm the Nicene Creed? Well if so, that qualifies you as a Christian notwithstanding who whines about it. As for witches, you have got me, just don't be like that white witch In Narnia. Try something more uplifting, and maybe tropical. A Christian tropical witch. That sounds like fun.
Last edited:
I suppose you could be a christian who is very confused.
You mean like the rest of them?
I am forever baffled as to why IN types cling to religion, constantly debating and trying to validate it's relativity to their moral compass. Given, I did that also, but I was about 10 years old before I knew better. "Will I be a sinner and go to hell if God doesn't approve of my thoughts or actions?" Obviously people read, learn, discover and intuit at different rates.
Spoiler alert:
You will go to hell if you believe you will go to hell. And as far as I'm concerned, if you are living under the oppression of religious doctrine / testament, you are effectively already in hell, because you do not own yourself entirely. Religion to me is the existential equivalent to fascism. Living in fear makes you powerless, and easy to control.
You are god. All religion is a misinterpretation of what is found and uncovered from a true spiritual awakening, often over the course of many years.
Last edited:
It doesn't matter what others think is possible or not. Religion / a belief system is just that. Just because a couple million people follow 1 specific variant of say christianity, does not mean that that variant is right for you.
You should do what feels right for you. That is the way most religions have formed over the years, christianity is no different as it is not even remotely close to being the oldest religion, despite what some people might think. If you feel that you wish to combine christianity and support it with witchcraft. who is to say it is right or wrong to do so ?