Magna Carta, document on freedom and rights in "Catholic" England, A.D. 1215...(not unrelated)
Posted on 11/30/2001 7:55:36 AM PST by Aquinasfan
??
Wicca has connections to ancient panthiestic and pagan religions. Since it is "a" religion, it is a religion as much as any other religion is -- I take it that is your point?
A broad range of religious expressions must be tolerated by the State, in the interest of domestic tranquility and freedom of conscience. That does not mean that they are all intellectually equivalent in their apprehension of truth, or equally benefically to society.
Or: Maybe your point is, that in your eyes, Catholicism is as silly as wicca? The problem is, progress (to which most materialists adhere as a worldview if not a dogma) is an outgrowth of the Judeo/Christian apprehension of history: time being linear from beginning to end; history having purpose; the world having been created in a rational manner such that it can be understood. (Einstein: "the most incomprehensible thing about the Universe is that it is comprehensible". Well, at least HE understood the theory of relativity!!)
The history and philosophy of science are fascinating. As was posted above, the symbol chosen by the Nazis (the swastika) was an ancient symbol of many old religions, which believed in eternal recurrance, rather than the linear view of history adopted in Western thought.
So it has mattered and does matter what a people believes . . . to their future on this earth as well as the next. BTW, I think we are all here trying to understand and reach truth, not to trying to win debating points . . .
Now if you really believed this, you wouldn't moralize, because it would be pointless. But then in the next sentence, you make a truth claim:
Nobody would argue that there are some extremely sicko religions out there (ahemElRonahem). But Wicca ain't one of 'em. It's just weird.
So is Wicca really weird? Or is this just your ultimately meaningless opinion?
If only materialists would be more rigorous about their own philosophy, they would see how untenable it really is.
Magna Carta, document on freedom and rights in "Catholic" England, A.D. 1215...(not unrelated)
Something is true or it is not true. Logic and science itself depend upon it. I.E. drawing an inference from known facts . . .
Norse/Teutonic cosmology
C. S. Lewis studied Norse lore extensively, and he eventually embraced Christianity. (e.g. his Mere Christianity). (Wasn't he a big time skeptic for a while?) He knew a lot more about the Norse/Teutonic mythology than I do at the moment. However, the Nazis embraced the recurrence notion associated with the swastika, whether the Norse did or not. The reason it was called "the thousand year Reich." They anticipated the cycle of history overtaking the Reich, but wanted to grasp the ring for the Nazi time . . .
The Greeks and Romans left a lot to civilization. It was left to the Christian West to preserve and build upon their achievements in law, philosophy, etc. (Reading a history of Islam: during a time they were open to Europe, they obtained Greek/Roman knowledge from the West). It could be argued that the Greeks/Romans took progress as far as their philosophical worldview would permit. The scientific method, etc., then came from the Christian West . . . (The Vandals and Vikings and other tribes wandering around Europe didn't seem to be particularly interested in preserving Greek/Roman writings?)
LOTS of wacky weirdness
The basis of Catholic thought however is not weird, but rational. There was an encyclical released a couple years ago, I'd butcher the Latin title: Faith and Reason. In a nutshell, faith and reason are compatible. They each lead to one and the same truth . . .
The theory of relativity, for example, gives insight into the understanding of what eternity might be like, timewise . . .
If you happen to be one of 'em then obviously it won't seem silly. But to everone else...
As you suggest, the supposed "weirdness" of Catholicism is not weird when you understand it, using the gift of rational thought . . .
Do you realize that this statement is self-contradictory?
You don't even get your own philosophy. Either everything is absolutely, utterly, meaningless matter in motion or not. Nothing can be "more important" than anything else by definition.
The reason why you have trouble understanding your own primitive, materialistic, philosophy is because we don't live in a purely material, meaningless universe. Such a universe can only exist in a thought experiment, and a very difficult one at that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.