Christianised pagananism.

[Wolfpoet]

I've noticed a certain irony. Christianity adopted and subverted many aspects of old Pagan beliefs and incorporated them into their own dogma. Today it seems Pagans have incorporated Christian beliefs into their own ways of thinking.

I have noticed aome common themes in modern Wicca and Paganism. Peace, love, freedom. Essentialy these are the beilefs carried over from Western Christianity, stripped of the Dogma and contradictions of the Churches and fitte dinto new belief systems to match morality we already had.

Druids sacrificed people.

The Greeks and Romans sacrificed animals and had Gladiators kill each other to honour certain religous festivals.

The Norse raped, pillaged and murdered their way through Europe. Hell the used to blood-eagle folks to start feuds.

All the ancient religions where brutal and as subtle as a thrown half-brick. Peace and love sometimes applied, but realy only as long as you where talking about peace for the worshippers not anybody else. Sure, polytheistic faiths where less inclined to convert other religions but they where not too interested in playing nice either.

These concepts of peace and love are essentialy the new testament stuff. Love thy neighbour and such. The actual words of jesus are perhaps the only part of Christianity that consistently appeals. The dogmatic stuff was bolted on afterwards to maintain church power.

It's interesting to compare modern Paganism with it's ancient roots and realise how much western and christian morality has affected these beliefs.

[Carla O'Harris]

This seems silly to me. The desire for peace is near universal. This does not disclude the fact that warlike elements can be found everywhere as well, and contradictions are found in every society.

I see no reason to glorify the worst of the ancients.

[Wolfpoet]

This seems silly to me. The desire for peace is near universal. This does not disclude the fact that warlike elements can be found everywhere as well, and contradictions are found in every society.

I see no reason to glorify the worst of the ancients.


*points to correct end of the stick*

Who's glorifying the worst? If you consider the more "barbaric" practices of our forefathers as their worst aspects, you already prove the point i have made.

Western morality is heavily influenced by the christian ideal. Western laws are based around the ten commandments in many countries. While the old Norse laws where based around common sense and practicality.

Where the practices of the ancients so bad? If one looks at them from the standpoint of their own morality then such acts and practices are perfectly justiified. When we look at them from the viewpoint of christian ethics, they seem barbaric and wrong.

[Twinkle]

I've noticed a certain irony. Christianity adopted and subverted many aspects of old Pagan beliefs and incorporated them into their own dogma. Today it seems Pagans have incorporated Christian beliefs into their own ways of thinking.

I have noticed aome common themes in modern Wicca and Paganism. Peace, love, freedom. Essentialy these are the beilefs carried over from Western Christianity, stripped of the Dogma and contradictions of the Churches and fitte dinto new belief systems to match morality we already had.

Druids sacrificed people.

The Greeks and Romans sacrificed animals and had Gladiators kill each other to honour certain religous festivals.

The Norse raped, pillaged and murdered their way through Europe. Hell the used to blood-eagle folks to start feuds.

All the ancient religions where brutal and as subtle as a thrown half-brick. Peace and love sometimes applied, but realy only as long as you where talking about peace for the worshippers not anybody else. Sure, polytheistic faiths where less inclined to convert other religions but they where not too interested in playing nice either.

These concepts of peace and love are essentialy the new testament stuff. Love thy neighbour and such. The actual words of jesus are perhaps the only part of Christianity that consistently appeals. The dogmatic stuff was bolted on afterwards to maintain church power.

It's interesting to compare modern Paganism with it's ancient roots and realise how much western and christian morality has affected these beliefs.


I wouldn't agree with you on this...I think it's the other way around.

There's really no evidence that Jesus existed....the New Testament wasn't written until at least 150 years after his death.(that's if he even existed)...so there are no "actual" words of Jesus Christ.

Anyway....if you look at Catholocism...it's rituals are actually highly paganized. Wedding rings, the Mass itself...Easter. Paganism came first....the Church took these rituals for their own purposes.

Peace, love, etc may be Christian tenets....but they're not necessarily pagan tenets...at least not to all pagan paths.

[Twinkle]

I had another thought....Christianized paganism is actually an oxymoron....In my opinion there's no such thing.

To be a Christian or believe in Christian tenets you have to believe in a Abrahamic religion.....paganism(if we're going to try to define it) is non-Abrahamic....see the conflict?

[Wolfpoet]

I wouldn't agree with you on this...I think it's the other way around.

There's really no evidence that Jesus existed....the New Testament wasn't written until at least 150 years after his death.(that's if he even existed)...so there are no "actual" words of Jesus Christ.

Anyway....if you look at Catholocism...it's rituals are actually highly paganized. Wedding rings, the Mass itself...Easter. Paganism came first....the Church took these rituals for their own purposes.

Peace, love, etc may be Christian tenets....but they're not necessarily pagan tenets...at least not to all pagan paths.

Please note my first paragrapth acknowledged that much christian rituals are taken from pagan ones. Most of the old crhistian-saxon siants where just the old saxon spirits remaned.

[PeatBog]

There's indication that Jesus was an Essene, and when he speaks of "love thy neighbor", he was speaking of loving your fellow sect members, not your blood relatives and general public. It seems ideals like "love", "peace", "freedom" and such were initially popularized during the age of enlightenment, and have really only placed a firm hold recently, especially since the American revolution, and later the sixties. But I agree that seeds were planted in parts of early Christian texts as well as other early religious texts (Buddhist, Hindu, Taoist, etc.). Alot of various pagan beliefs were passed along orally so it's hard to know for many of them.

[Twinkle]

So maybe I'm not understanding the question.....

Peace, love, etc are pagan concepts that are actually Christian?

As I said....not all pagans follow the whole peace and love thing....

Please let me know if I'm missing something.

[Wolfpoet]

I had another thought....Christianized paganism is actually an oxymoron....In my opinion there's no such thing.

To be a Christian or believe in Christian tenets you have to believe in a Abrahamic religion.....paganism(if we're going to try to define it) is non-Abrahamic....see the conflict?


You are looking at my post the wrong way. In the same way christians took pagan rituals and conepst and turned them to christian use. Modern pagans have turned reversed the process.

Originaly they molded christianity to match existing beliefs so they could convert people easier. we are seeing a certain reversal of the trend in pagans taking christian concepts and working within them to create the faith.

It's not so much pagsn believeing in jesus, it's pagsn adopting their old beliefs to their new ones.

[Vincent Verthaine]

So maybe I'm not understanding the question.....

Peace, love, etc are pagan concepts that are actually Christian?

As I said....not all pagans follow the whole peace and love thing....

Please let me know if I'm missing something.
Sorry to interupt
Not all christians follow the peace and love thing either.
Just saying.
Carry on and don't mind me.

[Twinkle]

*points to correct end of the stick*

Who's glorifying the worst? If you consider the more "barbaric" practices of our forefathers as their worst aspects, you already prove the point i have made.

Western morality is heavily influenced by the christian ideal. Western laws are based around the ten commandments in many countries. While the old Norse laws where based around common sense and practicality.

Where the practices of the ancients so bad? If one looks at them from the standpoint of their own morality then such acts and practices are perfectly justiified. When we look at them from the viewpoint of christian ethics, they seem barbaric and wrong.


I agree. If you look at the ancients from a historical context...then what may be considered barbaric by some now was not so barbaric back then.....

We're in a Christianized world.....so even as pagans we're going to sometimes look at things from the Christian perspective...especially if we were Christians before we were pagans....

IMO that's the danger of neopaganism....it's difficult for me to see how someone could call themselves pagan but look at everything with a Christian slant.

I'm sorry it took me so long to get what you were saying....


I think what we're ending up with in a lot of new neo-pagan faiths is a hybrid that's not Christian and not pagan....it's a bit of both....and probably will not be accepted by Pagans or Christians.

[PeatBog]

Yeah, good points, not all pagans or christians believe in that stuff anyhow. Any pagans that believe in it might adhere to pythagoreanism, gnosticism, plato's idealism, or such rather than new testament.

[Twinkle]

Yeah, good points, not all pagans or christians believe in that stuff anyhow. Any pagans that believe in it might adhere to pythagoreanism, gnosticism, plato's idealism, or such rather than new testament.


And I'm not sure how a Pagan could adhere to Gnosticism.....unless you're talking about Pagan Gnosticism.....

[Wolfpoet]

IMO that's the danger of neopaganism....it's difficult for me to see how someone could call themselves pagan but look at everything with a Christian slant.

I'm sorry it took me so long to get what you were saying....

No prob, that is EXACTLY what I am trying to articulate. Many of us, myself included, come to our various pagan beliefs from christian origins. The very fact that paganism is a polytheistic faith means not only is it hard to leave behind christian morality, we can not deny the old christian god.

If we can believe in the existence of other pantheons, does this not mean the christian trinity is equaly valid?

This is where the ground gets murky. Traditions and beliefs mix and the result is not truly paganism, but a hybrid of christian and pre-christian teaching.

I can use myself as a clear example. I come from a catholic background, but embraced the traditions of my ancestors. However I have never been able to leave certain traditions from my christian past. For instance whenever i pass a war memorial I make the sign of the cross. This is a sign of respect engraved in me from a very young age, a gesture to honour the dead who died so that i may live free. A very christian philosophy, neh?

On the flipside I ave never bene able to accept christian morality, it never makes sense to me. The world is not rosy, it is not as clear cut as portrayed in religous teachings. As Vincent pointed out, christians are not very good at obeying their own tenets. I come from a nation famed more for eradicating peoples that we didn't like than for turning the other cheek.

I accepted the dog eat dog realities of the Nordic faith long before I knew the name of Odin. Perhaps in future generatiosn followersa of our faiths may be able to shake off their christyian origins, perhaps the world will evolve a unique multi-faith approach that makes such discussions a moot point (I won't hold my breath however).

[Twinkle]

I catch myself all the time looking at things from the Christian perspective because that's how I was raised.....

I think that the Holy Trinity is valid for those that believe in it.....I have trouble when people start mixing the Trinity with Ancient beliefs and practices.

I'm a Hellenic Polytheist...a Reconstructionist....Recon is not inflexible, but it does not allow one to substitute Jesus for Zeus.....

[Wolfpoet]

I catch myself all the time looking at things from the Christian perspective because that's how I was raised.....

I think that the Holy Trinity is valid for those that believe in it.....I have trouble when people start mixing the Trinity with Ancient beliefs and practices.

I'm a Hellenic Polytheist...a Reconstructionist....Recon is not inflexible, but it does not allow one to substitute Jesus for Zeus.....


Pretty much the same for me.

Odin and jesus are not interchangeable. Christianity to me always seems like a crutch. the Nordic faith kicks you up the arse and forces you to deal with life.

[Twinkle]

It's the same with the Ancient Greeks.....We're held responsible for what we do or don't do....:)

[David19]

I think i understand what you're saying and i think i've noticed some 'pagans' that seem to think they're 'more' Christian than Christian's (if that makes sense), for example, some will say that there's only 1 goddess and everything else is an 'aspect' of her/it, or some Wiccan's (and others, not just Wiccan's) will use the 3 fold law to basically say 'look, we're more moral than Christian's' or some might ignore history completly, and say that YHWH is actually a female, until those 'big bad male Jew's' got a hold of him, and will seem to try and say that in 'pagan' times, people were basically 'Christian-like' but 'better'.

Not sure if that makes much sense, i hope it does, but i'm also tired right now, so it might just be me rambling ;).

[Twinkle]

It makes absolute sense....and this is what frustrates me. If you look at it from a historical aspect....there's not a lot of substance to those claims....it's personal opinion.

And that's fine....I'm not one to say that anyone's beliefs are not valid....they just might not be historically accurate.

[Carla O'Harris]

*points to correct end of the stick*

Who's glorifying the worst? If you consider the more "barbaric" practices of our forefathers as their worst aspects, you already prove the point i have made.

Western morality is heavily influenced by the christian ideal. Western laws are based around the ten commandments in many countries. While the old Norse laws where based around common sense and practicality.

Where the practices of the ancients so bad? If one looks at them from the standpoint of their own morality then such acts and practices are perfectly justiified. When we look at them from the viewpoint of christian ethics, they seem barbaric and wrong.



Yes, and if you look at the Nazi's behavior from the standpoint of their own morality their acts were completely justified. So the f... what? This is if anything a case against ethical relativism.

Yes, I do in fact think that carving out someone's lungs from their bodies represents the worst of the ancients. I do in fact think that cruelty, oppression, and imperialistic war represents the worst of the ancients.

And where we have access to what the ancients had to say --- mainly in literate Rome and Greece --- we find all kinds of longing for peace, justice, and freedom.

[Carla O'Harris]

I agree. If you look at the ancients from a historical context...then what may be considered barbaric by some now was not so barbaric back then.....

We're in a Christianized world.....so even as pagans we're going to sometimes look at things from the Christian perspective...especially if we were Christians before we were pagans....

IMO that's the danger of neopaganism....it's difficult for me to see how someone could call themselves pagan but look at everything with a Christian slant.

I'm sorry it took me so long to get what you were saying....


I think what we're ending up with in a lot of new neo-pagan faiths is a hybrid that's not Christian and not pagan....it's a bit of both....and probably will not be accepted by Pagans or Christians.




Well, won't things be wonderful when we can get back to the good-old days of glorifying war, torture, cruel forms of slaughter as being wonderful and spiritual?

[Twinkle]

Yes, and if you look at the Nazi's behavior from the standpoint of their own morality their acts were completely justified. So the f... what? This is if anything a case against ethical relativism.

Yes, I do in fact think that carving out someone's lungs from their bodies represents the worst of the ancients. I do in fact think that cruelty, oppression, and imperialistic war represents the worst of the ancients.

And where we have access to what the ancients had to say --- mainly in literate Rome and Greece --- we find all kinds of longing for peace, justice, and freedom.


You're making a moral judgement based on your own perspective and opinion.
You're not looking at from a historical and cultural viewpoint.

The Nazis are not an Ancient People that had their own culture and belief system.

IMO you can't use that to prove your point...two different things.

The Ancient Greeks did find a longing for peace, justice and freedom...their whole culture was built around it....and it directly tied in with their spirituality and the worship of the gods....you may not like what they did or how they practiced or even how they lived....but that's your opinion...and not based on actual historical evidence of how the Greeks felt about war, sacrifice or even pedastery.

If you have some please provide it.

[Twinkle]

Well, won't things be wonderful when we can get back to the good-old days of glorifying war, torture, cruel forms of slaughter as being wonderful and spiritual?


Once again...your own moral judgement and opinion.

If you actually have a piece of historical evidence to back up your moral judgement that what the Greeks were doing in their time was morally reprehensible...please show it.

[ViolinGoddess]

There's really no evidence that Jesus existed....the New Testament wasn't written until at least 150 years after his death.(that's if he even existed)...so there are no "actual" words of Jesus Christ.

Anyway....if you look at Catholocism...it's rituals are actually highly paganized. Wedding rings, the Mass itself...Easter. Paganism came first....the Church took these rituals for their own purposes.

===> Actually, there IS historical evidence that Jesus of Nazereth exsisted. THere was found a Roman record (as the romans were known to keep spesific records) that stated that a man named Jesus of Nazereth was crucified outside of Jeruselum in the year 33AD. I can't remember what museum the record now resides in.

Also, the New Testement started being written only 33 years after Jesus died with the Gospel of Mark. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were disciples of Jesus'. They knew him personally. They were there when he gave his sermons. SO what they wrote about him and what he said is as close as history is going to get to exactly what Jesus said. Paul, on the other hand. Never met Jesus. He didn't start writing until many years ofter Jesus had died. It wasn't until the Council of Nicea that was put together by Constantine in 356AD that the Bible was put together and the books in were chosen.

As far as Catholicism is concerned, there is a reason that there are a lot of similarities between catholicism and paganism. Because as the Holy Roman Empire was taking over pagan lands, the church felt that it would be easier to convert the pagans if they assimilated some of their practices into christianity. THey use incense in their rituals (masses). SO they built churches on top of pagan sacred sites. They raised the Virgin Mary up to Goddess status so that the Goddess worshiping pagans could relate better to a female figurehead. They took a lot of the pagan holidays and renamed them and used them as christian holidays. They even took the Goddess Brigit and made her a saint.

Violin Goddess

[ViolinGoddess]

IMO that's the danger of neopaganism....it's difficult for me to see how someone could call themselves pagan but look at everything with a Christian slant.


I think what we're ending up with in a lot of new neo-pagan faiths is a hybrid that's not Christian and not pagan....it's a bit of both....and probably will not be accepted by Pagans or Christians.

That's what you would call a Christian Witch!

Violin Goddess

[Twinkle]

Actually...the document you're describing states that it was the brother of Jesus Christ....there's evidence that Pontius Pilate was an actual person...not Jesus Christ....New Testament or not....

I knew the stuff about Catholocism...but I appreciate that you posted the information.:)

I don't invalidate Christian Witches...it's just beyond my comprehension how one can be a Christian Witch....it makes no sense to me.

[Dale Ivarie]

I find that most of my thoughts on this issue are redundant..after reading wolfpoets posts...

Yup the idea of absolute good and evil, the good being non violent, definatly stems from new testament christiantiy

Many of the ancient religons were much more relatavistic in their view of "good" and "evil".

The spirit of religious practices of the ancient celts, norse, greeks etc were much more gritty and mired in the spiritual "muck" of life, shades of gray acceptance of violence and other things that new testament christianity labels as "evil"..

These cultures embraced life with all its warts, they saw the interplay of nature where life requires violence and death to continue...

This is seen over and over in the rituals and practices of these cultures..to have the every thing is goodness and light version of celtic or norse spirituality is in my view doing a disservice to the cultures from which these rich spiritual practices sprung...

Dale

[Tim]

===> Actually, there IS historical evidence that Jesus of Nazereth exsisted. THere was found a Roman record (as the romans were known to keep spesific records) that stated that a man named Jesus of Nazereth was crucified outside of Jeruselum in the year 33AD. I can't remember what museum the record now resides in.
I would really like some sources if you can provide them... I would love to look it up... every thing I've read has stated there is no record of Jesus from Jesus' time... though the name was common... there is no evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth who preached... though there are plenty of records for other figures at the time claiming to be prophets and messiahs.


Also, the New Testement started being written only 33 years after Jesus died with the Gospel of Mark. Mark, Matthew, Luke and John were disciples of Jesus'. They knew him personally.
This is what Christians want to believe... but again there is no proof that the Gospels were actually written by the men that they are attributed to... many theologians date at least three of the four in the second century and unable to be written by any of the apostles.

[PeatBog]

Yup the idea of absolute good and evil, the good being non violent, definatly stems from new testament christiantiy

Many of the ancient religons were much more relatavistic in their view of "good" and "evil".


Well, Zoroastrianism metaphysics, which preceded the new testament by centuries, featured good vs. evil.

[Carla O'Harris]

Not to mention large sects within Hinduism, etc.

The idea that we can only critique ethics from within a society is absolutely absurd, and an idea stemming from a hopelessly conservative model of sociology.

And the idea that Iron Age religions were more "realistic" because they accepted Iron Age realities is absurd, given how much people in Roman, Greek, and Germanic culture mourned the loss of the Golden Age, and looked forward to its restoration. They may have "accepted" that it was indeed the Iron Age, but that was, if anything, something to be mourned and corrected. The loss of Balder, for example, was one of the greatest tragedies the world ever faced, where almost every being known wept.

It's true that there was an acceptance of the life-and-death cycle, but this by no means indicates that it was an "everything goes" mentality that celebrated gore.

Keep in mind that the "blood eagle" is not even a certainty. It is certainly something disputed by historians. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_eagle,
which includes a reference to a historian I'm not fond of, Hutton. But since he seems to be accepted as quite legitimate when it comes to Wicca, it may be relevant to quote portions here :


There has been debate as to the factuality of such accounts. Some credit the Gotland Stones [2] as archeological evidence attesting to the factuality of the blood-eagle as presented in Norse literary traditions. Some have suggested that the "blood eagle" was never actually practiced, arguing that such accounts are based upon unsupported folklore or upon inaccurate translations. Ronald Hutton's The Pagan Religions of the Ancient British Isles: Their Nature and Legacy reports that "the hitherto notorious rite of the 'Blood Eagle,' the killing of a defeated warrior by pulling up his ribs and lungs through his back, has been shown to be almost certainly a Christian myth resulting from the misunderstanding of some older verse." (p 282)

Roberta Frank writes in her article, “Viking Atrocity and Skaldic Verse: The Rite of the Blood-Eagle”, that “By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the various saga motifs - eagle sketch, rib division, lung surgery, and 'saline stimulant' - were combined in inventive sequences designed for maximum horror.” (p 334)


But none of this is very surprising, given the flimsy way that people choose "religions" (re : strong pop-culture motifs) in the postmodern age, uncritically choosing a genre that appeals to them, reifying it in a completely ahistorical fashion, and then defending its boundaries, without any concern for the flow of history, the relationship of that genre to other genres, or alternative perspectives on that genre. Thus one can be "into" Norse religion the same way another is "into" Anime, with unexamined ideology and temperament guiding one into the genre that seems fitting, with competing reconstructionalists essentially fighting battles over historical-romance territories, an odd form of 21st century literary idolatry. In the case of those attracted to "Norse religion" (so-called), the guiding temperament is often that of either Social Darwinism or an alienated military-brat mentality, which selects from within the genre everything that confirms that particular way of viewing the world, and then attempts to justify the ideology through the invocation of religion that then makes it blasphemous to question. The projection of Social Darwinism and extreme forms of militarism into Germanic-Scandinavian material has been rampant since the Romantic age. The fact that Germanic and Scandinavian cultures were entire societies with diverse longings, interests, and occupations, and that our in-view on these cultures are biased by outsider-reports most often encountering the warrior or raider class, does not dawn on those whose real interests are promoting and reinforcing their own militarist, social darwinist views on the world, a kind of "Boyd Rice"ism wrapped in Norse clothing. Nor do they ever take the time to consider that the most worshipped god amongst the Scandinavians, hands down, was a god of peace and prosperity. The fact that Germanic-Scandinavian cultures militarized in response to both external imperial threats as well as internalized stratification stimulated by imperial economic bribery is also neglected.

All of this is used to promote a cynical realism whereby only those things which are most "harsh" are considered to be real, and therefore to be affirmed, against which anything else is "soft". Any counter-examples -- for example, the extreme popularity of both Freyr and Balder, Balder for whom the entire einheriar fight so that he may rule again -- are ignored.

The idea that peace, love, and freedom are Christian values which had no place in heathen societies is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.

[Infinite Grey]

You know, it's a hard thing to create the impression of hot air via the internet... :viking:

[Carla O'Harris]

You know, it's a hard thing to create the impression of hot air via the internet... :viking:

I don't know, Peacock, you seem to do pretty well all the time.

Good day.

[Infinite Grey]

I don't know, Peacock, you seem to do pretty well all the time.

Good day.

hmmf! That was uncalled for! http://www.clicksmilies.com/s0105/spezial/Fool/hmm.gif Insulting me for no reason!

[Meabh23]

*points to correct end of the stick*

Who's glorifying the worst? If you consider the more "barbaric" practices of our forefathers as their worst aspects, you already prove the point i have made.

Western morality is heavily influenced by the christian ideal. Western laws are based around the ten commandments in many countries. While the old Norse laws where based around common sense and practicality.

Where the practices of the ancients so bad? If one looks at them from the standpoint of their own morality then such acts and practices are perfectly justiified. When we look at them from the viewpoint of christian ethics, they seem barbaric and wrong.

Western morality actually comes from many streams. Christianity is today seen as tolerant and about love and peace. It wasn't always seen nor practiced that way. To say that morality based on peace and love didn't also come from earlier pagan societies is to not have done one's historical research.

Other things you stated that are inaccurate are: The Norse. While today we have this image of Viking hordes raping and pillaging, that is a one sided and limited view of a complex and widespread culture which also gave modern Europe the basis and foundation of much of its maritime trade networks. They had a high level of culture and a very sophisticated polytheist-based religion.

The Druids. While it is often repeated that they practiced human sacrifice, it is not true. There still is no conclusive evidence outside of Julius Caesar's account of the burnings of people alive. Some people question whether it was a fabrication of his, or whether he misinterpreted the execution of heinous criminals. Archaeological evidence lends no support to the human sacrifice idea. As for the Celts on surviving cultural records, there are no accounts of Druids practicing human sacrifice. Since these records were written by Christian monks and scribes during the times of conversion or much later, it stands to reason that they would have used any excuse to paint the Druids in a bad way. Yet they didn't.

Also, what about the morality of peace and love that existed in ancient India and gave rise to both ethical systems of Buddhism and Hinduism long before Christianity?

You seem to be prejudiced about human ancestors. Your view reminds me of the views of westerners during the Victorian era. If you look back clearly at the surviving evidence, you may find that humanss were remarkable sophisticated and had advanced systems of morals and ethics even in long dead ancient societies. You may also find evidence of malice and callousness where you may least expect it.

[coaxialkettle]

'modern'worship?

[Wolfpoet]

Not to mention large sects within Hinduism, etc.

The idea that we can only critique ethics from within a society is absolutely absurd, and an idea stemming from a hopelessly conservative model of sociology.

And the idea that Iron Age religions were more "realistic" because they accepted Iron Age realities is absurd, given how much people in Roman, Greek, and Germanic culture mourned the loss of the Golden Age, and looked forward to its restoration. They may have "accepted" that it was indeed the Iron Age, but that was, if anything, something to be mourned and corrected. The loss of Balder, for example, was one of the greatest tragedies the world ever faced, where almost every being known wept.

It's true that there was an acceptance of the life-and-death cycle, but this by no means indicates that it was an "everything goes" mentality that celebrated gore.

Keep in mind that the "blood eagle" is not even a certainty. It is certainly something disputed by historians. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_eagle,
which includes a reference to a historian I'm not fond of, Hutton. But since he seems to be accepted as quite legitimate when it comes to Wicca, it may be relevant to quote portions here :




But none of this is very surprising, given the flimsy way that people choose "religions" (re : strong pop-culture motifs) in the postmodern age, uncritically choosing a genre that appeals to them, reifying it in a completely ahistorical fashion, and then defending its boundaries, without any concern for the flow of history, the relationship of that genre to other genres, or alternative perspectives on that genre. Thus one can be "into" Norse religion the same way another is "into" Anime, with unexamined ideology and temperament guiding one into the genre that seems fitting, with competing reconstructionalists essentially fighting battles over historical-romance territories, an odd form of 21st century literary idolatry. In the case of those attracted to "Norse religion" (so-called), the guiding temperament is often that of either Social Darwinism or an alienated military-brat mentality, which selects from within the genre everything that confirms that particular way of viewing the world, and then attempts to justify the ideology through the invocation of religion that then makes it blasphemous to question. The projection of Social Darwinism and extreme forms of militarism into Germanic-Scandinavian material has been rampant since the Romantic age. The fact that Germanic and Scandinavian cultures were entire societies with diverse longings, interests, and occupations, and that our in-view on these cultures are biased by outsider-reports most often encountering the warrior or raider class, does not dawn on those whose real interests are promoting and reinforcing their own militarist, social darwinist views on the world, a kind of "Boyd Rice"ism wrapped in Norse clothing. Nor do they ever take the time to consider that the most worshipped god amongst the Scandinavians, hands down, was a god of peace and prosperity. The fact that Germanic-Scandinavian cultures militarized in response to both external imperial threats as well as internalized stratification stimulated by imperial economic bribery is also neglected.

All of this is used to promote a cynical realism whereby only those things which are most "harsh" are considered to be real, and therefore to be affirmed, against which anything else is "soft". Any counter-examples -- for example, the extreme popularity of both Freyr and Balder, Balder for whom the entire einheriar fight so that he may rule again -- are ignored.

The idea that peace, love, and freedom are Christian values which had no place in heathen societies is one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.

*Takes note of a good example of focussing on one thing loosely connected to the topic at hand to sidetrack and ignore the actual points being discussed*

[Carla O'Harris]

Take note of very central points, surrounded by some contextualization. Like the points about the Golden Age, Balder, and Freyr.

[Carla O'Harris]

Western morality actually comes from many streams. Christianity is today seen as tolerant and about love and peace. It wasn't always seen nor practiced that way. To say that morality based on peace and love didn't also come from earlier pagan societies is to not have done one's historical research.

Other things you stated that are inaccurate are: The Norse. While today we have this image of Viking hordes raping and pillaging, that is a one sided and limited view of a complex and widespread culture which also gave modern Europe the basis and foundation of much of its maritime trade networks. They had a high level of culture and a very sophisticated polytheist-based religion.

The Druids. While it is often repeated that they practiced human sacrifice, it is not true. There still is no conclusive evidence outside of Julius Caesar's account of the burnings of people alive. Some people question whether it was a fabrication of his, or whether he misinterpreted the execution of heinous criminals. Archaeological evidence lends no support to the human sacrifice idea. As for the Celts on surviving cultural records, there are no accounts of Druids practicing human sacrifice. Since these records were written by Christian monks and scribes during the times of conversion or much later, it stands to reason that they would have used any excuse to paint the Druids in a bad way. Yet they didn't.

Also, what about the morality of peace and love that existed in ancient India and gave rise to both ethical systems of Buddhism and Hinduism long before Christianity?

You seem to be prejudiced about human ancestors. Your view reminds me of the views of westerners during the Victorian era. If you look back clearly at the surviving evidence, you may find that humanss were remarkable sophisticated and had advanced systems of morals and ethics even in long dead ancient societies. You may also find evidence of malice and callousness where you may least expect it.



Very well said.

[Wolfpoet]

Take note of very central points, surrounded by some contextualization. Like the points about the Golden Age, Balder, and Freyr.


You completely ignore the entire point of what I have posted. Not surprising considering your fundamentalist viewpoint.

Nowhere did I argue ancient cultures did not have concepts like peace and love. At no point did I say such a thing, yet you saw fit to go crusading on a point I never cited.

I am saying that in modern paganism old christian belifs have been adopted and adpated.

[Wolfpoet]

Western morality actually comes from many streams. Christianity is today seen as tolerant and about love and peace. It wasn't always seen nor practiced that way. To say that morality based on peace and love didn't also come from earlier pagan societies is to not have done one's historical research.

Other things you stated that are inaccurate are: The Norse. While today we have this image of Viking hordes raping and pillaging, that is a one sided and limited view of a complex and widespread culture which also gave modern Europe the basis and foundation of much of its maritime trade networks. They had a high level of culture and a very sophisticated polytheist-based religion.

The Druids. While it is often repeated that they practiced human sacrifice, it is not true. There still is no conclusive evidence outside of Julius Caesar's account of the burnings of people alive. Some people question whether it was a fabrication of his, or whether he misinterpreted the execution of heinous criminals. Archaeological evidence lends no support to the human sacrifice idea. As for the Celts on surviving cultural records, there are no accounts of Druids practicing human sacrifice. Since these records were written by Christian monks and scribes during the times of conversion or much later, it stands to reason that they would have used any excuse to paint the Druids in a bad way. Yet they didn't.

Also, what about the morality of peace and love that existed in ancient India and gave rise to both ethical systems of Buddhism and Hinduism long before Christianity?

You seem to be prejudiced about human ancestors. Your view reminds me of the views of westerners during the Victorian era. If you look back clearly at the surviving evidence, you may find that humanss were remarkable sophisticated and had advanced systems of morals and ethics even in long dead ancient societies. You may also find evidence of malice and callousness where you may least expect it.


I am well aware of the positive aspects of ancient cultures. I was merely pointing out certaan aspects of ancient cultures considered wrong by modern morality. However I never mentioned Druids burning anybody.

The Norse did indeed pillage, murder and rape on their expeditions to Europe. I pointed that out to make my point, their culture did not consider this moraly wrong.

In Nordic culture they had a firm and mostly fair legal system, there where rights for Women built into that law and also in their culture. These laws and customs regarding equality where some of the first to be removed when the christians took over.

But i do like the idea of people grabbing reasons to detract from my original post and points. Gives me allot of insight into human nature.

[Carla O'Harris]

I am well aware of the positive aspects of ancient cultures. I was merely pointing out certaan aspects of ancient cultures considered wrong by modern morality. However I never mentioned Druids burning anybody.

The Norse did indeed pillage, murder and rape on their expeditions to Europe. I pointed that out to make my point, their culture did not consider this moraly wrong.

In Nordic culture they had a firm and mostly fair legal system, there where rights for Women built into that law and also in their culture. These laws and customs regarding equality where some of the first to be removed when the christians took over.

But i do like the idea of people grabbing reasons to detract from my original post and points. Gives me allot of insight into human nature.




I have noticed aome common themes in modern Wicca and Paganism. Peace, love, freedom. Essentialy these are the beilefs carried over from Western Christianity

Maybe it's human nature to respond to an original post where you state that peace, love, and freedom are essentially beliefs of Western Christianity carried into Paganism, suggesting that these have little to do with paganism. Hmmm, wonder where we got that?

[Carla O'Harris]

The Norse did indeed pillage, murder and rape on their expeditions to Europe. I pointed that out to make my point, their culture did not consider this moraly wrong.


Y'know, it doesn't stop it from being wrong, and we don't need Christianity to establish that. All we need do is talk to all the rape victims. Accepted practice does not mean correct practice.

[ap Dafydd]

Yes but, no but...

Or, do you still shout "Jesus!" if you step on a rake?

I do agree that there are ways that some Pagans these days try to blur the boundaries, but not necessarily the ones that were originally suggested.

I remember someone pointing out some years ago that the Goddess was not "Yahweh in drag", which I thought was an apposite comparison.

Many Pagans _do_ come from formerly Christian backgrounds, and I think that moving from one to the other involves more than just changing the place that you light your candles, and more than just changing the dates that you do your religious observations, it does involve thinking very carefully about the basis for your morality and your understanding of the world, and examining literally _every_ one of your former beliefs in a new light.

Paganism _isn't_ something that has basically the same teachings as Christianity, it has totally different ones on pretty much everything. If someone isn't ready to make those changes in perspective (for whatever reason) then fair enough. But if you are convinced about Paganism, then be prepared to see those changes happen.

gwyn eich byd

Ffred

[Wolfpoet]

Y'know, it doesn't stop it from being wrong, and we don't need Christianity to establish that. All we need do is talk to all the rape victims. Accepted practice does not mean correct practice.

Again, looking at past culture with your modern morality.

[Wolfpoet]

Maybe it's human nature to respond to an original post where you state that peace, love, and freedom are essentially beliefs of Western Christianity carried into Paganism, suggesting that these have little to do with paganism. Hmmm, wonder where we got that?

Lets look at the full paragrapth, with the extra bit you conveninatly snipped.

"I have noticed aome common themes in modern Wicca and Paganism. Peace, love, freedom. Essentialy these are the beilefs carried over from Western Christianity, stripped of the Dogma and contradictions of the Churches and fitte dinto new belief systems to match morality we already had."

I suggested that modern pagans have adopted their OLD christian beliefs into their modern ones. I did not at any time suggest the old beilefs where devoid of certain concepts. i suggested that in their current form, many of these concepts are christian ones adapted and absorbed.

[Carla O'Harris]

Again, looking at past culture with your modern morality.


Oh what kind of crack are you on? I said if we could talk to the rape victims, they'd certainly have some strong condemnation. You're taking ethical relativism wayyyy too far.

[Wolfpoet]

Oh what kind of crack are you on? I said if we could talk to the rape victims, they'd certainly have some strong condemnation. You're taking ethical relativism wayyyy too far.

*debates use of the report button for the accusation of drug abuse*

I'm taking ethical relativism too far? Or perhaps your too entrenched in your own morality.

Relativism is an over-used term. used by people who hold their own moral views above those of others and anything that argues the point is considered relativist.

[Carla O'Harris]

I'm not suggesting you use any kind of drug.

I'm not too entrenched in my own morality. The difference between someone like you and someone like me is that I have not turned off my capacity of empathy. If you would like to argue that certain societies or segments of societies in the past turned off their empathy, that's certainly very arguable. But if you're going to argue that an injurious, coercive, cruel action is not unethical simply because the victors wrote the history over the often unheard objections of the victims, that is absurd, ridiculous, and contradictory.

[Ron]

The concept of Univeralism explains what you are saying. Go look it up in your local Wikipedia.

[Wolfpoet]

I'm not suggesting you use any kind of drug.

I'm not too entrenched in my own morality. The difference between someone like you and someone like me is that I have not turned off my capacity of empathy. If you would like to argue that certain societies or segments of societies in the past turned off their empathy, that's certainly very arguable. But if you're going to argue that an injurious, coercive, cruel action is not unethical simply because the victors wrote the history over the often unheard objections of the victims, that is absurd, ridiculous, and contradictory.

Ok, so first you suggest I'm smoking some kind of crack, now you imply I have turned off my capacity for empathy? Does insulting people make you feel better abot yourself?

Incidently the Norse where not the victors, their traditions, culture and relgion was almost destroyed by Christianity.

I notie you grabbe dhold of rape with an almost limpet like tenacity. I guess it's the only point I made you feel you can adequately argue. But so be it, I suggest 20 paces and matched verbal flintlocks would be fair, neh?

I would suggest the real difference between someone like you and someone like me is i am not close minded. I hold my own morality yet i do not apply it to anything other than my own dealings. i do not judge people by what i consider is right or wrong, nor do i attempt to make people follow my ethical code.

I didn't realy want to turn this into a discussion on morality but you inability to debate my original points without twisting them to suit your own arguments or to threadjack onto another subject, has turned this into just such a disussion. However I can do this without trading insults, something you are seemingly unable to do.

The problem with any fundamentalist viewpoint, your Pagan one or george Bush's christian one, is that there is no room for any other ideaological standpoint. You are right, anyone else is wrong.

Incidently, while rape can and is used as a tool of war (as the Norse used it) I feel it is moraly wrong. But you seem obsessed by it, not me.

[Nitefalle]

Wolfpoet, I understand the point you're trying to make. However, our forefathers based our secular, societal morals on the "Christian" morals - to take away "thou shalt not kill" from the secular law books would introduce anarchy, for example. These laws are too entrenched in our society and our mindset to even try and separate who views them as religious and who views them as simply common sense to hold society together. While they might have been originally based on Christian precepts from the New Testament, that is not how they are viewed or used, not for many centuries. So, saying that, while I do understand your point, I think it's kinda moot.

[Wolfpoet]

Wolfpoet, I understand the point you're trying to make. However, our forefathers based our secular, societal morals on the "Christian" morals - to take away "thou shalt not kill" from the secular law books would introduce anarchy, for example. These laws are too entrenched in our society and our mindset to even try and separate who views them as religious and who views them as simply common sense to hold society together. While they might have been originally based on Christian precepts from the New Testament, that is not how they are viewed or used, not for many centuries. So, saying that, while I do understand your point, I think it's kinda moot.

Nightfalle, before others threadjacked things this wasn't about old testament laws.

The original point was that Chrisyianity adopted many pagan ideas. Now modern pagans are adopting christian ideas into their pagan beliefs. But considering the threadjacking and flaming it's easy to lose track of that.

[Dale Ivarie]

My view on the subject is simply that some people should spend a little more time examing their own beliefs and the sources for them. A lot of pagans spend a large amount of time being critical of christianity, while the core world view is based on christian morality..

Again I bring out the point that the ancient cultures where relatvistic in their moral outlook..killing was not always wrong...many other acts which christian morality considers bad were acceptable depending on the situation...

The books "the alphabet versus the goddess" does a nice job of pointing out the correlation between literacy and the formation of a moral absolutism. One could say that as cultures began to write down thier laws the moral view became more "black and white" rather than fluid as it was with oral cultures..very good book if you get a chance to read it.

This absolutism, which comes with a written law that never fluctuates and never changes is an aspect of the monotheisitic cultures in the west. You can see the absolutism in the arguements of many pagans.

well I will probably add some more after I think about things a bit more..I'm a little scatter brained at the moment...


Dale

[Twinkle]

What happened here was people could not debate the topic....so they highjacked it and spinned it somewhere else....

The original thought was that what people judge as barbaric is actually a Christianised view of things.....

When pushed to prove with historical evidence why they made a moral judgement on an ancient culture....why they believed that what the ancients were doing at that time was so morally wrong and reprehensible........they were unable to do so....and therefore changed the subject.

It's a common tactic that's used when people are backed into a corner logically and cannot prove their assertions.

[StormVixen]

Peace, love and freedom were probably around before Christianity (don't ya think)... Christian morals are probably just regular human morals... Positive AND negative (ancient sacrefices and modern wars etc.) are in all religions.


GRRRRRNESS


i tryed to reply to the first post when its was the only post here... i really cant be bothered to read this whole thread because there seems to be alot of arguing and i cant handle any more negative emotions.

[Nitefalle]

The original point was that Christianity adopted many People ideas. Now modern Peoples are adopting christian ideas into their People beliefs.

It's only fair, don't ya think? :lol:

[Wolfpoet]

It's only fair, don't ya think? :lol:

I don't argue that point Nitefalle :cheers:

[Twinkle]

I don't argue that point, either....the point I'm trying to make is that you can't make moral judgements against things using a Christian slant if you're going to call yourself a Pagan.

[Xirian]

What happened here was people could not debate the topic....so they highjacked it and spinned it somewhere else....

The original thought was that what people judge as barbaric is actually a Christianised view of things.....

When pushed to prove with historical evidence why they made a moral judgement on an ancient culture....why they believed that what the ancients were doing at that time was so morally wrong and reprehensible........they were unable to do so....and therefore changed the subject.

It's a common tactic that's used when people are backed into a corner logically and cannot prove their assertions.

I have been following this thread since the beginning and I believe you hit the nail on the head Twinkle.

I certainly see what Wolfpoet is trying to say and I believe it's something that I mentioned (not in such detail) in response to a post on another thread.


These laws are too entrenched in our society and our mindset to even try and separate who views them as religious and who views them as simply common sense to hold society together.
I do also agree with Nitefalle's point of view as well. However, I don't think the point is moot and I do not believe that this way of thinking has to be applied to a pagan religion or path. If you are a reconstructionist in an area where you are able to practice exactly as the ancients did and you're not under any obligations to view things as Christians did and do or to place any of their standards on your practices, then I think that is fine. However, if they do something that is morally objectionable from a human standpoint, then I personally feel that they should suffer the consequences of their actions.

If this doesn't make any sense or I missed the point completely, please let me know or just ignore this post altogether. :D

[Twinkle]

Peace, love and freedom were probably around before Christianity (don't ya think)... Christian morals are probably just regular human morals... Positive AND negative (ancient sacrefices and modern wars etc.) are in all religions.


GRRRRRNESS


i tryed to reply to the first post when its was the only post here... i really cant be bothered to read this whole thread because there seems to be alot of arguing and i cant handle any more negative emotions.


I don't dispute that peace love and freedome were probably common goals for all people....Christian or pagan.....

What's in dispute here is how those ideals were obtained.....The Ancient Greeks wanted peace....but in their culture and belief system they thought it best to want peace, but to be prepared for war.

Someone else may come here with a modern interpretation of morality and say that's immoral....but to the ancient people at that time it was not.....

It has nothing to do with empathy....or even emotion.

It's a discussion.

People debating an issue does not exactly mean negativity, btw....it means some conflict...but of the intellectual kind.

It can be helpful for learning new ideas and perspective.

[Zibblsnrt]

My view on the subject is simply that some people should spend a little more time examing their own beliefs and the sources for them.

If people spent half as much energy examining (and even criticising - note this does not necessarily mean "refuting") their own beliefs and worldviews as they did other peoples', there'd be far fewer ulcers in this world. Not enough people these days have a really good understanding of precisely what they think, and why.


I don't argue that point, either....the point I'm trying to make is that you can't make moral judgements against things using a Christian slant if you're going to call yourself a Pagan.

That depends entirely on the slant and the judgement, I'd think. There's a difference between a Christian slant in the sense of quoting Old Testament verse, and being moved to action by something like Waiter Rant's discussion of forgiveness (http://waiterrant.net/?p=225), which has Catholic roots but would likely resonate across a number of beliefs.

[Twinkle]

That's a very good point.....

But how much of our modern day morality is really pagan based....how much of it is Christian based? I'm thinking it's much more Christian based....and people are mixing the Christian belief system with the pagan one...mostly Wicca...and are coming up with a new religion that resembles neither.

I don't have to spout off a Bible verse to have a Christian slant....I don't have to quote the Wiccan Rede to have a pagan slant....

[PeatBog]

Moses was Egyptian, and the Ten Commandments were likely based on the Egyptian Book of the Dead. A pagan could believe "thou shall not kill", and still not be christian if they don't want to be. There were other ancient pagans who held similar principles.

[Twinkle]

You're assuming of course that The Ten Commandments are actually true...that the story of the Burning Bush and all that is literal text.

Are you trying to say that all gods are one God? If so....which one? The Abrahamic god or the non abrahamic one (s)?

[PeatBog]

Not really, the main point isn't Moses' authorship, which can be disputed, but the correlation of text.

... I wasn't addressing the nature of deity(s) here.

[Twinkle]

But you're assuming that the text is historically correct. There's no real evidence of when the Old Testament was written....and as far as I know no one has actually seen the stone Tablets with the Commandments written on them.

[PeatBog]

I agree, some miscommunication in the works, maybe I misworded something?

[Twinkle]

It's probably me....:hahugh:

Could you try it again? Use little words this time. LOL!!!

[PeatBog]

I'm referring to correspondence of text, not the authenticity.


Five of the Ten Commandments delivered from Mount Sinai can be found in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.


"Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain....Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not commit adultery...Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor..."
- Exodus 20: 7-16

'Not have I despised god...Not have I killed...Not have I fornicated...Not have I despoiled the thing of the god...not have I defiled the wife of a man...Not have I cursed god...Not have I borne false witness'.
- Egyptian Book of the Dead

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/egypt.html

[Tim]

I'm referring to correspondence of text, not the authenticity.

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/egypt.html

...but aren't those quotes being taken out of context... you could probably find quotes from The Lord of the Rings that could be matched up.

[Dale Ivarie]

good points and reference....
kudos peatbog...

Although I still argue that absolute moralism began as cultures became written rather than oral. Also that oral cultures were much more relatavistic...


Dale

[PeatBog]

...but aren't those quotes being taken out of context... you could probably find quotes from The Lord of the Rings that could be matched up.

Possibly, but it at least indicates some sharing or commonality of beliefs among ancient middle eastern societies. The Hebrew beliefs were not developed in complete isolation of surrounding pagan cultures.

[Lady Valkyrie]

I've noticed a certain irony. Christianity adopted and subverted many aspects of old Pagan beliefs and incorporated them into their own dogma. Today it seems Pagans have incorporated Christian beliefs into their own ways of thinking.

I have noticed aome common themes in modern Wicca and Paganism. Peace, love, freedom. Essentialy these are the beilefs carried over from Western Christianity, stripped of the Dogma and contradictions of the Churches and fitte dinto new belief systems to match morality we already had.

Druids sacrificed people.

The Greeks and Romans sacrificed animals and had Gladiators kill each other to honour certain religous festivals.

The Norse raped, pillaged and murdered their way through Europe. Hell the used to blood-eagle folks to start feuds.

All the ancient religions where brutal and as subtle as a thrown half-brick. Peace and love sometimes applied, but realy only as long as you where talking about peace for the worshippers not anybody else. Sure, polytheistic faiths where less inclined to convert other religions but they where not too interested in playing nice either.

These concepts of peace and love are essentialy the new testament stuff. Love thy neighbour and such. The actual words of jesus are perhaps the only part of Christianity that consistently appeals. The dogmatic stuff was bolted on afterwards to maintain church power.

It's interesting to compare modern Paganism with it's ancient roots and realise how much western and christian morality has affected these beliefs.

Maybe you are looking at the wrong Wiccans and Pagans then. In my experience Wiccans and Pagans who are all about "Love, Light, Harmony, and Peace" refuse to acknowledge the duality of the Gods & Goddesses, the duality within Nature itself, and even the duality within Human Nature. In short it's almost as though they believe if they try hard enough that they can make their idea of a Peaceful Utopia a reality. Personally I think that's a load of BS. Such Wiccans and Pagans are usually labeled as fluff bunnies... not neccessarily by me but by the Pagan community in general.

Now I personally believe in the duality of the Gods and Goddesses, Nature and Human Nature. Therefore I do not shy away from the darkness, the evil, the cruel, etc. However, I do believe that just as within Nature there must be a balance between the light and the dark... the beautiful and the cruel... the good and the evil... within my own human nature... therefore that's what I personally strive for that balance within myself.

And by the way, Christianity has it's share of darkness. For every good there is evil... for every evil there is good... like it or not there is a balance within the entire Holy Bible along with all the other Christian and Gnostic texts such as The Lost Books of the Bible, The Apocrypha, The Pistis Sophia, and The Nag Hammadi Library.

[Tim]

Possibly, but it at least indicates some sharing or commonality of beliefs among ancient middle eastern societies. The Hebrew beliefs were not developed in complete isolation of surrounding pagan cultures.
I agree with that. ...but the ancient Hebrews are a very different animal from modern Christians.

[Lady Valkyrie]

I had another thought....Christianized paganism is actually an oxymoron....In my opinion there's no such thing.

To be a Christian or believe in Christian tenets you have to believe in a Abrahamic religion.....paganism(if we're going to try to define it) is non-Abrahamic....see the conflict?


No I don't see the conflict... I am a Christian Wiccan... I am a Christian Witch... I practice Kitchen Witchery...

But it's nice to see you have an opinion.

[Lady Valkyrie]

Sorry to interupt
Not all christians follow the peace and love thing either.
Just saying.
Carry on and don't mind me.

Indeed... just think about the white supremist groups who claim they are doing what they are doing (spreading fear and hate like the racist SOB's that they are) all in the name of the Christian God. Boy what a rude awakening they are going to get on judgement day when they find out Jesus isn't a white boy but a Jew! LMAO! Oh and what about our Christian President that is in office right now and all of his fundamentalist Christian supporters who are supporting the continuance of the war? No, sometimes even Christians have their "dark" side. Just read the old testament (which Christians also believe in as well as the new testament), God told "his" people to slaughter whole entire nations... yep... even the Bible has equal parts of light and dark.

[Tim]

No I don't see the conflict... I am a Christian Wiccan... I am a Christian Witch... I practice Kitchen Witchery...

But it's nice to see you have an opinion.

So, in your opinion Wicca is not Pagan?

[PeatBog]

I agree with that. ...but the ancient Hebrews are a very different animal from modern Christians.

Maybe my main point wasn't clear. Pagans can believe "thou shall not kill", and cite pagan sources for such belief. There's the Egyptian Book of the Dead for reference, also Buddhist texts, Greek philosophy, and so forth.

I agree that modern Christians are different from ancient Hebrews. Many modern Christians would be reluctant to concede that they worship a Jewish deity, in fact.

[Tim]

Maybe my main point wasn't clear. Pagans can believe "thou shall not kill", and cite pagan sources for such belief. There's the Egyptian Book of the Dead for reference, also Buddhist texts, Greek philosophy, and so forth.
Oh, ok...

This may be just semantics but most of those are more appropriately transplanted as murder... many (if not all) Pagan cultures found no wrong in killing criminals or killing in war... and have text supporting such.

[Twinkle]

So, in your opinion Wicca is not Pagan?


I'd love to see a response posted to this one....

Is it Pagan? Is it Christian? Is it a combo? If so....how does one resolve the issues of deity....for example.

[Lady Valkyrie]

So, in your opinion Wicca is not Pagan?

Wicca is a Pagan religion... All Wiccans are Pagans... however, not all Pagans are Wiccans. Witchcraft is not a religion. It is a practice of Magick through Natural means using such things as ones own Mind, Body, Spirit, the Elements such as Earth, Air, Fire, Water, & things found within nature that have been shown to have magickal power such as, Herbs, Crystals, Essential Oils, etc., all to bring about a needed or wanted change. In my opinion, because practice of Witchcraft does not require a specific Diety or any Diety at all, it can be coupled with any religion or spiritual belief.

[Twinkle]

But doesn't the bible say that as a Christian you can't perform magick, use forms of divination, etc?

It seems to me that a Christian that practices magick would actually be committing a sin....and going against The Word of God...

You said you were a Christian Wiccan....and that all Wiccans are pagan....So you're saying you're a Christian Pagan?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[StephanieAine]

I wouldn't agree with you on this...I think it's the other way around.

There's really no evidence that Jesus existed....the New Testament wasn't written until at least 150 years after his death.(that's if he even existed)...


The following information comes from an article located at http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=213201

<snippet>
"The principal sources of information concerning Jesus' life are the Gospels, written in the latter half of the 1st century to facilitate the spread of Christianity throughout the ancient Western world. The Epistles of St. Paul and the Book of Acts also contain information about Jesus. The scantiness of additional source material and the theological nature of biblical records caused some 19th-century biblical scholars to doubt his historical existence. Others, differently interpreting the available sources, produced naturalistic biographies of Jesus. Today, however, scholars generally agree that his existence is authenticated, both by Christian writers and by a number of Roman and Jewish historians."

<end snippet>


I think that the real issue is that although most scholars agree about his existence as a man, there is debate about other things - obviously debate among people in general, not just scholars - for instance, as to whether he was both man and God. The Christian belief (which I hold) is that He is man and God, being the Son of God and the Second Person of the Trinity. But of course, not all people believe that.

[PeatBog]

Oh, ok...

This may be just semantics but most of those are more appropriately transplanted as murder... many (if not all) Pagan cultures found no wrong in killing criminals or killing in war... and have text supporting such.

Yeah, but also biblical text. Hebrews were in many wars too. I think our modern ethics are influenced not so much by the New Testament, but rather the age of enlightenment and further developments since then. Recently, the death penalty has been all but banished (the US and Saudi Arabia are about the only countries still using it).

[Twinkle]

Just to clarify....I'm not attacking....I just don't get it.

[Twinkle]

The following information comes from an article located at http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=213201

<snippet>
"The principal sources of information concerning Jesus' life are the Gospels, written in the latter half of the 1st century to facilitate the spread of Christianity throughout the ancient Western world. The Epistles of St. Paul and the Book of Acts also contain information about Jesus. The scantiness of additional source material and the theological nature of biblical records caused some 19th-century biblical scholars to doubt his historical existence. Others, differently interpreting the available sources, produced naturalistic biographies of Jesus. Today, however, scholars generally agree that his existence is authenticated, both by Christian writers and by a number of Roman and Jewish historians."

<end snippet>


I think that the real issue is that although most scholars agree about his existence as a man, there is debate about other things - obviously debate among people in general, not just scholars - for instance, as to whether he was both man and God. The Christian belief (which I hold) is that He is man and God, being the Son of God and the Second Person of the Trinity. But of course, not all people believe that.


Thanks for that.:) When I posted that I wasn't understanding the question...Wolfpoet and I don't actually disagree on this....

[StephanieAine]

Thanks for that.:) When I posted that I wasn't understanding the question...Wolfpoet and I don't actually disagree on this....

Not a problem <g>. I figured you didn't know it - so I wanted to show you just in case.

[StephanieAine]

Maybe my main point wasn't clear. Pagans can believe "thou shall not kill", and cite pagan sources for such belief. There's the Egyptian Book of the Dead for reference, also Buddhist texts, Greek philosophy, and so forth.

I agree that modern Christians are different from ancient Hebrews. Many modern Christians would be reluctant to concede that they worship a Jewish deity, in fact.


<Stephanie sounds the buzzer> Bzzzzzzzzt!
Misconception alert!

Actually, you're extremely wrong there (the part I put in bold). Christians are quite aware of Jesus' Jewishness, and in fact, there is a huge movement of Christians who donate money to help Russian Jews immigrate to Israel, to support Jewish causes, and so forth; there are churches that incorporate Jewish folkloric dance into their ordinary worship services (and of course, there are even some groups here and there that worship in an entirely "Messianic," Jewish-infused way... or even consider themselves Messianic Christians or Messianic Jews.)

To worship Jesus is to worship a Jewish Messiah. That's not something a Christian is 'reluctant to admit.' That's a source of pride, because not only is the Christian's heritage one that begins with Judaism, but also our God Himself chose to become flesh as a Jewish man.

We also pray for the peace of Jerusalem and support Israel as taught by Scripture. Nobody's reluctant to admit any Jewish connections!

[Tim]

The following information comes from an article located at http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?articleId=213201

<snippet>
"The principal sources of information concerning Jesus' life are the Gospels, written in the latter half of the 1st century to facilitate the spread of Christianity throughout the ancient Western world. The Epistles of St. Paul and the Book of Acts also contain information about Jesus. The scantiness of additional source material and the theological nature of biblical records caused some 19th-century biblical scholars to doubt his historical existence. Others, differently interpreting the available sources, produced naturalistic biographies of Jesus. Today, however, scholars generally agree that his existence is authenticated, both by Christian writers and by a number of Roman and Jewish historians."

<end snippet>


I think that the real issue is that although most scholars agree about his existence as a man, there is debate about other things - obviously debate among people in general, not just scholars - for instance, as to whether he was both man and God. The Christian belief (which I hold) is that He is man and God, being the Son of God and the Second Person of the Trinity. But of course, not all people believe that.


It is interesting that you pulled that off the History Channel's website... they aired a show not too long ago that went over the history of the Gospels which stated there was no way to authenticate the books to the first century... and every reference to Jesus by the Romans, Greeks and Jews were made well after his death.

[PeatBog]

It seems like many Christians (in the US anyways) prefer to worship a generic "God", not "Jehovah", but .... I dunno, that's great, Stephanie. Anyhow, off-topic, sorry.

[Tim]

Wicca is a Pagan religion... All Wiccans are Pagans... however, not all Pagans are Wiccans. Witchcraft is not a religion. It is a practice of Magick through Natural means using such things as ones own Mind, Body, Spirit, the Elements such as Earth, Air, Fire, Water, & things found within nature that have been shown to have magickal power such as, Herbs, Crystals, Essential Oils, etc., all to bring about a needed or wanted change. In my opinion, because practice of Witchcraft does not require a specific Diety or any Diety at all, it can be coupled with any religion or spiritual belief.

I know all that... but you said you are Christian Wiccan... and you saw no conflict, but Wicca is Pagan. I agree with one being a Christian and practicing Witchcraft... Witchcraft isn't specificly any religion. Just trying to understand how that works.

[Lady Valkyrie]

Just to clarify....I'm not attacking....I just don't get it.

And maybe you never will get it so long as you continue to try and make religion, spirituality, gods, goddesses, etc. behave in a way that fits your very specific and limited definitions leaving no room for expansion.

[Lady Valkyrie]

I know all that... but you said you are Christian Wiccan... and you saw no conflict, but Wicca is Pagan. I agree with one being a Christian and practicing Witchcraft... Witchcraft isn't specificly any religion. Just trying to understand how that works.


Yes, Wicca is a Pagan religion... so? Your point is...? Is your point that you also try and make religion, spirituality, gods, goddesses, etc. behave in a way that fits your very specific and limited definitions leaving no room for expansion?

[Lady Valkyrie]

It seems like many Christians (in the US anyways) prefer to worship a generic "God", not "Jehovah", but .... I dunno, that's great, Stephanie. Anyhow, off-topic, sorry.

There also seems to be a very broad use of the label "Christian." in America as well. So many people have different views on what exactly it takes to make one a Christian. Some believe as long as they go to church every so often and are "good" people that makes them a Christian. Others go to the other extreme and believe they must jumpe through the perverbial hoops of man made but allegedly inspired by Gods rules and reglations to be considered a Christian.

[Tim]

Yes, Wicca is a Pagan religion... so? Your point is...? Is your point that you also try and make religion, spirituality, gods, goddesses, etc. behave in a way that fits your very specific and limited definitions leaving no room for expansion?

So you don't know either?

[Twinkle]

And maybe you never will get it so long as you continue to try and make religion, spirituality, gods, goddesses, etc. behave in a way that fits your very specific and limited definitions leaving no room for expansion.


So why don't you explain it? What are your definitions? It's easy to say I have limited and specific definitions....

What are your definitions?

[Twinkle]

Hmmm.....Did I offend?

If one says they are a Christian Wiccan and sees no conflict....then when pressed says that Wicca is pagan.....then asked how Christianity and Paganism mix.....offers no explanation but says that I have too specific and limited definitions.....

I just want to understand it.

[Lady Valkyrie]

But doesn't the bible say that as a Christian you can't perform magick, use forms of divination, etc?

It seems to me that a Christian that practices magick would actually be committing a sin....and going against The Word of God...

You said you were a Christian Wiccan....and that all Wiccans are pagan....So you're saying you're a Christian Pagan?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I've already corrected you. You just can't wrap your mind around the thought is all. Yes, Wicca is a Pagan religion but, not all Pagans are Wiccan... now seeing as my beliefs are specifically about blending the fundamental basics of the religions Wicca and Christianity then it would be better to call myself a Christian Wiccan than to use such a broad and generic term such as Pagan. Can you wrap your mind around that?

[Lady Valkyrie]

Hmmm.....Did I offend?

If one says they are a Christian Wiccan and sees no conflict....then when pressed says that Wicca is pagan.....then asked how Christianity and Paganism mix.....offers no explanation but says that I have too specific and limited definitions.....

I just want to understand it.

It sounds like you want me to justify my personal religious and spiritual beliefs because you personally can not justify the blending of Wicca and Christianity or Paganism in general with Christianity. I refuse to be your scapegoat so to speak to justify your extremely limited beliefs of how religion and spirituality should behave.

[Twinkle]

What are the fundamental basics of Christianity and Wicca that you're blending?

And there's no need to be rude to me...I'm asking a question...you're getting emotional and defensive.

You're the one who said you found no conflict...I'm asking you to explain why.

I'm not judging...just trying to understand....if you want to take that as a personal attack that's your problem.

[Tim]

I've already corrected you. You just can't wrap your mind around the thought is all. Yes, Wicca is a Pagan religion but, not all Pagans are Wiccan... now seeing as my beliefs are specifically about blending the fundamental basics of the religions Wicca and Christianity then it would be better to call myself a Christian Wiccan than to use such a broad and generic term such as Pagan. Can you wrap your mind around that?
I get Wicca is a Pagan religion but, not all Pagans are Wiccan... still doesn't explain how a Wiccan (a Pagan since Wicca is a Pagan religion) can be Christian.

[Twinkle]

I've already corrected you. You just can't wrap your mind around the thought is all. Yes, Wicca is a Pagan religion but, not all Pagans are Wiccan... now seeing as my beliefs are specifically about blending the fundamental basics of the religions Wicca and Christianity then it would be better to call myself a Christian Wiccan than to use such a broad and generic term such as Pagan. Can you wrap your mind around that?


Ummm....didn't get anything wrong here....you said you were a Christian Wiccan...that Wicca is pagan, but not all pagans are Wiccan......

So when I asked the question if you were a Christian pagan....I was not incorrect. Wicca is pagan, yes?

[Lady Valkyrie]

Maybe if certain individuals in this thread are truely interested in learning about Christian Wicca maybe they should go to Mystic Wicks special forums dedicated for specific spiritual paths... Paths: Christian Witchcraft (http://www.mysticwicks.com/forumdisplay.php?f=223)

Or maybe they should just google such phrases like "Christian Wicca", "Christian Witchery", and "Christopaganism."

Doing such things would be more fruitful than badgering a fellow member of this message board.

[maphdet]

Excuse me, im poking in here real quick.

I have a question.

I read somewhere in this thread that Witchcraft is not a religion.

Did I read that correctly.
I was just wondering.

[Twinkle]

You read that correctly Maphdet.

[Twinkle]

Maybe if certain individuals in this thread are truely interested in learning about Christian Wicca maybe they should go to Mystic Wicks special forums dedicated for specific spiritual paths... Paths: Christian Witchcraft (http://www.mysticwicks.com/forumdisplay.php?f=223)

Or maybe they should just google such phrases like "Christian Wicca", "Christian Witchery", and "Christopaganism."

Doing such things would be more fruitful than badgering a fellow member of this message board.

If you didn't want to be questioned as to why you saw no conflict with Christian Wicca you shouldn't have posted in this thread.

If you don't want to(or can't) articulate your belief system and why you believe it...that's your right....just don't turn it on others when they ask you about it.
No one badgered you....you voluntarily posted...then when questioned about it you got angry and defensive.

End of story.

[Lady Valkyrie]

My last word on this issue is this, certain individuals need to understand there is a distinct difference between the following words... Christian Wiccan... Christian Witch... Christopagan. They are three different spiritual paths but are related. I am a Christian Wiccan... not a Christopagan. I am a Christian Witch... which is a given because Wicca is a pagan religion that embraces the practice of witchcraft. However, there are some Christian Witches out there who are not at all Christian Wiccans... just as the old saying goes all Wiccans are Witches but not all Witches are Wiccans. However, Christopaganism is a bit different... I have personally thought about going the Christopagan way for I do feel the pull of other forms of the Goddess... but at this moment in time... no... I am right now a Christian Wiccan. End of story. Please check out my website for any further info and PM me with any more questions. http://www.lady-valkyrie-37.net/LadyValkyrie.html And yes, I was being badgered. When it is evident that someone is being agitated and you do not back off... you are badgering. Also certain people made it quite obvious that they have their minds made up that in their eyes they just can't understand how such two religions can be blended... in my experience it's best not to even explain anything to such people because all they wish to do is chew your beliefs up and spit them out.

[Twinkle]

Not all Wiccans practice magick....you're really making some statements about Wicca that are grossly incorrect.....at least to some Wiccans.....Wicca to some definitely does not embrace magick.....

It's not a given.

[Tim]

My last word on this issue is this, certain individuals need to understand there is a distinct difference between the following words... Christian Wiccan... Christian Witch... Christopagan. They are three different spiritual paths but are related. I am a Christian Wiccan... not a Christopagan. I am a Christian Witch... which is a given because Wicca is a pagan religion that embraces the practice of witchcraft. However, there are some Christian Witches out there who are not at all Christian Wiccans... just as the old saying goes all Wiccans are Witches but not all Witches are Wiccans. However, Christopaganism is a bit different... I have personally thought about going the Christopagan way for I do feel the pull of other forms of the Goddess... but at this moment in time... no... I am right now a Christian Wiccan.

So are you considering Wicca to be Pagan or not? ...you seem to be contradicting yourself here... you call yourself Christian Wiccan but not Pagan but Wicca is a Pagan religion... what elements of Wicca did you remove to Christianize it to the point it was no longer Pagan?

[Twinkle]

That's why I asked her what basic fundamentals she blended from both paths.....

[maphdet]

Ok thanks Twinkle.
I just wanted to make sure.

I always thought that Witchcraft was recognized as a religion.

Hmm, btw does anyone know who does the recognizing for religions?

(i know off topic sorry)

[Twinkle]

From what I understand witchcraft is just magick....there's no specific deity invoked so virtually any path can be blended with it....but I may be wrong on that.

As to your other question....umm....I don't know. LOL!!!

[maphdet]

From what I understand witchcraft is just magick....there's no specific deity invoked so virtually any path can be blended with it....but I may be wrong on that.

Hmmm..Interesting.


As to your other question....umm....I don't know. LOL!!!

:lol:

:::Edit:::To say : Thanks for answering anyway Twinkle.

[Twinkle]

I don't have any problems admitting I don't know something....:lol:

[Tim]

Ok thanks Twinkle.
I just wanted to make sure.

I always thought that Witchcraft was recognized as a religion.

Hmm, btw does anyone know who does the recognizing for religions?

(i know off topic sorry)
Well... so many people use the words Wicca and Witchcraft so interchangeably I can see how you could be confused.

[maphdet]

Well... so many people use the words Wicca and Witchcraft so interchangeably I can see how you could be confused.

:rollingla












(but I did not say I was confused,
I said....I always thought it was reconized as religion)

[_Banbha_]

Maybe you are looking at the wrong Wiccans and Pagans then. In my experience Wiccans and Pagans who are all about "Love, Light, Harmony, and Peace" refuse to acknowledge the duality of the Gods & Goddesses, the duality within Nature itself, and even the duality within Human Nature. In short it's almost as though they believe if they try hard enough that they can make their idea of a Peaceful Utopia a reality. Personally I think that's a load of BS. Such Wiccans and Pagans are usually labeled as fluff bunnies... not neccessarily by me but by the Pagan community in general.[/B]

'Duality' is a Christian, New Age, and, for many, a Wiccan concept.

I'm an Irish Recon Pagan and Dualism is not a doctrine I adhere to. How I view the world and and percieve nature, and life in general are not through the black or white, light and dark, evil/good dichotomies.


So for me, and many others like myself, fluffy utopias don't even factor. It's for the "dualistic" crowd to tease each other about being fluff's. Leave other Pagans's out of it. I think it would be nice if Wiccans would be more thoughtful when generalizing about Pagans, because it always seems that assumptions like this abound where ever it happens.

The whole "Wiccan/Pagan" thing just doesn't fly in my book. We are all Pagan but we are not all Wiccan, or anything closely resembing it. :)

[Twinkle]

That's always been a pet peeve of mine as well....

I'm a Hellenic Polytheist and I don't adhere to duality at all....

[_Banbha_]

That's always been a pet peeve of mine as well....

I'm a Hellenic Polytheist and I don't adhere to duality at all....

:cheers:

I blame all the Wiccan 101 books for not spelling it out. :D

[Twinkle]

Me too!!!:lol:

[Tim]

The whole "Wiccan/Pagan" thing just doesn't fly in my book. We are all Pagan but we are not all Wiccan, or anything closely resembing it. :)

You just simply have a large group who refuse to see the diversity of Pagan religions... surprisingly most of those are solitary and eclectic... try to explain that all Pagan religions are not earth based, not all believe all Gods/desses are one God/dess, not everyone subscribes to the good/evil duality and people start to get little eye ticks.

[_Banbha_]

You just simply have a large group who refuse to see the diversity of Pagan religions... surprisingly most of those are solitary and eclectic... try to explain that all Pagan religions are not earth based, not all believe all Gods/desses are one God/dess, not everyone subscribes to the good/evil duality and people start to get little eye ticks.

If they are solitary, and have only read the Wiccan 101 books, with nothing to back them up or suppliment, involving ancient history and cultures, archaeology, or study of mythology from the source or a good translation....it's no wonder.

[Wolfpoet]

Been reading the monster my original post devolved into.

LAY OFF LADY VALKYRIE!

Christian paganism, Christian Wicca or Christian Witchcraft is bloody well justified!

Suffer not a witch to live? bullcrap, a miracle is perhaps by it's very definition a form of magic. Perhaps performed by a God through a mortal vessel, but this is often a common thing in other pagan religions.

I think people are bloody stubborn to seperate religions. It's Christianity AND paganism as seperate catergories, why?

If one can freely mix elements of different pagan religions, as wiccans and pagans do, why is it so strange to mix christian and pagan?

Essentilay the main-stream christians sects are cults, dominated by a single philosophy, often political. The main ethos of the christian faith is not the hate that fundamentalists try to sell on God TV. Forget the crap that preachers and fundies try to ram down your throats, go to the very heart of christianity and it does not preclude witchcraft.

Oh, and before someone trie to post it. I am fully aware of the old "suffer not a witch to live" line. But that crap was wriiten after jesus had died, last time I checked jesus never said to kill or hate ANYONE, he even suggested people love sinners.

Just because I have rejected the catholic faith don't mean I'm gonna sit by and let pagans rip into somebody for beaing brave enough to admit she has an open minded view of christianity.

[Carla O'Harris]

I've noticed a certain irony. Christianity adopted and subverted many aspects of old Pagan beliefs and incorporated them into their own dogma. Today it seems Pagans have incorporated Christian beliefs into their own ways of thinking.

I have noticed aome common themes in modern Wicca and Paganism. Peace, love, freedom. Essentialy these are the beilefs carried over from Western Christianity, stripped of the Dogma and contradictions of the Churches and fitte dinto new belief systems to match morality we already had.

Druids sacrificed people.

The Greeks and Romans sacrificed animals and had Gladiators kill each other to honour certain religous festivals.

The Norse raped, pillaged and murdered their way through Europe. Hell the used to blood-eagle folks to start feuds.

All the ancient religions where brutal and as subtle as a thrown half-brick. Peace and love sometimes applied, but realy only as long as you where talking about peace for the worshippers not anybody else. Sure, polytheistic faiths where less inclined to convert other religions but they where not too interested in playing nice either.

These concepts of peace and love are essentialy the new testament stuff. Love thy neighbour and such. The actual words of jesus are perhaps the only part of Christianity that consistently appeals. The dogmatic stuff was bolted on afterwards to maintain church power.

It's interesting to compare modern Paganism with it's ancient roots and realise how much western and christian morality has affected these beliefs.


Noting contradictions of ancient societies does not cancel out the fact that peace and love were strong motivations for those sectors of society who were not psychopaths. Psychopaths can be found in every culture ; so what? The only thing necessary is for the 90+% to arm themselves better against the blood-eagle-wielding, raping, murderous psychopaths. The Iron Age was a brutal age in many ways, as many ancient pagans noted and mourned. It was seen as a wolf age, an age of brother against brother, the very precursor to Ragnarok. Only the most wolfish of men celebrated this, and only the most wolfish of men turned the last era of the mythic age, when the Golden Age had completely broken down, into some kind of reification of how the religion had always been. But wolves will be wolves, won't they, always seeking out the wolfish? (Again, not directed at natural-wolves, but the ghoulish-wolves of Angrboda and the rest of that foul breed.)

[Wolfpoet]

Noting contradictions of ancient societies does not cancel out the fact that peace and love were strong motivations for those sectors of society who were not psychopaths. Psychopaths can be found in every culture ; so what? The only thing necessary is for the 90+% to arm themselves better against the blood-eagle-wielding, raping, murderous psychopaths. The Iron Age was a brutal age in many ways, as many ancient pagans noted and mourned. It was seen as a wolf age, an age of brother against brother, the very precursor to Ragnarok. Only the most wolfish of men celebrated this, and only the most wolfish of men turned the last era of the mythic age, when the Golden Age had completely broken down, into some kind of reification of how the religion had always been. But wolves will be wolves, won't they, always seeking out the wolfish? (Again, not directed at natural-wolves, but the ghoulish-wolves of Angrboda and the rest of that foul breed.)

I notive you backtracking to conveniantly ignore the insults you laid at my feet.

[Tim]

Suffer not a witch to live? bullcrap, a miracle is perhaps by it's very definition a form of magic. Perhaps performed by a God through a mortal vessel, but this is often a common thing in other pagan religions.


Oh, and before someone trie to post it. I am fully aware of the old "suffer not a witch to live" line. But that crap was wriiten after jesus had died, last time I checked jesus never said to kill or hate ANYONE, he even suggested people love sinners.

Just wanted to point out here that the "suffer not a witch to live" line is Exodus 22:18... long before Jesus... not after... but if we want to focus only on Jesus here...


Matthew 21:17-22
17. And he left them, and went out of the city into Bethany; and he lodged there. 18. Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. 19. And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. 20. And when the disciples saw it, they marveled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! 21. Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be cast into the sea; and it shall be done. 22. And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

Is this a God that respects nature... that kills, out of anger, a fig tree for not having fruit on it at the specific time he wants to eat?


Matthew 8:31-32
So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine. And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.

Mark 5:13
And forthwith Jesus gave them leave. And the unclean spirits went out, and entered into the swine: and the herd ran violently down a steep place into the sea, (they were about two thousand;) and were choked in the sea.

...here, instead of just bannishing the "devils" he casts them into a herd of swine and kills the herd... poor innocent animals.


I think people are bloody stubborn to seperate religions. It's Christianity AND paganism as seperate catergories, why?

If one can freely mix elements of different pagan religions, as wiccans and pagans do, why is it so strange to mix christian and pagan?

Syncretic and eclectic do not mean "one can freely mix elements".


I think people are bloody stubborn to seperate religions. It's Christianity AND paganism as seperate catergories, why?

I realize it's easier to call people stubborn then to actually explain one's concepts... but how does anyone learn?

[Carla O'Harris]

What happened here was people could not debate the topic....so they highjacked it and spinned it somewhere else....

The original thought was that what people judge as barbaric is actually a Christianised view of things.....

When pushed to prove with historical evidence why they made a moral judgement on an ancient culture....why they believed that what the ancients were doing at that time was so morally wrong and reprehensible........they were unable to do so....and therefore changed the subject.

It's a common tactic that's used when people are backed into a corner logically and cannot prove their assertions.


Au contraire, the point was proven beautifully. We are perfectly capable of evaluating the conduct of human beings in other times and other places regardless of their culture. Their culture may provide a context necessary for the evaluation, but culture is never a moral excuse. It is important to understand early-mid-twentieth century Germany in order to understand the behavior of the Nazis, but it does not excuse their actions, no matter how much they twisted up their little world-view to justify what they were doing. And that same logic applies to every time period.

Scoundrels are always ready to justify their activity, and what better way than through cultural apologetics. "Hey, you call it beating my wife, but in my culture I am simply disciplining her. It is a loving thing." Yah right.

Of course there are always going to be some grey zones. But there are also going to be areas where it's fairly easy to evaluate the ethics of an action, and hiding behind culture is just the excuse of cowards, scoundrels, and psychopaths.

[Carla O'Harris]

I don't argue that point, either....the point I'm trying to make is that you can't make moral judgements against things using a Christian slant if you're going to call yourself a Pagan.


First of all, you're defining "Pagan" as something exclusive of Christian, which hasn't been established.

Secondly, the definition of what is "a Christian slant" is itself slanted and inaccurate, if we're defining values such as peace, love, and freedom as Christian values --- as if no one ever valued those things strongly before Christianity came around!

[Tim]

First of all, you're defining "Pagan" as something exclusive of Christian, which hasn't been established.

How do you define "Pagan" so that it is not exclusive of Christian?

[Carla O'Harris]

Easy, by defining it in a non-exclusive manner. The exclusive assumption, that in order to be or enjoy one thing one must exclude others, is not a necessary premise. Tolerance and pluralism can certainly be argued to be polytheistic values.

[Carla O'Harris]

I've noticed a certain irony. Christianity adopted and subverted many aspects of old Pagan beliefs and incorporated them into their own dogma. Today it seems Pagans have incorporated Christian beliefs into their own ways of thinking.

I have noticed aome common themes in modern Wicca and Paganism. Peace, love, freedom. Essentialy these are the beilefs carried over from Western Christianity, stripped of the Dogma and contradictions of the Churches and fitte dinto new belief systems to match morality we already had.

Druids sacrificed people.

The Greeks and Romans sacrificed animals and had Gladiators kill each other to honour certain religous festivals.

The Norse raped, pillaged and murdered their way through Europe. Hell the used to blood-eagle folks to start feuds.

All the ancient religions where brutal and as subtle as a thrown half-brick. Peace and love sometimes applied, but realy only as long as you where talking about peace for the worshippers not anybody else. Sure, polytheistic faiths where less inclined to convert other religions but they where not too interested in playing nice either.

These concepts of peace and love are essentialy the new testament stuff. Love thy neighbour and such. The actual words of jesus are perhaps the only part of Christianity that consistently appeals. The dogmatic stuff was bolted on afterwards to maintain church power.

It's interesting to compare modern Paganism with it's ancient roots and realise how much western and christian morality has affected these beliefs.


Christian cultures have practiced capital punishment (arguably, the "human sacrifice" we hear so much of).

Christian cultures have also, like the Greeks and Romans, had Church BBQs. They have had religious wars, and they have had nonreligious wars sanctioned by religion.

Christians have raped, pillaged, and murdered.

If people have struggled against these in the present, they would have struggled against them in the past.

Societies have contradictions, and struggles with antisocial forces. The presence of contradictions is no indication of the desires of people for peace, love, and/or freedom. So to tell people, "Oh, you're applying a Christian model to paganism" when they speak of peace, love, and/or freedom is to confuse the desire for peace, love, and freedom with a particular expression of it that exists in a Christian setting. But desires for such things can be found in almost every religion, and sometimes quite implicitly rather than explicitly.

[Tim]

Easy, by defining it in a non-exclusive manner. The exclusive assumption, that in order to be or enjoy one thing one must exclude others, is not a necessary premise. Tolerance and pluralism can certainly be argued to be polytheistic values.

So basically the word Pagan (to you) means nothing beyond what the individual perceives it to be... that it can mean anything and/or everything?

[coaxialkettle]

No one is given
a map to their dreams
all we can do is to trace it
see where we go to
&know where we've been
build up the courage to face it
o we fumble in blindness
where once there was sight
searching for trees in the forest
oasis of love,sweet waters of life
god bless the poor ones who want some
but are denied...
god bless the poor ones
so helplessly
they have cried
god blees the poor ones whose patience
never dies
god bless the poor ones
on that one way
donkey ride
sandy d.

[Carla O'Harris]

So basically the word Pagan (to you) means nothing beyond what the individual perceives it to be... that it can mean anything and/or everything?

Those are your words, not mine. I posited the possibility of non-exclusive definitions.

[_Banbha_]

Been reading the monster my original post devolved into.

LAY OFF LADY VALKYRIE!

Christian paganism, Christian Wicca or Christian Witchcraft is bloody well justified!

Suffer not a witch to live? bullcrap, a miracle is perhaps by it's very definition a form of magic. Perhaps performed by a God through a mortal vessel, but this is often a common thing in other pagan religions.

I think people are bloody stubborn to seperate religions. It's Christianity AND paganism as seperate catergories, why?

If one can freely mix elements of different pagan religions, as wiccans and pagans do, why is it so strange to mix christian and pagan?

Essentilay the main-stream christians sects are cults, dominated by a single philosophy, often political. The main ethos of the christian faith is not the hate that fundamentalists try to sell on God TV. Forget the crap that preachers and fundies try to ram down your throats, go to the very heart of christianity and it does not preclude witchcraft.

Oh, and before someone trie to post it. I am fully aware of the old "suffer not a witch to live" line. But that crap was wriiten after jesus had died, last time I checked jesus never said to kill or hate ANYONE, he even suggested people love sinners.

Just because I have rejected the catholic faith don't mean I'm gonna sit by and let pagans rip into somebody for beaing brave enough to admit she has an open minded view of christianity.

Well, you create threads but you do not 'own' them so to speak. While I agree it's best to stay on topic, perceptions will vary on what's relivant and you must allow for that. Besides, not everyone is going to agree or disagree in just way you want them too.


Christianised pagananism.

I've noticed a certain irony. Christianity adopted and subverted many aspects of old Pagan beliefs and incorporated them into their own dogma. Today it seems Pagans have incorporated Christian beliefs into their own ways of thinking.

I have noticed aome common themes in modern Wicca and Paganism. Peace, love, freedom. Essentialy these are the beilefs carried over from Western Christianity, stripped of the Dogma and contradictions of the Churches and fitte dinto new belief systems to match morality we already had.

Druids sacrificed people.

The Greeks and Romans sacrificed animals and had Gladiators kill each other to honour certain religous festivals.

The Norse raped, pillaged and murdered their way through Europe. Hell the used to blood-eagle folks to start feuds.

All the ancient religions where brutal and as subtle as a thrown half-brick. Peace and love sometimes applied, but realy only as long as you where talking about peace for the worshippers not anybody else. Sure, polytheistic faiths where less inclined to convert other religions but they where not too interested in playing nice either.

These concepts of peace and love are essentialy the new testament stuff. Love thy neighbour and such. The actual words of jesus are perhaps the only part of Christianity that consistently appeals. The dogmatic stuff was bolted on afterwards to maintain church power.

It's interesting to compare modern Paganism with it's ancient roots and realise how much western and christian morality has affected these beliefs.


I disagree with key parts of your OP...the fact that ancient religions were as subtle as a half thrown brick?
Not from my study of ancient myth and culture. Also, it's my perspective, but the brick appears to be Christianity. Again the whole peace and love thing is an arguement for Dualists. The either/or camp. I do not see how it applies to studying or reconstructing ancient cultures.

I agree with some of the points Carla and Meabhb had made earlier in the thread because I do not accept at face value everything written about Pagan culture by occassionally hostile or often ambivalent sources. By believing the blood eagle was prevalient, you just might be buying into propaganda hook, line and sinker.

There are those who seek this love and peace utopia AND there are those who seek to fufill thier comic book action hero fantasies, in NEO-Paganism as well. It's the other half of duality. IMO, as long as you veiw the world from this perspective you will always be clashing with 'the other side' and that is a waste of time and effort.

[Tim]

Those are your words, not mine. I posited the possibility of non-exclusive definitions.

What you posted was : Easy, by defining it in a non-exclusive manner. The exclusive assumption, that in order to be or enjoy one thing one must exclude others, is not a necessary premise. Tolerance and pluralism can certainly be argued to be polytheistic values.

How does one make Pagan to be all inclusive if one does not allow the individual to define the word in anyway they choose... leaving it to mean anything and/or everything?

Your statement sounds to me like saying the only reason a dog is not a cat is because of an exclusive assumption... but by defining it in a non-exclusive manner then the dog can be a cat.

[Wolfpoet]

Well, you create threads but you do not 'own' them so to speak. While I agree it's best to stay on topic, perceptions will vary on what's relivant and you must allow for that. Besides, not everyone is going to agree or disagree in just way you want them too.



I disagree with key parts of your OP...the fact that ancient religions were as subtle as a half thrown brick?
Not from my study of ancient myth and culture. Also, it's my perspective, but the brick appears to be Christianity. Again the whole peace and love thing is an arguement for Dualists. The either/or camp. I do not see how it applies to studying or reconstructing ancient cultures.

I agree with some of the points Carla and Meabhb had made earlier in the thread because I do not accept at face value everything written about Pagan culture by occassionally hostile or often ambivalent sources. By believing the blood eagle was prevalient, you just might be buying into propaganda hook, line and sinker.

There are those who seek this love and peace utopia AND there are those who seek to fufill thier comic book action hero fantasies, in NEO-Paganism as well. It's the other half of duality. IMO, as long as you veiw the world from this perspective you will always be clashing with 'the other side' and that is a waste of time and effort.

Comic book action hero fantasies? eh?

[coaxialkettle]

chosen ideals of divinity are time tested ice picks favoured by creation to heave creature out of cold waters of cruelty.to the drowning one what is given out is essential not what habit or garment is put on

[Wolfpoet]

.




I agree with some of the points Carla and Meabhb had made earlier in the thread because I do not accept at face value everything written about Pagan culture by occassionally hostile or often ambivalent sources. By believing the blood eagle was prevalient, you just might be buying into propaganda hook, line and sinker.



The blood eagle was relatively rare. Was employed as the ultimate insult to star blood feuds between clans and families, which where in fact frowned upon.

However as a graphic example to make my point it serves quite well.

I know a great deal about my ancestors. How the popular myth is just that, they where a trading people, explorers and had a rich and varied culture. Norse explorers got as far as North America, their merchants where found in Baghdad.

Please don't think I'm the macho, blood-obsessed freak others seem to like painting me as.

[Tim]

Comic book action hero fantasies? eh?

Oh... do we really want to go there? I had a discussion with an individual, not too long ago, where he argued that a DC or Marvel pantheon are acceptable... that Superman was just as real as Zeus... not a flame war I'd like to relive.

[Wolfpoet]

Oh... do we really want to go there? I had a discussion with an individual, not too long ago, where he argued that a DC or Marvel pantheon are acceptable... that Superman was just as real as Zeus... not a flame war I'd like to relive.

Oh....

*dropped, incased in lead, burried*

[Wolfpoet]

Christian cultures have practiced capital punishment (arguably, the "human sacrifice" we hear so much of).

.

Execution is Human sacrifice....... ok

[Tim]

Burning & drowning Pagans and Witches in the name of their Gods... sounds like human sacrifice to me.

[Carla O'Harris]

There are those who seek this love and peace utopia AND there are those who seek to fufill thier comic book action hero fantasies,

Well, one thing is certain, and that is that Iron Age Societies were no utopia, so anyone trying to argue such has an uphill battle. And yes, they do provide an inkblot for those who need to project their Conan fantasies.

But the desire for a more harmonious world full of love and peace as an ongoing project of collective creation is not something to be spurned.

[Carla O'Harris]

What you posted was : Easy, by defining it in a non-exclusive manner. The exclusive assumption, that in order to be or enjoy one thing one must exclude others, is not a necessary premise. Tolerance and pluralism can certainly be argued to be polytheistic values.

How does one make Pagan to be all inclusive if one does not allow the individual to define the word in anyway they choose... leaving it to mean anything and/or everything?

Your statement sounds to me like saying the only reason a dog is not a cat is because of an exclusive assumption... but by defining it in a non-exclusive manner then the dog can be a cat.

It's interesting you should say that, given the prevalence of shape-shifting in pagan cultures, indicating that dog/cat is not as solid as we might think. And there are some breeds of dog that are more like cat, and v/v.

But more to the point, using species differentiation as a metaphor for philosophical differentiation seems erroneous to me. Pagans and Christians are not different species incapable of combining and exchanging.

[_Banbha_]

Comic book action hero fantasies? eh?

Yep. You think that doesn't exsist in Neo-Paganism? If read in the context of my post it's the price of clinging to Dualism.

I know a great deal about my ancestors. How the popular myth is just that, they where a trading people, explorers and had a rich and varied culture. Norse explorers got as far as North America, their merchants where found in Baghdad.

Please don't think I'm the macho, blood-obsessed freak others seem to like painting me as.

I don't believe that. I was responding to the 'subtle as a half thrown brick' and some other comments whose perspective I felt like adding my .02 too. :)



Oh... do we really want to go there? I had a discussion with an individual, not too long ago, where he argued that a DC or Marvel pantheon are acceptable... that Superman was just as real as Zeus... not a flame war I'd like to relive.

Hey, it's perfectly acceptable as people are free to choose their own path....I'd not involve myself in that debate though...:lol:

[Wolfpoet]

It's interesting you should say that, given the prevalence of shape-shifting in pagan cultures, indicating that dog/cat is not as solid as we might think. And there are some breeds of dog that are more like cat, and v/v.

But more to the point, using species differentiation as a metaphor for philosophical differentiation seems erroneous to me. Pagans and Christians are not different species incapable of combining and exchanging.

"Pagans and Christians are not different species incapable of combining and exchanging"

Carla, sometimes i don't even have to open my mouth to prove my points, you do it for me.

[Carla O'Harris]

Your point being? I've never argued that human beings cannot learn and exchange from each other. I've simply argued that calling the modern impulse to peace, love, and freedom "Christian" is silly.

On the other hand, adding pagan definitions of these terms can enrich the discussion with nuance. "Frith" is in many ways far stronger of a word than "peace". "Freedom" is full of nuance that includes Frey, Freya, and Frigga. So paganism has much to add to the discussion.

[coaxialkettle]

'in a world of persecution that is burning in its greed'

you hear a lot "about" the truth...

for me the problem was not being burnt at the stakes per se, the cold calculating cruelty
of the lifeless callous spectators
chilled me to the bone
So may i drag with me into the flames
the sewage sludge of centuries of ignorant malicious verbosity
subhuman instigators of psychic epidemics
swaying faceless multitudes
towards altars of scapegoat Necessity
faced with that endless stupidity
even the Gods themselves show
signs of despairing alienation
burn down the night...

[Tim]

Pagans and Christians are not different species incapable of combining and exchanging.

Then how? How can a Christian be a Pagan or a Pagan be a Christian? If it's as easy as defining in a non-exclusive manner, what's the definition? You don't like my analogy, but provide nothing to explain your concept except a bunch of just because.

[Carla O'Harris]

Then how? How can a Christian be a Pagan or a Pagan be a Christian? If it's as easy as defining in a non-exclusive manner, what's the definition? You don't like my analogy, but provide nothing to explain your concept except a bunch of just because.

History records examples of people honoring Christ and other gods as well. It's arguable that one of the reasons many of the Germanic tribes were Arian was because of the idea therein that Jesus was a prophet rather than divine, meaning that one could follow his teachings, and still hold to one's theological beliefs.

If anything, it was exclusivist-Christians who were warring upon heathens, syncretist-heathens, and heretics, who were all doing excellent jobs of listening, combining, and creating, as humans do.

[_Banbha_]

Well, one thing is certain, and that is that Iron Age Societies were no utopia, so anyone trying to argue such has an uphill battle. And yes, they do provide an inkblot for those who need to project their Conan fantasies.

I think denying the complexities of our ancestors, and when historians do this I cringe, is the ultimate in disrespect. I think we agree on this point. :)


But the desire for a more harmonious world full of love and peace as an ongoing project of collective creation is not something to be spurned.

I do not spurn harmony, but I do not believe peace and love to be possible, as much as one would wish it so.

[Wolfpoet]

Your point being? I've never argued that human beings cannot learn and exchange from each other. I've simply argued that calling the modern impulse to peace, love, and freedom "Christian" is silly.

On the other hand, adding pagan definitions of these terms can enrich the discussion with nuance. "Frith" is in many ways far stronger of a word than "peace". "Freedom" is full of nuance that includes Frey, Freya, and Frigga. So paganism has much to add to the discussion.

Now that's just semantics.

But again you avoid my point.

I did not say nor did i imply that peace, freedom and love are solely christian. I said that modern pagans have taken the christians versions of this and applied them to their belief system.

[Tim]

History records examples of people honoring Christ and other gods as well. It's arguable that one of the reasons many of the Germanic tribes were Arian was because of the idea therein that Jesus was a prophet rather than divine, meaning that one could follow his teachings, and still hold to one's theological beliefs.

So... seeing Jesus as a prophet rather then divine is enough to make one Christian?

[coaxialkettle]

in druid cosmology this planet is in the realm of work to rise beyond animal impulse towards conscious choice
realm of happiness is no different realm once work is completed
the unit of time is essential to mortals
the unity of time is essential to immortals
some time lines interact

[Carla O'Harris]

So... seeing Jesus as a prophet rather then divine is enough to make one Christian?

Gosh, it sure was to those Christians!!

[Tim]

Gosh, it sure was to those Christians!!

Where did you get your information that Germanic tribes saw Jesus was a prophet and considered themselves and were considered Christian? I would like to read up on it.

So... in your opinion are Muslims also Christians?

[Carla O'Harris]

Where did you get your information that Germanic tribes saw Jesus was a prophet and considered themselves and were considered Christian? I would like to read up on it.

So... in your opinion are Muslims also Christians?


I was discussing the Arians (not Aryans), a Christian sect, to which many Germanic tribes belonged.

In your second question, you are essentially asking me, Is Exclusive Identity #1 equal to Exclusive Identity #2? And I am replying that the definition of exclusivity is in question. Just because there isn't exclusivity does not mean that there cannot be differentiation. There can be differentiation and exchange across thresholds that are not exclusionary boundaries.

[Tim]

I was discussing the Arians (not Aryans), a Christian sect, to which many Germanic tribes belonged.
Irregardless... source material that shows a Christian sect (those who actually considered themselves to be Christian and/or where considered to be Christian by Christianity at large) that believed Jesus to only be a prophet would be valuable. Where can I read more?


In your second question, you are essentially asking me, Is Exclusive Identity #1 equal to Exclusive Identity #2? And I am replying that the definition of exclusivity is in question. Just because there isn't exclusivity does not mean that there cannot be differentiation. There can be differentiation and exchange across thresholds that are not exclusionary boundaries.
Not one for clear concise answers are we? So we can have Christian Pagans and Pagan Christians but not Muslim Christians or Christian Muslims? ...at least Christianity and Islam are both Abrahamic... one would think they would be more compatible then Paganism and Christianity.

[coaxialkettle]

see for example the White Goddess& a few other works by Robert Graves.
A lot of things have been rebottled under the christan label
the Mysteries were driven underground long ago but the tombs bear witness
and stones still speak.virtually all churches were placed
'tripping over power lines'...though nowadays few even know why
they are there

[Tim]

see for example the White Goddess& a few other works by Robert Graves.

Are you saying Robert Graves makes an argument for Pagan Christianity in The White Goddess?

[coaxialkettle]

no not specifically as in for or against...he also wrote a book called "king jesus" about some of the esoteria of bloodlines gnosis and theurgy in practice
of the time and age.Separations into dogmatic"schools" of christians jews and moslems and other assorted practitioner folds were mostly surface card index secondary political contraptions for deigned for power games of privilege rather than differences in shared perception.the 'kingdom' has always been Within no matter what road taken.

[Tim]

no not specifically as in for or against...he also wrote a book called "king jesus" about some of the esoteria of bloodlines gnosis and theurgy in practice
of the time and age.Separations into dogmatic"schools" of christians jews and moslems and other assorted practitioner folds were mostly surface card index secondary political contraptions for deigned for power games of privilege rather than differences in shared perception.the 'kingdom' has always been Within no matter what road taken.

I went to Amazon to order the book King Jesus... is this suppose to be an analysis or historical fiction? Grave's own commentary on the book states, "My solution to the problem of Jesus's nativity implies a rejection of the mystical Virgin Birth doctrine..." This sounds to me like he is creating his own story... I would hate to invest the money in something that turns out to be nothing more then a biblical rewrite to fit one man's personal beliefs or agenda.

[coaxialkettle]

much can be said of Graves...but "biblical.".?He slaughtered more holy cows hecatombs than most of his contemporaries..."virgin" birth is the
"tip of an iceberg" not widely known...but i am digressing...what i try to hint at is simply that all spiritual disciplines are valid,and that there can be but one
'brotherhood' of Spirit perennially,and we discern but few of its many guises

[Tim]

much can be said of Graves...but "biblical.".?He slaughtered more holy cows hecatombs than most of his contemporaries..."virgin" birth is the
"tip of an iceberg" not widely known...but i am digressing...what i try to hint at is simply that all spiritual disciplines are valid,and that there can be but one
'brotherhood' of Spirit perennially,and we discern but few of its many guises

My intention was not to invalidate anyone's spiritual beliefs... and if anyone took that from what I have posted, I apologize. ...my point is that a Wiccan is a Wiccan... a Christian is a Christian... a Hindu is a Hindu... a Hellenic Reconstructionist is a Hellenic Reconstructionist... and while it is all well and good to find common threads, it's a great disservice to each of these paths to ignore or refuse to accept those differences that make them unique and distinct. Also, there is a big difference between a person's spiritual beliefs and claiming a historical reference.

[coaxialkettle]

no hard feelings,i'm just learning to swim this aphabet soup...sharing wat i found floating around

[David19]

Burning & drowning Pagans and Witches in the name of their Gods... sounds like human sacrifice to me.

But every culture, including 'pagan' ones, is guilty of that, i was reading 'Witches, Druids, and King Arthur' by Ronald Hutton 2 days ago in the library, and he mentioned that in Rome, magic and witchcraft were illegal, and the Roman's killed more people accused of witchcraft than any in the 'burning times', which is something many neo-pagans don't want to admit, 'cause, for them, it's easier to blame Christian's for every evil in the world/universe.

I can't remember the exact quote or page number, 'cause i haven't got it out, but i do recommend the book, if anyone gets the chance to read it or get it.

[PeatBog]

Or maybe some pagans don't know about that Roman practice since it's not widely discussed, and/or they don't really care because they follow a pagan path that isn't Roman-based.

[Philosophia]

But every culture, including 'pagan' ones, is guilty of that, i was reading 'Witches, Druids, and King Arthur' by Ronald Hutton 2 days ago in the library, and he mentioned that in Rome, magic and witchcraft were illegal, and the Roman's killed more people accused of witchcraft than any in the 'burning times', which is something many neo-pagans don't want to admit, 'cause, for them, it's easier to blame Christian's for every evil in the world/universe.

I just wanted to add that most ancient cultures, including Roman and Greek societies, also had these types of things (not just Rome). I also want to add that the practice was in Rome however is was against the law to use it to do harm.

All pre-modern European societies believed in magick. As far as we can tell, all passed laws prohibitting magickal crimes. Pagan Roman law and the earliest Germanic and Celtic law codes all contain edicts that punish people who cast baneful spells. This is only common sense: a society that believes in the power of magick will punish people who abuse that power.
Many of the stereotypes about witches have been with us from pre-Christian times.
From http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/natrel/pom/old/POM5a1.html

[Philosophia]

Another article states this:

Feminist historians have been pointing out for a couple of decades that the Renaissance inaugurated the worst witch hunts, but it is also clear that these grew out of an earlier history. Laws empowering kings and lords to persecute witches were enacted throughout western Europe from the early feudal era. The earliest barbarian codes, such as the first Salic law, were more concerned with punishing defamation as witches than with witches themselves. Those who committed magical harm paid a fine, the same as for a physical attack. The Norse codes treated sorcery similarly.
Under christianization, Roman law was brought into play, and burning at the stake appeared. A late recension of the Salic law ordered burning for those who killed with incantations. Roman law heavily influenced the Visigothic code, which ordered burning at the stake for worshipping 'demons,' and flogging and enslavement for diviners and other witches. The Lex Rotharii of north Italy forbade witch-burning, but allowed lords to kill their (female) subjects as witches.

From http://chass.colostate-pueblo.edu/natrel/pom/old/POM9a3.html

[Tim]

But every culture, including 'pagan' ones, is guilty of that, i was reading 'Witches, Druids, and King Arthur' by Ronald Hutton 2 days ago in the library, and he mentioned that in Rome, magic and witchcraft were illegal, and the Roman's killed more people accused of witchcraft than any in the 'burning times', which is something many neo-pagans don't want to admit, 'cause, for them, it's easier to blame Christian's for every evil in the world/universe.

I actually think you are comparing apples and oranges here... as I understand it Rome outlawed some forms of magick as a civil affair... but Christians were killing anyone who refused to submit to their God... think about it, if we lived in a society that actually believed in the power of magick don't you think the government would have a responsibility to outlaw certain practices? Practitioners of magick in ancient Rome were not Wiccans... there was no "harm none"... legal protection had to be put in place.

[StephanieAine]

So... seeing Jesus as a prophet rather then divine is enough to make one Christian?

<Stephanie peeks into the thread>

To answer that question - a person who is Christian is a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior (which involves acceptance of Him as being the Son of God, of course). So no, seeing Him as simply a prophet does not make a person a Christian.

Muslims see Jesus as a prophet, but they also see others as prophets, and they do not see Jesus as the Savior.

[Tim]

<Stephanie peeks into the thread>

To answer that question - a person who is Christian is a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior (which involves acceptance of Him as being the Son of God, of course). So no, seeing Him as simply a prophet does not make a person a Christian.

Muslims see Jesus as a prophet, but they also see others as prophets, and they do not see Jesus as the Savior.

Thank you.... that was the point I was trying to make.

[Carla O'Harris]

<Stephanie peeks into the thread>

To answer that question - a person who is Christian is a person who has accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior (which involves acceptance of Him as being the Son of God, of course). So no, seeing Him as simply a prophet does not make a person a Christian.

Muslims see Jesus as a prophet, but they also see others as prophets, and they do not see Jesus as the Savior.


Two words : not true.

You cannot define Christianity for someone else. The Arian Christians did not see Jesus as coequal with god and denied the trinity. There have been plenty of Christians who have self-defined as such while believing Jesus to be an important prophet.

[Meabh23]

I am well aware of the positive aspects of ancient cultures. I was merely pointing out certaan aspects of ancient cultures considered wrong by modern morality. However I never mentioned Druids burning anybody.

The Norse did indeed pillage, murder and rape on their expeditions to Europe. I pointed that out to make my point, their culture did not consider this moraly wrong.

In Nordic culture they had a firm and mostly fair legal system, there where rights for Women built into that law and also in their culture. These laws and customs regarding equality where some of the first to be removed when the christians took over.

But i do like the idea of people grabbing reasons to detract from my original post and points. Gives me allot of insight into human nature.

You didn't originally say "modern" morality, you said "christian ethics." Remember? That's why you got the responses you did.

Indeed, the Vikings committed acts of rape and pillaging on their expeditions. Traditionally in most human societies affected by war all sorts of harm can be perpetrated on people deemed outside one's own legal/social system, such as foreigners or enemies. This has been practiced by warrior classes and bands for hundreds of years. This is also, despite our modern social denials, the modern practice of morality with regard to warfare and social conflicts. It is interesting that you choose to use the word "Norse" instead of "Viking." You may wish to note that the two words do not mean the same thing. The Vikings were Norse, but you can't equate the two no matter how conflated they are in popular imaginations.

We can forego the Druids and the Celts and any other examples, which you tried to imply as "grabbing reasons to detract." These examples were listed or posted precisely to address your idea that modern Paganism has much of its ethical flavor and influence from Christianity. You are trying to imply that no one in this thread has made the connection with your points, when in fact the very reasons why myself and some others have listed our historical examples is precisely to show you that modern Pagan religions have taken much of their inspiration and ethics from pre-Christian ethical systems and ideas. This is not surprising since most modern Pagan faiths are consciously (re)created versions and inspirations of earlier historical pre-Christian faiths and ideas. Is it too much to realize that such earlier ethical ideas have inspired a lot of modern Pagan ideals?

To be sure, much of modern Paganism is influenced by Christian and post-Christian ethics and ideals as much as they are inspired by earlier pre-Christian ideals. The point is that even so-called Christian ideals and ethics didn't arise in a vacuum. They were influenced and inspired by their Pagan neighbors and forebears, regardless of whether Christians today would admit it.

Some of us used historical examples to show you this. It is not our fault you refuse to see the connection. Christianity, even in its salvation doctrine, was influenced by Mithraism, Judaism, Greek philosophy and the cult of Dionysos, and by the peculiar soteriology of the Isis cult which was popular in Rome at the time Christianity is said to have been started. (Some would say that it was influenced from Buddhism which was popular in many areas in contact with the Mediterranean peoples.)

As for certain aspects considered wrong by "modern morality." I find this point to be tenuous. You need to flesh it out in more detail. Otherwise you will be blindsided by researchers in this community who can cite ancient laws and social doctrines held by human ancestors which would show just the opposite of what you are claiming. Or your point could be deflated simply be using modern examples of horrible acts similar to historical atrocities being done even today which are justified by modern morality. Are you really so sure of your points?

Much of the atrocities that we would today find so horrible were actually deemed horrible by many ancients as well. Likewise, many things happening in the modern world. Remember also my point to counter you was precisely that the modern ideal of Christianity being of peace and love was not always the highest ideal in Christianity throughout its history. To say that the modern West in general, or modern Pagans specifically, got much of their ideals and ethical inspiration from Christianity is very inaccurate and misleading. The modern world, you may forget, was started in the fires of the "Renaissance" which looked back to the classical Greco-Roman world for inspiration. It seems, at least in Western history, that modernism and its moral systems come as much from classical Pagan civilization as it does from a reaction against the doctrines of historical Christianity. The greatest political changes towards freedom and humane-ness, were reactions against the influence of heavy-handed and fundamentalist forms of Christianity.

Also, you must keep in mind that the modern idea that earlier people were more "barbaric" or had a less-developed sense of ethics is a fallacy since surviving written records prove the contention false. If you wish to say that Christianity gave us moderns the idea that past (or "other" which is often implied) cultures and religions were less morally developed or ethically sensitive, then you are right.

As to your insights on human nature, you are correct on the surface of it. But I get the sense your implication was an attempt to paint irrelevent those of us who bring up contexts which actually directly address your view that modern Paganism's morality is largely influenced by modern ideas coming from Christian ideas. Carla O'Harris, with whom I have shared contrary opinions with in other threads, did make the most salient point for us to think about here with her citing Ronald Hutton's writing. I believe your contention that modern Paganism is largely influenced by Christian ideas needs to be corrected in light of the evidence we have presented here. Instead you are trying to label our counter points as ignoring the point you originally posted.

Your assertion, or your "point" as you call it, must address all of this contrary evidence if you are to save it. That is why some of us have responded with the examples we have. To see if you could do so. It is not "detracting" simply because we disagree and have raised points to support our disagreements. Should we have just said "you are incorrect" and not presented anything further?

[Meabh23]

Two words : not true.

You cannot define Christianity for someone else. The Arian Christians did not see Jesus as coequal with god and denied the trinity. There have been plenty of Christians who have self-defined as such while believing Jesus to be an important prophet.

Actually, Stephanie's definition is the most common one that I have heard. I believe she may be a Christian and thus would have an inkling about her own religion. She can most definitely define what Christianity means. You may not agree with it as such. The issue I have here is while I believe everyone has there own personal take on their religion, each religion does have a set of core values and beliefs around which variations can take place. Otherwise, why bother even defining oneself as anything?

According to Church history, the Arians were deemed heretics, were they not? Stephanie does not have to consider every group that called itself Christian nor every individual. Since she has expressed the commonly held mainstream Christian definition, I can't see why you would try to turn it into "black is a dark color" "you can't say black is dark for someone else" type of game. This only leads to nonthought.

[coaxialkettle]

Christ had no church
Real Kings never had land
The Builders were Dionysian Artificers
the rest is plain bogus

[Carla O'Harris]

Actually, Stephanie's definition is the most common one that I have heard. I believe she may be a Christian and thus would have an inkling about her own religion. She can most definitely define what Christianity means. You may not agree with it as such. The issue I have here is while I believe everyone has there own personal take on their religion, each religion does have a set of core values and beliefs around which variations can take place. Otherwise, why bother even defining oneself as anything?

According to Church history, the Arians were deemed heretics, were they not? Stephanie does not have to consider every group that called itself Christian nor every individual. Since she has expressed the commonly held mainstream Christian definition, I can't see why you would try to turn it into "black is a dark color" "you can't say black is dark for someone else" type of game. This only leads to nonthought.



Oh, so we are going to accept the decrees of the Persecuting Church as law??

The Arians considered themselves to be Christians!!! End of story!!!

Stephanie can define anything any way she pleases. That is most certainly her right. And she can include or exclude anyone she wants in that definition. But that does not affect anyone else, nor is it relevant for historical/theological debates.

[coaxialkettle]

...and so,the Key to the Mysteries was hidden
where no one would "Evar"look:
Inside their own minds...

[Meabh23]

Oh, so we are going to accept the decrees of the Persecuting Church as law??

The Arians considered themselves to be Christians!!! End of story!!!

Stephanie can define anything any way she pleases. That is most certainly her right. And she can include or exclude anyone she wants in that definition. But that does not affect anyone else, nor is it relevant for historical/theological debates.

Unfortunately, no. Not "End of Story." The Arians could have considered themselves Christians until they turned blue in the face, but unless the greater community of Christians accepted them at least as such or a variant of such, then perhaps they were not. In time they were deemed heretics. If you wished to raise a better counterpoint you should have mentioned the Pelagians. That would have been a harder issue for me to defend but much more fruitful in this discussion, since they were considered heretics by many of the powerful, but all charges were dismissed by every "trial" or counsel of bishops that was convened over it. Some of the jealous bishops (jealous of Pelagius and his followers) had to go to a sympathetic pope to get him and his teachings declared heresy.

The main issue here is that if we accept everyone's right to call themself as they wish, then why even bother with any definitions at all? Christianity may have some pagan antecedents. Modern Paganism may have some Christian antecedents. But we can't go around pretending that our own concepts of Christianity are the truth if we aren't grounded in or have an idea of its theology and doctrines.

I am not accepting decrees of a persecuting Church as law. I am refering to mainstream or majority Christian opinion as to their own belief system. Stephanie's definitions are most certainly relevant for historical/theological debates/discussions in as much as they reflect Christian opinions. You cannot discount them simply because her opinions may reflect an uneasy similarity with many doctrines held by the medieval Church. The doctrine of Jesus being the saviour of mankind, born to a virgin mortal woman (not a goddess), and of the righteous going to heaven while the wicked, if they do not accept forgiveness, go to suffer in hell.....these doctrines make up Christianity's core belief system. I am sure I missed a few more.

Even Christian teachings prove the assertion with a biblical passage which states quite clearly "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord'....." A lot of people can call themselves whatever they wish, but when they use certain titles or religious designations, then they better prove they are who they say they are. Otherwise, why use any such designations?

[Dale Ivarie]

if everyone has a different definition for a particular word, there can't be any communication.

dapted From: WordNet by Princeton University

christianity
A noun
1 Christianity, Christian religion
a monotheistic system of beliefs and practices based on the Old Testament and the teachings of Jesus as embodied in the New Testament and emphasizing the role of Jesus as savior

I could call myself a "duck" and change the accepted definition of the word "duck", but I would get very far in any serious conversation. The idea of accepted agreed upon definitions is the basis for language and civil discourse...

Ghengis Khan could have defined himself as a pacifist..but I don't think anyone would have taken his self definition seriously..


Now back to the point about many modern pagan's basicly dressing up Christian morality in the clothes of ancient sprituality. I must agree with wolf poet on this..

I think the key point is to look at the way these societies delt with those within the group versus those outside the group. Christian theology talks about loving thy enemy, and turning the other cheek. Aboriginal and ancient people were known for particular brutality and in regards top those outside the group..Chippawa children adorned their hair with spools of skin taken from the bodies of those their parents slew, and played "foot ball" with the heads of the dead warriors..

Also it's a christian concept that violence by its very nature is evil. If you look at many rituals like the coming of age ritual of the aborigines of Australia where they cut the yopung boys penis length wise...such acts would be unacceptable by modern christian morality, but were perfectly accepted by ancient cultures....


Dale

[_Banbha_]

Unfortunately, no. Not "End of Story." The Arians could have considered themselves Christians until they turned blue in the face, but unless the greater community of Christians accepted them at least as such or a variant of such, then perhaps they were not. In time they were deemed heretics. If you wished to raise a better counterpoint you should have mentioned the Pelagians. That would have been a harder issue for me to defend but much more fruitful in this discussion, since they were considered heretics by many of the powerful, but all charges were dismissed by every "trial" or counsel of bishops that was convened over it. Some of the jealous bishops (jealous of Pelagius and his followers) had to go to a sympathetic pope to get him and his teachings declared heresy.

I disagree with your rational. A heretic is specifically, in it's main definition, one whose teachings are at odds with the Roman Catholic Church; and in that Arianism, circa 350 C.E. holds. Just because the Holy See declared someone herectical, does not in any way deny anothers Christianity; <unless> you happen to be adherent to Roman Catholicsm. But, I think the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Christians would agree with me on this is not the only to define what and who is a Christian as well?

Gnostics, Cathers, and Airians were Christians deemed heretical by Rome. Other than the horrible fact of their fates in being merely repressed or utterly destroyed, nothing changes their faiths and beliefs, that they were indeed Christians; but minorities in <political> power plays. What we know of Arianians was largely written by the R.C. Church so there is a slanted veiw to be sure.

There is ecclesiastical history and there is history.

Even when I was Catholic, I distinguished between the two. Many Catholics do. :)



The main issue here is that if we accept everyone's right to call themself as they wish, then why even bother with any definitions at all? Christianity may have some pagan antecedents. Modern Paganism may have some Christian antecedents. But we can't go around pretending that our own concepts of Christianity are the truth if we aren't grounded in or have an idea of its theology and doctrines.

I agree and understand your points on self-definition in the wider sense; but, in this case it would seem more to me in more rooted in what Catholic teachings and definitions of Heretical are <as to> what what is a Christian in a general sense. Arianism is a part of ecclesiastical history, not separate as in other historical conflicts and contrasts with separate faiths like Judiasim and Islam.


The controversy over Arianism began to rise in the late third century and extended over the greater part of the fourth century and involved most church members, simple believers, priests and monks as well as bishops, emperors and members of Rome's imperial family. Yet, such a deep controversy within the Church could not have materialized in the third and fourth centuries without some significant historical influences providing the basis for the Arian doctrines. Most orthodox or mainstream Christian historians define and minimize the Arian conflict as the exclusive construct of Arius and handful of rogue bishops engaging in "heresy." Of the roughly three hundred bishops in attendance at the Council of Nicea, only three bishops did not sign the Nicene Creed. Arianism's roots can be found in the beliefs and views of other heterodox Christian believers and sects which had emerged beginning in the first century. There is some irony in that the Roman Catholic Church Sainted Lucian of Antioch as a brilliant and talented early Christian leader and martyr, yet Lucian taught a very similar form of what would later be called Arianism. Arius was a student of Lucian's private academy in Antioch. The Ebionites, among other early Christian groups, also maintained similar doctrines that can be associated with formal Lucian and Arian Christology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism




I am not accepting decrees of a persecuting Church as law. I am refering to mainstream or majority Christian opinion as to their own belief system. Stephanie's definitions are most certainly relevant for historical/theological debates/discussions in as much as they reflect Christian opinions. You cannot discount them simply because her opinions may reflect an uneasy similarity with many doctrines held by the medieval Church. The doctrine of Jesus being the saviour of mankind, born to a virgin mortal woman (not a goddess), and of the righteous going to heaven while the wicked, if they do not accept forgiveness, go to suffer in hell.....these doctrines make up Christianity's core belief system. I am sure I missed a few more.

Even Christian teachings prove the assertion with a biblical passage which states quite clearly "Not everyone who calls me 'Lord'....." A lot of people can call themselves whatever they wish, but when they use certain titles or religious designations, then they better prove they are who they say they are. Otherwise, why use any such designations?

I'm not saying Stephanie-Aine's definition is incorrect either (It's 100% correct for her and also a matter of her faith). But it's important to distinguish ecclesiastical history and view point from unbiased general historical definitions.

It's inconsistant to go by what various Christian sects consider Christian because certain sects deny the Christianity of the other sects. For example, there are Fundimentalists who do NOT condisder Roman Catholics, Christian. Go figure.

So the mainstram you speak of can be at odds with itself and to who has the 'One true way...'

[coaxialkettle]

for those who wish to explore th essential unity of these spiritual disciplines i recommend the:
"Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity(CJAS) series:
University of Notre Dame Press,Notre Dame ,Indiana
The series stretch it from the Bronze age to the early Christian churches,with
the emphasis on Second Temple and early Christian periods.As it seems,a lot
of present-day sectarian bitterness seems to focus on the transactions of that
timeline,and,in line with prophecies,the same tenets are played out again in the shadow of modern warfare and ghastly morbidity.Perhaps theory and practice can be conjoined in a more enlightened manner with a growing understanding of the historical roots and their essential unity.Actual practitioners though,to whom spiritual experience is a part of everyday existence seem,as always, to have less problems getting together than dogmatic professionalists anyway...

[Exloration_La]

Druids sacrificed people.

.

According to roman catholic propaganda they did. Sadly so much history is distorted by whoever held the most power.

The Druids were suppressed in Gaul and Britain after the Roman conquests, but retained their influence in Ireland until the coming of Christianity.




The curious fact is that no Insular Celtic literature, nor tradition, provides evidence for the practice of human sacrifice as a religious rite - Peter Berresford Ellis (The Druids)

There are some authors among the ancients, that make false statements with respect to the Irish, particularly Strabo, who asserts in his third book, that the Irish live upon human flesh. My answer to this charge is, that Strabo has lied, in thus asserting the Irish to be cannibals. For, nowhere in our ancient records do we read of any person, that eat human flesh...My answer to St. Jerome, who makes the same assertion...is that he must have had his information from some vender of lies, and that it should not be credited to the prejudice of the Irish - (The History of Ireland: From the Earliest Period to the English Invasion, 1629)

(Irish Druids and Old Irish Religions)

The greatest slander toward the Druids and their culture is the assertion that they were rapid and compulsive sacrificers of animals and human beings. The image of blood-soaked altars and blazing wicker-men sickens modern readers and helps to aggrandize the minions of Christianity, making them appear humane and elevated in spirit over the barbarous heathens of old Britain. But in truth, there exists not one factual account of any such practices among the Druids. The fiction of their mania for sacrifice was pure propaganda. And naturally, this makes sense since the world's priests and literati, the Brahmins and Aryans, the Egyptians and Persians would hardly have held the Druids in such high esteem if bloody sacrifices were their sport.

Dr. Smith thinks that the Druids never offered any human or even animal sacrifice...Dr. Smith says, that in the Gaelic language, customs, or traditions, there is not a hint allusive to the sacrifice of any living being - Godfrey Higgins (Celtic
Druids)

The teachings of Roman Christianity are a travesty of the ancient principles of Druidism. The gnosis, concerning the self, the world, the cosmos which the Irish had infused into the world, were corrupted and homogenized by the Atonists in Rome.